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 - 2000.12.18
r ' ' BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA (BURL IP ....,. REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 18, 2000 PAGE 1 OF3 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Special Meeting of November 29, 2000 and Regular Meeting of December 4, 2000 5. CEREMONIAL MATTERS a. Presentation of League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence to the ALS-JPA 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Adopt Resolution of Intention to Establish the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District, establish the basis for and Levy the Assessment for the District for the year 2001, and establish a District Advisory Board and setting dates for Public Hearings on the District and the Proposed Assessments b. Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area c. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dry Cleaning Processing Plant at 1360 Broadway, Zoned C-1 d. ORDINANCE Regarding Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris e. Amend ORDINANCE on Utility Deposit Requirements 7. 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. 8. STAFF REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS a. Revised Design for Broadway Streetscape Improvements b. Civil Service Commissioner Appointment ws(,� City of B rlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 7:00 p.m. Presentation Adopt Hea ' Action Hearing/Action Hearing/Action I Hearing/Action h Did` scuss/Direct Appointment BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME 1`:'� REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 18, 2000 PAGE 2 oF3 c. Consider Introduction of ORDINANCE reducing membership of Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission from seven members to five members d. Approve Execution of Certificate of Acceptance by City Manager of Grant Deed to 1369 N. Carolan Avenue, Burlingame, CA 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION endorsing the Interim Water Shortage Plan b. RESOLUTION approving Agreement Amendment No. 1 for Professional engineering Services, Storm Drain Improvements, California/Grove Area, Phase 2 c. Update Employer's Contribution for Employee PERS Health Benefit d. Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Agreement with Athens Administrators to be the Third Party Administrator of the City's Self -Insured Workers Compensation Program e. RESOLUTION Authorizing Transfer of Funds for Homeless Shelter Contribution f. Warrants & Payroll: November, 2000 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ia. Commission Minutes: Planning, December 11; b. Monthly Reports: Treasurer, November, 2000; Police, October 2000 c. Letter from Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, regarding stop signs at Adeline and Cortez d. Letter from Prasanna Jena, 1977 Garden Drive, regarding rent situation in Burlingame e. Letter from Marka Metcalfe, 401 Occidental, regarding IHN program f. Letter from Jim Nantell, City Manager, notifying City Council of his assumption of City Manager Duties City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 Introduce Approval Approval fP� BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 189 2000 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 PAGE 3 OF3 14. CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened litigation - Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Bill Sianis for damage to sprinkler system 15. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.ore. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - JANUARY 2, 2001 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA December 18, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Ross Bruce. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. CEREMONIAL MATTER Fire Chief Bill Reilly presented Mayor Galligan with the League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence and the National Council for Public/Private Partnerships 2000 Award that was awarded to the Advanced Life Support Joint Powers Authority. 5. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on November 29, 2000; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on December 4, 2000; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND TO SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS. CA Anderson noted the San Mateo Hotel Council Incorporated and the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau made this proposal. In the past, it has been difficult for the Convention Bureau to find adequate and sustained funding from local agencies and businesses. The proposal of the Business Improvement District would encompass 70-80% of the county including the unincorporated area of Burlingame City Council I December 18, 2000 Unapproved Minutes M San Mateo. Burlingame would act as the lead agency and assess the businesses each year. If adopted, the Resolution of Intention would begin the process of formal noticing, which would lead to public hearings being held on January 2 and January 17, 2001, when an ordinance would be adopted to form the district. In the meantime, the cities and county would decide whether to allow Burlingame to establish this district within their jurisdiction. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ann LeClair, President and CEO of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau, thanked the Council for their support in the establishment of the Business Improvement District. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council Comments: Councilwoman Janney stated the Bureau has put forth tremendous effort in this project, as well as retired City Manager Dennis Argyres; feels this is the best solution for bringing permanent funding to the Convention Bureau. The BID puts the Bureau and it's operations in the hands of the Convention Bureau in the County and out of the political arena. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted he was very proud at how everyone worked so hard to make this happen and feels everyone involved will benefit from the BID. Councilwoman O'Mahony was pleased the Convention Bureau will be freed of political gratifications and congratulated Councilwoman Janney, Ann LeClair and Gina Graf for their hard work. Mayor Galligan stated it appeared that in the past the Convention Bureau has had to spend the majority of their time trying to get cities to give them money so they could stay in business versus doing what they were designed to do. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Resolution of Intention 121-00 to establish the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to establish the basis for and to levy the Assessments for the District for the Year 2001, and to establish a District Advisory Board, and to set dates for public hearings on the District and the proposed Assessments; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIN DETERMINATION ON THE USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AT 340-348 LORTON AVENUE, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA This appeal has been withdrawn. 6c. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT AT 1360 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 CP Monroe noted the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to locate a full -service dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway. The site was previously occupied by a grocery store but is currently vacant. No major alterations to the building are proposed but the applicant will be required to make upgrades to make it compliant with public safety, environmental and disabled access requirements. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Michael Segal, agent for the applicant, Mr. Kismohandaka, was available for questions from the Council. Councilman Coffey asked Mr. Segal if the applicant would object to making the improvements that were outlined in their letter dated November 14, 2000, a part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Segal said the applicant would not object to this request; applicant wants to take part in the upgrading the appearance of the Broadway area. Councilwoman O'Mahony asked Mr. Segal if he was aware that the Business Improvement District on Broadway'has been working with property owners to improve facades of buildings and December 18, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes asked if his client has been asked to participate. Mr. Segal stated they were aware of the desire to upgrade the appearance, but that they have not been approached; he does not represent the owner of the property but represents the perspective operator of the dry cleaning plant and would not know if the owners were approached by the BID to make improvements. Vic Eldemir, co-owner of Your Cleaners, 1321 Broadway, stated he was opposing the proposed dry cleaning plant at 1360 Broadway. Mr. Eldemir, as well as the two other dry cleaning stores who also appealed this project, feels there are plenty of dry cleaners in the Broadway area; feels adding another dry cleaning plant will aggravate the current parking situation. Currently there are four family -owned dry cleaners in the area. He noted dry cleaners tend to have high volume traffic, on average of approximately 100 "in and out" customers each day. He stated the Japanese grocery store that previously occupied this space was more of a specialty store, not a regular grocery store; the fact that parking won't be adversely affected is an improper assumption. Michael Lai, owner of Broadway Cleaners, 1234 Broadway, stated he has tried to provide the best services to his customers; believes a big plant on Broadway will ruin the chances for the smaller, family -owned operations to succeed. Ron Drabkin, 1224 Capuchino, agrees there are enough dry cleaners in the area, concerned about environmental safety and use of chemicals; also noted the extremely poor condition of the building at this time. Mr. Segal returned to address the Council; stated it seemed like most of the concern was about competition; believed there was nothing that would preclude this particular use. He explained this was not a large corporate entity but rather an individual who will be operating a martinizing cleaning facility and using their expertise and state of the art equipment. Parking issues have been addressed; primary impact for traffic is morning and evening, which would mitigate high demand for parking during the prime business hours. Noted this building is located very closely to a City parking lot on Capuchino. Does not feel another dry cleaning plant in the area would impact the operators already in existence. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council Comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she feels the Council needs to take a close look at Broadway and the fact that it is a street to serve the residents in the neighborhood. Would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission so they could provide Council with their findings and considerations of a proper balance between service and retail on Broadway. CP Monroe noted the Planning Commission based their approval of this project on the change in use, strictly on the basis of the code for this site; this would be a reduction in impact regarding parking. To conduct a study on retail mix could take from six months to one year. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she could not support this project. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted there are 15 dry cleaners within the City of Burlingame, five of which are located on or near Broadway. Does not feel it is healthy for the area to be overloaded with one type of business; does not support this use. Councilwoman Janney was concerned about changing rules in the middle of a project, that this project was approved by the Planning Commission because it fell within the code. Agreed that there is not a need for another dry cleaner in Burlingame. CA Anderson noted that a dry cleaning plant is not a permitted use in the C-1 district, but on Broadway it is a conditional use which gives the Planning Commission and Council authority to look at its overall impact on the community. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes December 18, 2000 Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan noted that the upkeep on the building at 1360 Broadway has been terrible. The owners have been requested many times by the Broadway BID to do something about the facade and even offered to pay to help clean up the building. 6d. ORDINANCE REGARDING RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the adoption of the Ordinance regarding Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. m. 6e. AMEND ORDINANCE ON UTILITY DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Coffey made a motion to approve the adoption of the Ordinance to amend the Utility Deposit requirements; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REVISED DESIGN FOR BROADWAY STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS DPW Bagdon noted Council requested a revised streetscape master plan for Broadway between Laguna and El Camino Real that would reduce parking loss. The first design being presented encompasses the direction given by Council at the November 7 h co"' Meeting. The plan minimizes parking loss, widens the traffic lines and reduces the sidewalk widths. Option B, endorsed by 42 Broadway merchants, minimizes parking loss but retains the width of the sidewalk and current travel lane width. Staff also developed a third option, Option C, which widens the travel lanes and maintains the sidewalk widths, but has a larger parking loss. DPW Bagdon noted that no one option addresses all of the features perfed ly; would like Council to reaffirm staffs recommendation on the scope of the next phase of eventual construction. Bill Harris, a consultant from Smith Group JJR, noted at the last presentation Council gave the following direction: to delete the bulb outs on the side streets, reduce the sides of the intersection bulb outs, increase the width of the travel lanes to 11' at the expense of the width of the sidewalks, and to retain the 28' parking angle. Noted on the plans the bulb outs were deleted at the alleys but a tree was added in order to enhance the alleys themselves. The side streets would maintain the parking and the bulb out at the intersection is smaller in size. The intersection bulb outs begin at the right-of-way line and does not wrap around the side streets. As a result, there are fewer intersection trees than there December 18, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes were in the previous presentation. The cross section would still have the bike racks, planter pots, and the trees would be in the bump outs along the street. Instead of having the large planters on the street corners, there are now four concrete seat walls with some plants behind them. The modular new racks have been relocated to the sidewalk instead of in the planting area. Option B is very similar to Option A, however, the sidewalk width remains at 9'. Option C was explored in an attempt to see if the flattening of the parking angle could still be done and what the impact of parking is. This would retain the sidewalks and provide an I I' travel lane. The geometry of the parking angle has a dramatic impact on the number of parking stalls possible and would have a net loss of approximately 14 spots. Council comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that one of the objectives initially given that this beautification project be pedestrian friendly; Plan A does not make the sidewalks pedestrian friendly by reducing the width to 8'. Mr. Harris expressed the large cut outs in the sidewalks for the Magnolia trees is a 3' square which left 6' of sidewalk. The master plan put the trees further out into the street in the bump outs to increase the width of the sidewalk. The amount of usable sidewalk increases with the removal of the Magnolia trees. Mayor Galligan felt it was important to prioritize what is most important for the project. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway Improvement District, noted the merchants supported Option B; does not want to see the sidewalk width reduced. George Preston, 1170 Broadway, appreciated Councils attention to the project and reiterated support for Option B. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council comments: The safety issue regarding the narrow travel lane is a concern for Vice Mayor Spinelli. Councilman Coffey agreed; the sidewalks will be going from 6' to either 8' or 9' and even though there isn't a solid mass of trees on Broadway, the path is basically 6% understands the merchants would rather have wider sidewalks, but need to consider the minimum reduction of parking spaces and the width of the travel lane. Mayor Galligan and Councilwoman Janney agreed the travel lane width increase should be a priority over the width of the sidewalk. DPW Bagdon noted in terms of completion of the project, incentives to complete the project as well as disincentives such as liquidated damages were taken into account. It is a matter of how long it takes to complete the plans, educated the BID on the plans, go out to bid and award the contractor. He stressed unknowns come up that can delay the process. Felt the schedule presented to Council is relatively realistic; large risk that the project may not be completed by Thanksgiving, 2001. Completing the design process earlier so the project can begin earlier is not realistic. Mr. Harris noted that not only the trees have to be removed to widen the parking lane, but also the light fixtures, parking meter poles, bicycle racks, and planter pots. DPW Bagdon stressed they will do everything they can to get the construction that impacts the businesses completed first. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she could not support Option A; merchants have expressed their desire for Option B with wider sidewalks. Vice Mayor Spinelli felt if it was possible to restrict the size of trucks traveling on Broadway, it may not be necessary to reduce the width of the sidewalks. CA Anderson explained that a sign would need to be placed every three to four parking spaces warning drivers of the restriction. Burlingame City Council 5 December 18, 2000 Unapproved Minutes n Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Option B; motion died due to lack of second. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve Option A; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Councilwoman O'Mahony voting no. b. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT Vice Mayor Spinelli noted that he and Mayor Galligan interviewed two qualified applicants, Bill Garcia and Rolando Pasquali, for the vacant position on the Civil Service Commission. After much discussion, they brought forth Rolando Pasquali as the new Civil Service Commissioner. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the appointment of Rolando Pasquali; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REDUCING MEMBERSHIP OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY, AND PARKING COMMISSION CA Anderson noted at the last meeting, Council discussed the possibility of reducing the membership of the TSP Commission from seven to five; staff had expressed some concern about getting a quorum when there are seven members and that five members would be more efficient. Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the introduction of Ordinance reducing the membership of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission from seven to five members; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. APPROVE EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY CITY MANAGER OF GRANT DEED TO 1369 N. CAROLAN AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA CA Anderson noted this is the property that is located to the north of the current corporation yard that is currently occupied`by a warehouse and office building. In June, Council authorized the filing of an eminent domain proceeding in order to acquire the property, however, negotiations have continued with the owners of the property and they have accepted the appraised value of the property of $1.4 million and are prepared to execute a deed to the City so Public Works can proceed with the expansion plans for the corporation yard. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Execution of Certificate of Acceptance by City Manager of Grant Deed to 1369 N. Carolan Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE INTERIM WATER SHORTAGE PLAN DPW Bagdon recommended Council adopt Resolution 125-00endorsing the Interim Water Shortage Plan. December 18, 2000 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes b. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CALIFORNIA/GROVE AREA, PHASE 2 DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve Resolution 124-00 authorizing an agreement amendment in the amount of $16,997.00 with Wilsey Ham Engineers for engineering services for the California/Grove Storm Drain Improvements Project, Phase 2. C. UPDATE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEE PERS HEALTH BENEFIT Retired City Manager Dennis Argyres recommended Council adopt Resolution 123-00 updating the maximum employer contribution to PERS Health Benefits in accordance with approved employee agreements. d. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS TO BE THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY'S SELF -INSURED WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM CA Anderson recommended Council adopt Resolution 122-00 authoring the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Athens Administrators to be the Third Party Administrators for the City's Workers Compensation Program. e. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR HOMELESS SHELTER CONTRIBUTION ACM/ASD Rahn Becker recommended Council approve Resolution 127-00 Authorizing Transfer of Funds for Homeless *5helter Contribution. f. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL: NOVEMBER, 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 73305-73724 (excluding library check numbers 73677-73724), duly audited, in the amount of $1,594,955.20, Payroll checks 132149-132984 in the amount of $1,351,187.78, and EFT's in the amount of $321,526.33 for the month of November, 2000. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve items 9(a), 9(c) through 9(f) of the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve item 9(b), seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Vice Mayor Spinelli abstained from voting on this item due to living in the California Drive Grove Avenue area. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS J> Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the BID discussion on the Broadway Streetscape, Hotel Security luncheon, and the OLA Mother's Club fashion show and Christmas lunch. Councilwoman Coffey attended the C.A.L.L. Primrose luncheon, County Council of Cities, City Hall tree lighting ceremony, Chamber of Commerce meeting, Carpenter's Union Moose Feed in San Francisco, and various Burlingame City Council 7 December 18, 2000 Unapproved Minutes Christmas open houses. Vice Mayor Spinelli attended the Airport Roundtable meeting and the City Hall tree lighting ceremony. Councilwoman Janney attended the Moose Feed luncheon in San Francisco, C.A.L.L. Primrose luncheon, Hotel Security luncheon, Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting, SAMCEDA luncheon, City Hall tree lighting ceremony, SamTrans Board meeting and luncheon. Mayor Galligan attended a number of Christmas open houses, North County County of Cities meeting, school liaison meeting, attended the City Hall tree lighting ceremony. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, December 11 b. Monthly Reports: Treasurer, November 2000; Police, October 2000 C. Letter from Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, regarding stop signs at Adeline and Cortez d. Letter from Prasanna Jena, 1977 Garden Drive, regarding rent situation in Burlingame e. Letter from Marika Metcalfe, 401 Occidental, regarding IHN program g. Letter from Jim Nantell, City Manager, notifying City Council of his assumption of City Manager duties Council met in closed session at 8:25 p.m. and returned to open session at 8:54 p.m. 14. CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened litigation — Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Bill Sianis for damage to sprinkler system CA Anderson stated that in the closed session, Council discussed a pending claim regarding damage to the sprinkler system and gave direction to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding that claim. 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. after a moment of silence in memory Ann V. Bruce and Dixie O'Brien. Arm T. Musso City Clerk December 18, 2000 8 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA November 29, 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 City Manager Jim Nantell. 3. THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Reverend Paul Watermulder gave the thought for the day regarding respect; respect is what separates man from the animals and the ability to disagree with care for the other person's well being. 4. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE AN AUDITORIUM FOR EMERGENCY/TEMPORARY HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AT ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 415 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 CP Monroe referred to her staff report dated November 29, 2000; Reverend Stuart Coxhead, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 415 El Camino Real, is requesting a conditional use permit in order to provide temporary/emergency overnight shelter for five homeless families with children (maximum of 14 people on site) in the church's social hall at 415 El Camino Real. These families will be housed one week at a time, six times per year; will arrive at the site at 6:00 p.m; two representatives from the church community will also stay overnight with the families; families depart the site by 7:00 a.m. each day. Once the families arrive on the site in the evening, they will not be allowed to leave the premises unless there is an emergency. Council Questions: Mayor Galligan asked City Attorney Anderson if the City has any authority over what a church can do' with their properties. CA Anderson noted that Congress has made a second attempt to pass a law that would make some exemptions for religious activities for local land use authority. In the first attempt, the congressional action was overturned by the Supreme Court as it violated the first amendment. The second action has not yet been tested. At the request of Mayor Galligan, Commander Van Etten reported on a number of police enforcement programs in Burlingame. There are several programs that monitor certain individuals that reside in Burlingame City Council j November 29, 2000 Special Meeting Unapproved Minutes Burlingame; a Parolee Monitoring Program, Sex Registrant Monitoring Program, and a Drug Registrant Monitoring Program. Mayor Galligan called on the applicant, Reverent Stewart Coxhead, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, who stated he feels IHN is a wonderful program that has been established in 80 communities around the United States over the past 14 to 16 years. The church has provided care for people who are indigent and homeless and this program is a continuation of that. Over the years, the church has sent many parishioners to Redwood City and East Palo Alto to work with Habitat for Humanity; feels getting involved with IHN is the next logical step. Reverend Coxhead noted that a six page legal summary was presented and prepared by their attorney that describes the first amendment rights for sanctuary in church's across the nation. For many decades, St. Paul's has allowed various 12-step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous to use the facilities; cognizant of the fact that these groups might cause problems in the community because of traffic, parking, noise, etc. Former Burlingame Mayor, Gloria Barton, a parishioner of St. Paul's, has agreed to act as the Communication's Liaison with the neighbors on behalf of St. Paul's Church. Reverend Coxhead stated there have been times when he has had to ask some of the 12-step programs to leave because they had been irresponsible about the facilities or how they were relating to people. He does not feel the church is going into the program blind; they have experience with these types of programs. With the number of volunteers, at least 50 per week, it is a larger program. Believe the traffic and noise will be less because the church has to dismiss a number of other groups that use the building so they can house the families. The Reverend feels that the program is not in somebody else' backyard, but that it's in the church's own living room. The clergy, staff, lay board and nursery school board support the program; they are very concerned that the church does not adopt any program that would harm or damage the facilities, parishioners or neighbors in any way. He stated the neighbors who have asked for statistics about police calls, etc. have some responsibility to come up with statistics on these programs across the country if they feel the program has had significant problems. Does not want to see blame put on the victims and those who are poor. There will be six-month evaluations and the church would like the neighbors to be a part of the evaluation process. Reverend Charming (Chad) Smith, Rector of Transfiguration Episcopal Church and Chair of San Mateo County Interfaith Hospitality Network, noted the conditional use permits look at the effects the program would have on the facilities such as parking occupant load. In both of these cases, there is plenty of parking and space for 14 guests to eat and sleep. St. Catherine's and St. Paul's are part of the eight congregations that make up the network used to provide overnight accommodations for the three to five families. While the day center offers technical expertise, the congregations provide community support.,. IHN wants to minimize the effects that children experience in becoming homeless. The mission of IHN is clear to provide hospitality and housing, technical assistance and community support to families in need. Also provided is training and opportunities for more than 600 volunteers to make a difference this will create a more compassionate community. IHN is grateful for the solutions that have developed as a result of the conditional use process. St. Paul's has developed a neighborhood relations committee chaired by former Burlingame Mayor Gloria Barton to handle concerns for any of their programs. The Burlingame Police support the program and will help train our volunteers. Megan's Law is a part of the screening process, and an annual review process with the City is built into the conditional use permit. The lease with Mills Peninsula Hospital has a six-month review schedule for the first year and an annual review process thereafter. Feels these solutions have November 29, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Special Meeting developed relationships and an awareness of homeless families that without the process would not have happened. Casandra Benjamin, the Executive Director of Shelter Network, a non-profit agency which has been serving men, women and children in this community for over 12-years, is hoping that through IHN, the churches will be able to house the families that are on their waiting list. The capacity in San Mateo is 18 families at a time and there simply isn't enough room to meet the demand. With IHN, Shelter Network will provide the initial screening and referrals. IHN will then conduct a screening of the family and explain how the rotating church shelter works. It may not work for every family, but will try to screen for families which it will be most appropriate. Although a few families will be able to stay at the shelter and then return to more permanent housing, the reality with the housing costs in the area is that most of the families will need more than a couple of weeks of care. Most will need to come into the program and spend a matter of months saving funds for security deposits, first months rent, etc. in order to get back on their feet. Ms. Benjamin explained that the issue of domestic violence is something they specifically look for in homeless families. There is not a high instance of criminal activity in homeless families, but often a number of the women come from a domestic violence situation at some point. Because this is not a "safe address", Shelter Network cannot accept anyone who's batterer is at large. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the IHN program at St. Paul's Episcopal Church: Gloria Barton, 734 Winchester Drive; Deborah Cleveland, 304 Brentwood Road; Tom Roberts, 474 Cumberland Road; John Anderson, 702 Newhall Road; Virginia Pegley, 1344 Vancouver Avenue; Diana Linn, IHN, 120 El Camino Real #7; Mary Watt, C.A.L.L. Primrose Center; Charles Mink, 1541 Los Montes Drive; Carol Mink, 1541 Los Montes; Valerie Rogers, 1117 Cortez; Christy Zwingle, 774 Walnut Avenue; Dena Zwingle, 774 Walnut Avenue; Larry Jensen, 300 41s` Avenue, San Mateo; Skip Howie, 433 Airport Blvd. #417; Dr. Thomas Newman, M.D. 3024 Arguello; Jill Goldsmith, 1715 Ralston Avenue; Carol Eldgridge, 415 Primrose Road. Those speaking in opposition of the IHN program at St. Paul's Episcopal Church: Steve Shive, 1525 Chapin, Jeff Krug, 405 Occidental, Terri Malaspina, 1512 Chapin, Marika Metcalfe, 401 Occidental, Claire Haggarty, 2546 Butternut Drive, Hillsborough, Lisa Rogers, 809 Winchester Drive, Mark Metcalfe, 401 Occidental. There were no further comments and the hearing closed. Council questions: Councilwoman O'Mahony inquired about the insurance coverage for St. Paul's; Reverend Coxhead stated that the insurance agency sees the program in the same way as if there was a youth group staying overnight at the church, which is covered by the present policy. Reverend Smith stated he believed the insurance is a $1 million umbrella policy, but will verify with Mills Peninsula Hospital that the amount is satisfactory, and agreed to increase that amount if necessary. Reverend Coxhead noted there is a five -person committee at the church that will oversee the program. The church will notify the neighbors prior to the week that the guests are scheduled to stay. He urged the neighbors to notify him if there is anything inappropriate going on regarding the program. Mayor O'Mahony stated she would like a liaison committee to be one of the conditions of approval. Burlingame City Council 3 November 29, 2000 Special Meeting Unapproved Minutes Council Comments: Councilwoman Janney stated she does not feel the program jeopardizes public safety or public health in any way; feels compassion needs to start in this community. She moved to approve the conditional use permit to use an auditorium for emergency temporary housing for homeless families with children at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 415 El Camino Real, seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Discussion on the motion: Vice Mayor Spinelli stated he understands the neighbors concerns; refreshing to see people come forward and volunteer to help those in need. Feels the program is very well thought out, the churches and volunteers are very committed to the program. Would like to amend condition 49 to read that the conditional use permit be reviewed in six months (June, 2001) and annually, in January, thereafter for compliance with the conditions of approval, which were agreed to by Council. He stressed to the neighbors if there are any problems, to notify the police department immediately. Councilman Coffey stated he is very proud of the community and neighboring cities for taking on this responsibility and helping those who are less fortunate than us. Feels it is important that the neighbors accept the responsibility that is being taken on by the churches and help them in any way that they can. Councilwoman O'Mahony also supported the motion; noted this has been a very trying experience for the neighbors'; ask the neighbors to work with the church and the committee if there is anything amiss with the program. Mayor Galligan noted that over 52% of the residents of Burlingame rent multi -family unit buildings; rents have gone up 20 to 25% over the last year; there are residents in Burlingame that can become homeless. Councilwoman Janney's motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE AN AUDITORIUM FOR EMERGENCY/TEMPORARY HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AT ST. CATHERINE'S CHURCH, 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED C-1 CP Monroe referred to her staff report of November 29, 2000; this application is for a conditional use permit in order to provide a temporary/emergency overnight shelter for five homeless families with children (maximum of 14 people on site) in the auditorium on the church site at 1310 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned C-1. These families will be housed one week at a time, six times a year, during the times when the parish school is not in session. This program is identical to St. Paul's, the only difference is this program will occur at St. Catherine's only when the parish school on the site is out of session. There will be the same number of people, they will be transported to the site via van; the program will operate from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. seven consecutive days, they will not be allowed to leave once they have arrived. Father Albert Vacinovich, St. Catherine's Church, 1310 Bayswater, is the applicant for the conditional use permit. He stated sanitation concerns previously discussed have been addressed. Screening procedures of potential families and the possible attraction of other homeless people were other concerns of the neighbors; he has since met with Casandra Benjamin and Michelle Jackson of Shelter Network who explained to him the screening process and Megan's Law, that 90% of the applicants are from San Mateo County, and that they are thoroughly interviewed by trained social workers. He does not feel the program will attract other homeless people; this has not been a problem for Shelter Network in the past at their shelters. Feels the potential problems have been reasonably answered; 100 volunteers are ready to begin the program. Urged Council to approve the conditional use permit. November 29, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Special Meeting Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The following people spoke in favor of the IHN program at St. Catherine's Church: Sister Maureen Hally, 1511 Newlands #3, Michael Engermann, 810 Alpine Avenue, Patricia Georges, 443 Occidental, San Mateo, Janeen Culligan, 627 Plymouth Way, Reverend Paul Watermulder, First Presbyterian Church, Burlingame, Orlindo Cardelli, 343 Highland Avenue, San Mateo. Those speaking in opposition of the IHN program at St. Catherine's Church: Claire Haggarty, 2546 Butternut Drive, Hillsborough. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council comments: Councilman Coffey felt the situation is the same for St. Catherine's Church as for St. Paul's and made a motion to approve the conditional use permit to use an auditorium for emergency temporary housing for homeless families with children at St. Catherine's Church, 1310 Bayswater Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman Janney. Comments on the motion: Councilman Spinelli requested the same condition be added to amend condition #9 to read that the conditional use permit be reviewed in six months (June, 2001) and annually, in January, thereafter for compliance with the conditions of approval, which was agreed upon by the maker of the motion, as well as the second. Mayor Galligan noted that all of the Council Members have done considerable research on their own; would like to see the program at St. Catherine's held during the school year as well as when school is out of session. Noted the number of hours spent on these issues by the Planning Commission and commended them for all their hard work. He noted he received a phone call from Safeway Stores offering to donate food for the program and would pass the information along to IHN. Councilman Coffey's motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Claire Haggarty, 2546 Butternut, Hillsborough, feels it was inappropriate of Mayor Galligan to suggest the program be held while school is in session. Michael Engermann, 810 Alpine Avenue, complimented the Planning Commission, the Churches, and IHN's hard work to initiate this program. Reverend Chad Smith, Transfiguration Episcopal Church thanked the Council for their comments, care and willingness to work with IHN. Will McGowan, 37 Lorton Avenue, commended the Council on their decision. Dena Zwingle, 774 Walnut Avenue, thanked the Council for all their hard work and their positive decision. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 5 November 29, 2000 Special Meeting Unapproved Minutes MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 4, 2000 WILL BE DELIVERED SEPARATELY! r4 CITY BU,tLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: December 12, 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8 6a MTG. DATE 12/18/2000 SUBMITTED BY APPROVE BY CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND TO SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of the proposed resolution of intention, which would begin the process of determining whether to form a San Mateo County tourism business improvement district. DISCUSSION: The San Mateo Convention and Visitors Bureau has struggled for a number of years to secure reliable funding from local agencies and sponsors. The Bureau has been governed by a large board that includes elected officials, hotel managers, and business leaders. In order to establish a better financing process and to provide governance by the tourism industry, the Convention Bureau and the San Francisco Peninsula Hotel Council, Inc. recommend that a tourism business improvement district be formed under Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500 and following [the same process used for the Broadway Business Improvoment District]. The proposed district would encompass much of San Mateo County, including the unincorporated areas and the areas within most of the cities in the County. Upon consent from the affected agencies, Burlingame would act as lead agency for the District, setting the annual assessments and processing the collected assessments. The County and participating cities would collect the assessments on a monthly or quarterly basis and remit the assessments to Burlingame, which by agreement with the Bureau would pay this over to the Bureau as district provider. In November, the City Council appointed an interim advisory board to make a recommendation to the Council, which is attached. Mayor and Council Re: Resolution of Intention on San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District December 11, 2000 Page 2 The Bureau has met with a large number of elected officials, hotel managers and owners, and business owners and operators. There is widespread support. Among those agencies with hotels in their jurisdictions, only Menlo Park and Pacifica have declined to participate at this time. The first public hearing would be on January 2, 2001. A second public hearing with introduction of the District formation ordinance would follow on January 17. The District would then be formed on February 2, 2001, with the first assessments probably due in March or April of 2001. Attachment November 27, 2000 Letter from Interim Advisory Board Proposed Resolution of Intention Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCVB Q L CH November 27, 2000 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED DEC Q 2000 CITY CLERK-S OFFICE CITY OF BCiRLiNGAME Dear Mayor Galligan and Council Members Coffey, Janney, O'Mahony and Spinelli: The Interim Advisory Board for the Formation of the San Mateo County Tourism District respectfully requests that the Burlingame City Council introduce a resolution of intention to form a tourism business improvement district and to levy assessments. We believe such a district will benefit all properties in participating cities .and in the unincorporated area of the County by providing a steady base for promoting tourism in our county. Thank you in advance for considering our request. Sincerely, Stan Moore Interim Advisory Board Chair Cc: Dennis Argyres Ron Agron Phil Brezinski Colman Conneely Gary Lind Anne LeClair RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, AND TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND SETTING DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the San Francisco Peninsula Hotel Council, Inc., the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the Interim Advisory Board for the formation of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District have asked the City of Burlingame, the County of San Mateo, and other cities in the County to consider the formation of a parking and business improvement district in the County to adequately fund and serve the promotion of tourism in the County; and WHEREAS, the Hotel Council and the Convention & Visitors Bureau have asked the City of Burlingame to take the lead in the formation of the proposed district pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 and following; and WHEREAS, the proposed District would: A. Encompass the City of Belmont, City of Burlingame, City of Brisbane, City of Daly City, City ofFoster City, City of Half Moon Bay, City ofMillbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, City of San Bruno, City of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and the unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo. However, the district will only extend to a city described above if the city council of that particular city consents to the extension pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 3 652 1, and will only extend to the unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo if the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consents to the extension to the unincorporated areas of the County. B. Levy assessments on hotels in the District on an annual basis to fund the programs described in Exhibit B to this Resolution. The assessments would be subject to annual review. Hotel is defined as: any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast, lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof. 12/18/2000 No other business, person, occupation, or property of any kind would be subject to assessment under the district as proposed. C. Set the assessments for the 2001 year as generally described in Exhibit C hereto; and D. Establish an advisory board of owners and managers of hotels or of property occupied by hotels and owners and managers of San Mateo County businesses directly related to tourism to advise the City Council on the District's budget, assessments, and programs. WHEREAS, it appears that the San Mateo County Tourism Improvement District would provide important services in enhancing tourism in San Mateo County, including the City of Burlingame, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The Burlingame City Council intends to form the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District by adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 and following. The boundaries of the proposed district are generally described in Exhibit A hereto; however, the district will only include areas within those cities whose city councils consent to the formation of the District by January 17, 2001, and will only include unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo if the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors consents to the formation of the District by January 17, 2001. In addition, the areas to be included in the District will only be those areas actually consented to. 2. The Burlingame City Council further intends to levy an assessment for the 2001 fiscal year on hotels in the District to pay for services, programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on hotels in the District are set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference. 4. The method, basis, and amounts for levying the assessments on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference. The levels of assessments for the year 2001 are based in part on the levels of overall occupancy in the County of San Mateo experienced in the 1999-2000 year. 5. New hotels shall not be exempt from assessment, but they shall only be assessed on the ratio that the number of quarters remaining in the assessment year bears to the full assessment amount, with a partial quarter being counted as a full quarter. 12/18/2000 2 6. A first public hearing on formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2001 is hereby set for January 2, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 7. A second public hearing on the formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2001 is hereby set for January 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36522, interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 9. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2001, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010, at or before the close of the second public hearing on January 17, 2001. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address, include the number of sleeping rooms, level of service provided, and square footage of meeting space. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of a city or the County as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 10. Effect of Protests. (a) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed formation of the District, the District will not be formed. (b) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments for the year 2001, no assessment for the year 2001 shall occur. 12/18/2000 3 (c) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a service, activity or program proposed, then that type of service, activity, or program shall not be included in the District for the 2001 fiscal year. 11. Further information regarding the proposed District and the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. 12. In addition to the public hearings scheduled pursuant to this resolution in the City of Burlingame, it is anticipated that city councils of other cities in the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors may discuss the district at their own individual meetings and determine whether to consent to the formation of the District. However, any protests made at those other meetings shall not be considered legal protests or objections to the District pursuant to this Resolution of Intention or the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets &Highways Code sections 36500 and following). 13. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code and Streets & Highways Code and mailing in accordance with those requirements as applicable. The general form of notice attached as Exhibit D is approved. 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 on the day of 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK D:\wp51\FilesAHotelBid\resintfonmres.wpd 12/18/2000 4 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT IN GENERAL The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District shall encompass all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of San Mateo, but shall specifically exclude all areas and any hotels located within the city or town limits of the following cities and towns: Town of Atherton Town of Colma City of East Palo Alto Town of Hillsborough City of Menlo Park City of Pacifica Town of Portola Valley Town of Woodside ZONES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Zone A Zone A shall encompass all of the area of the District except that area located within Zone B as described below. Zone B Zone B shall encompass all of the area of the District that is located south of the City of Pacifica city limits and west of State Highway 35. EXHIBIT B ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1, Increased Generation of Group Leads a. Additional Sales Staff. Increase the Bureau's sales staff from two full -times sales representatives to six (6) or more. i. One sales representative to be located on the East Coast to represent the Bureau in the Washington, D.C. area; ii. One sales representative to be located in Sacramento; iii. One sales representative to be located in Southern California to represent the Bureau in the Los Angeles Area; iv. Three sales representatives in-house. 2. Marketing Program for Meetings and Tourism a. Invest in extensive Web advertising, creating links from key travel sites; b. Host annual receptions in Sacramento; C. Add a cooperative advertising manager and create additional cooperative advertising pieces; d. Participate in additional trade shows of interest to member hotel properties; e. Enhance/update trade show booth d6cor and marketing materials; f. Increase memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential target visitors; g. Enhance advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; h. Create specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g. golf); i. Conduct familiarization trips for meeting planners, film/ad/catalogue producers and travel writers; j. Use a part-time film commissioner to proactively recruit production crews to the area; k. Create additional collateral and marketing materials; I . Add a part-time publications manager to write specialty pieces and articles for distribution; M. Add state -of the art software designed for convention and visitor bureaus; n. Enhance web site; 3. Program to Extend Stays a. Create collateral/promotional materials to encourage extended stays; b. Add a part-time manager of meeting services to create special packages/offers, marketing plans to encourage extended stays. 4. Consumer Reservations Program/Market to Travel Industry a. Create an on-line reservations system for travelers; b. Dedicate one new sales representative's time to the transient market; C. Develop an alliance with tour operators; d. Create an awareness of the Bureau on the part of international travelers; e. Have key brochures translated into German and Korean. EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED ON HOTELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT In order to roughly measure the estimated benefit to be derived from the District, the Assessment for Fiscal Year 2001 is being adjusted by the following two factors: first, the level of occupancy of hotels actually experienced county -wide in the 1999-2000 year; and second, by the actual number of months of the year 2001 remaining after the ordinance forming the District becomes effective. According to the hotel industry, the level of occupancy in Zone A for hotels was above 70% for the year 1999- 2000; in Zone B, it was above 50%. However, the small hotel segment of the industry experienced an occupancy of only about 30%. The number of months remaining in 2001 will be established upon adoption of the ordinance forming the district, so that is left as a formula in the assessment basis; in future years, this element of the formula would be eliminated. Assessment of new hotels opening during fiscal vear: A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of quarters remaining in the fiscal year multiplied by the full annual assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is counted as a full quarter for the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May, there are two full quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 3/4 for that year's assessment for the new hotel. Definitions — Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast, lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof. — Full service means a hotel that offers all of the following: an on -site restaurant, meeting space, room service, bell service, and catering. — Limited service means a hotel that offers meeting space but does not necessarily have an on -site restaurant, room service, or catering. — Standard service means a hotel without any meeting space, and generally does not have bell service, room service, on -site restaurant, or catering. — Meeting space means a room or space dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. — Sleeping room means a room or suite of rooms that is rented on a transient basis as a unit for sleeping or occupancy. 12/18/2000 C-1 CATEGORY ZONE A — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001 ZONE B — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001 Hotel with full service $360/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 2001) $360/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001) and more than 20 sleeping 12 12 rooms Hotel with limited service $180/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 2001) $180/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001) and more than 1000 square 12 12 feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with limited service $90/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 2001) $90/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001) and some meeting space but 12 12 less than1000 square feet and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with standard service $54/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 2001) $54/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001) and more than 20 sleeping 12 12 rooms Hotel with full service, $54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2001) $54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2001) limited service, or standard 12 12 service, and 20 sleeping rooms or less 12/18/2000 C_2 EXHIBIT D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED FORMATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS ON HOTELS IN THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 (Government Code § 54954.6(c)) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: On January 2, 2001, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a public hearing to consider formation of a proposed San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2001 on hotels in the District as described in the enclosed Resolution of Intention. On January 17, 2001, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a second public hearing to consider formation of the District and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2001 on hotels in the District.' The proposed assessments for fiscal year 2001 are contained in Exhibit B to the enclosed resolution of intention. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or the comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2001, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010, at or before the close of the second public hearing on January 17, 2001. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address, include the number of sleeping rooms, level of service provided, and square footage of meeting space. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of a city or the County as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. 'In addition to the public hearings scheduled pursuant to this resolution in the City of Burlingame, it is anticipated that city councils of other cities in the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will discuss the District at their own individual meetings and determine whether to consent to the formation of the District. However, any protests made at those other meetings shall not be considered legal protests or objections to the District pursuant to this Resolution of Intention or the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets &Highways Code sections 36500 and following). D-1 Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed formation of the District, the District will not be formed. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as or to the proposed assessments for 2001, no assessment for 2001 shall occur. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a service, activity or program proposed, then that type of service, activity, or program shall not be included in the District for the 2001 fiscal year. Further information regarding the proposed District and the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. Further information is also available from the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau at 650 - 348-7600. D-2 T, 1 AURAN RESIOEN REALTORm COh,MER( LEAS PHONE/VM 650.347-3: 1323 BERNAL AVENUE • BURLINGAME • CA 94010 FAX 650.347-3' October 12, 2000 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 340-348 Lorton Avenue Dear Council Members, This is a request to change the date of an appeal hearing. The public hearing to appeal the Planning Commission action has been scheduled for Monday, October 16, 2000. The property owner and his Attorney are not able to attend on this date and request that the hearing be rescheduled on November 6, 2000. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours tail im n COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION P OF STAFF REPORT '�. ` = • `, CITY o� STAFF RFPGRT ,�r B. UM To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2000 FRom: CITY PLANNER • 6-E DDA ITEM # _ 6,;� - MTG. DATE /t,,�-/,3-er� SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should review the Planning Commission's action which upheld the City Planner's determination that there was no nonconforming office/off site storage use in the basement of this site. Following a public hearing the City Council should take action. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives are to uphold the Planning Commission's determination or to reverse it. BACKGROUND: A request for determination occurs when an applicant does not agree with the application of a given section of the zoning code as interpreted by the City Planner. In this case Tim Auren, leasing agent, representing Don Sabatini, the property owner, holds that the basement of the property at 340-348 Lorton Avenue has been and is in office and off -site storage use since the building was built. He is appealing the Planning Commission's upholding of the City Planner's determination that the existing 4000 SF basement area of the commercial building located at 304- 348 Lorton Avenue, is not in office use and off -site storage use; and therefore office and off -site storage uses cannot be placed in this area without providing parking to code for future office or off -site storage tenants. The property is zoned Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. The property is also located in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study area Zone 2. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to uphold the City Planner's determination that officeloff-site storage use in the 4000 SF basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is not nonconforming and would be required to provide parking to code for future office use. The commission did state that the existing basement area could be used for storage by businesses on site without being required to provide additional parking. The reasons stated for the commission's action were: spent time in the basement area with Mr. Auren, the basement is a typical basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler -I- Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an,,E. htI7 Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area October I6, 2000 system hangs low, and there are signs of office use but they are tacked on, not part of the original building; this is not a nonconforming use, to recognize it as such would be to grant a large parking variance where already the building has a real advantage because they have 10,000 SF for which they provide no parking. Determination The City Planner determined that (a) at this time there is no nonconforming office and off -site storage use in any portion of the basement area of this building and (b) therefore no portion of the basement area can be used for new uses without first obtaining a parking variance and any required conditional use permits; and (c) any storage or warehouse type use in the basement area for businesses not located on this site will be prohibited in the C-2 zone effective October 18, 2000. The facts used for the City Planner's determination were as follows: 1. Planning Department file does not indicate that there is a nonconforming office use in any portion of the basement area of this building. In 1987 the City did issue a conditional use permit. for the first floor tenant to use 500 SF of the basement for storage related to his grocery business. This permit was revoked in 1994. 2. Planning Department files show that in April 1993, 1200 SF of the ground floor and 4000 SF of the basement area was leased to a tenant who then filed suit against the property owner for failure to disclose that the basement area could not be used. This suit was settled by the property owner acknowledging that the area could not be used and by the property owner making a settlement payment to the tenant. 3. At the time the property owner added a second exit to the basement area in 1994 the property owner accepted the following condition placed on the building permit: "a) the basement area can only be used for storage; with or without a second exit; and b) any other use (i.e. not storage) will require a parking variance and application to the Planning Commission." The term "storage" here refers to storage related to uses on the site, since that is the city policy which had been applied to other property in the area prior to issuance of this building permit e.g. 1420 Burlingame Avenue. When building permits are executed such conditions represent a contractual agreement which is binding on the property owner. The second exit was added to the basement area and final inspection made. The Planning Commission staff report prepared for the meeting of September 25, 2000, attached, provides additional background and information on the property, applicable zoning code provisions, and conditions of the site. ATTACHMENTS: Monroe letter October 3, 2000, to Tim Auren, setting appeal hearing Planning Commission Minutes, September 25, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, September 25, 2000 with attachments. -2- a. Consider resolution granting appeal of Planning Commission decision and granting conditional use permit for expansion of food establishment at 1108 Burlingame Avenue/303-305 California Drive, Zoned C-1, Applicant: Fanny & Alexander; Property Owners: Lorenz and Louisa Kao. b. Consider amendment to amusement permit for Fanny & Alexander, 1108 Burlingame Avenue to allow expansion of entertainment use into space at 308-310 California Drive. ./ ^ • �� CITY .t Q BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall - 50l Primrose Rnad PlanningDeparmew BuflhW=. California W04M October 3, 2000 Tim Auran 1223 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Auran, At the City Council meeting of October 2, 2000, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your application to determine conformity of the existing basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-2, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. A public hearing will be held on October 16, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 340-348L.acc c: Don and Patricia Sabatini 300 El Portal Hillsborough, CA 94010 City Clerk Tel. (00) 558-7= • City of Burtingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 8. 348 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - DETERMINATION OF USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA (TIMAURAN, APPLICANT; DONALD F. AND P.A. SABATINI TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented her determination, the history of the site and facts. Commissioners asked: when a legal action such as the settlement noted here occurs is it attached to the deed; CA noted we do not have a title report, typically leases or dissolutions are not recorded. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tim Auren, real estate broker,1323 Bernal, who had requested the determination spoke along with Mr. Sabitini, property owner. He noted that the law suit was settled before there was court action; that the other party had leased the basement area for storage and then changed the use to a manufacturing use, Fire Department stopped the use because a second exit was required, the tenant left because his use was restricted. Building was built in 1951, three stories including a full basement; basement area has an 8 foot ceiling, is fully sprinklered, concrete walls and ceiling; was used for storage for a restaurant which was on the first floor, so has always been active retail support space, restaurateur (also building owner) had an office for their business in the basement; was also used as a civil defense shelter to store emergency goods in the 1950's. The owners who built the building sold their restaurant business and the new owner moved it down the street; tried to lease, the grocery store with basement storage was one tenant, has been continually offered for lease but the Planning Department denied all tenants, actually added two stairways for exit because basement area is so big; Mr. Sabitin has an office in this basement area now and allows Mr. Auren to use some of the area for conferences too. Have an office tenant, a union, who would like to use some of the area and would be on site a couple of times a week, dic not want to come one at a time with proposal but work out a resolution for the use of the entire space. Would no have installed staircase in 1995 if knew could not use basement, architect drew plans, was done the way it wa. supposed to be done did not see note regarding parking variance. Tenants do not need the basement area for storage have an office there, it is well built and clean, protected by a sprinkler system, don't know why the sprinkler is ther if the area can't be used. Commissioners asked: there were specific conditions on the building permit, - applican noted contract related to another party (contractor) never saw the piece of paper until staff report, was it hidder. building department had no record of the building permit, Mr. Sabitini would not have installed the stairway if h had known storage was the only use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing wa closed. Commissioner discussion: spent some time in the basement with Mr. Auren, to me the basement is a typic,, basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler system hangs low, there are signs of office use, but they are tacked on, nc part of the original building; there is no parking on site and parking is what we are discussing here; this basemei area is not a good candidate for office use; have a number of basements on Burlingame Avenue people use fc storage for businesses on site; when see no HVAC system know that space is meant for storage; do not feel that th is nonconforming office space. Did not understand that ordinance change prohibiting storage and warehouse u: in C-1 and C-2 would prohibit owners from leasing existing space for off -site storage. This is not a nonconformir, use, to recognize it as such would be to grant a large parking variance, already building has a real advantage becau. they have 10,000 SF for which they provide no parking now. C. Keighran noted clear that the basement area can be used for storage by tenants on the site, not want to intensi the use of the existing floors, if it is not nonconforming it will not increase the parking demand so move that the is no nonconforming use in the basement area and that the area.can be used as storage only for tenants on the si� The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Unapproved Minutes -14- • City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25. 2000 Comment on the motion: made good point that small office space is needed, could ask for a parking variance to provide it there if wanted to. CA Anderson noted that the current policy is to require an in lieu fee for parking not provided in this area. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to determine that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and that the basement area can be used for storage for tenants on the site. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 12.15 p.m. CT!'AT T TtTncf cTTTTIV T M 9. 1108 VANCOUVER NUE - ZONED R 1 - APPLICAT N FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT F HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED G GE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC. APPLICANT AND DESIG R; GARY Al?RTCT PR(1PF TV)' Y 0WNERI CP M/eennted a project description. C. Bojues noted at he lived withi/he ea and would not partis ion. There were no questions of staf Chaiaga opened the public comment. J es Chu, designer, represct. Member of the publy a commissioner who lived near could not participate, whoe area better. CA Andhat the voters had directed in th olitical Reform Act that decimight be affected by lia given distance of an action y the body on which they serve, Design issues discussed were: design fa' y good, disturbed by the reductio of the front porch, getting too small for a person to stand on; porch size i of consistent with what is in the n ighborhood, concerned with the turret which also is tending toward a tall, onumental entry, needs to be mad ore subtle; the architectural style is all right, this project is acceptable b do not like the pattern of the wind( s, the 10 foot tall window in the stair well. is to big, there are shutters on a front but not on the sides or rear; a ments on either side are all right, cool do dormer and articulation wit materials as have on the front elevat' n; mass is broken up all right; reduces le o' window in the closet ov the front entry, reduce the plate hei t and size of the closet. There were n furthe: comments from the flo r. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the pu is comment. C. Keighran noted at the entrance needs to blend with the ouses in the area, be more subtle; the ' ce articulation with materials a e front should be added to the other evations to improve the rest of the ho e; feel that thes, are minor ch es which the designer can address so w uld move to put this item on the cone t calendar. Motioi wassecond by Chairman Luzuriaga. Motion pass on a 7-0 voice vote and was set for ctober 11, 2000, if al the information is submitted in time. The Planning mmission's action is advisory and not appealable. This iten concluded at 12:30 a.m. Unapproved Minutes -15- ITEM # 8 City of Burlingame Determination on Use of Existing Basement Area Meeting Date: September 25, 2000 Request: The commission should make a determination on whether the existing basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is conforming and cannot be used for office and off - site business storage without being required to provide parking for the change in use. The site is zoned C-2 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Request for Determination On August 17, 2000, the City Planner wrote a letter to Mr. Tim Auren, which documented research done on the property and concluded that if he or the property owner wish to use any portion of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue for any use other than storage associated with businesses on the site, they would have to make application for whatever variances and conditional use permits might be necessary for the particular uses. This is the determination which is being appealed. Tim Auren, Realtor, representing the property owner Don Sabatini, is requesting to use 4000 SF of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue for lease for either office or storage for businesses located in the area but not on this site. Mr. Auren represents that some of the area is currently being used as office area and in the past some of the basement area has been used to store goods for uses not on the site. If the requested uses in the 4000 SF basement area are determined to be nonconforming, the property owner would not be required to provide any parking for any future office or storage uses in this area. Mr. Auren is representing Mr. Don Sabatini who purchased the building in 1987. Mr. Auren is interested in immediately leasing 200 SF of the area for office use. He goes on to note in his letter "this is an example of low intensity use that should be allowed. Other uses could be storage for other downtown businesses ... an off site conference room for local businesses, single person offices for service industries or contractors serving our community, an art workshop or studio". (Tim Auren letter July 13, 2000) At issue is whether office/off-site storage use in 4000 SF of basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is nonconforming and therefore only restricted by the requirements of the zoning code without any off-street parking required. If the basement area is determined to be nonconforming, it could still be leased for office and other uses allowed in subarea B, so long as parking requirements on site were met or a parking variance granted. Staff Determination The City Planner documents in her letter of August 17, 2000, the reasons for her determination that (a) at this time there is no nonconforming office and off -site storage use in any portion of the Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 basement area of this building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and (b) therefore no portion of the basement area can be used for new uses without first obtaining a parking variance and any required conditional use permits. In addition, any storage or warehouse type use for businesses not located on the site will soon be prohibited in the C-2 zone (effective date of the ordinance amendment October 18, 2000). A nonconforming use is one that existed on the site before the current code came into effect and which has been continuing since that time. A change in use is defined as being when a use ceases in a space for more than 6. months. Once a use has ceased for 6 months or more the space may not be occupied by that (the nonconforming) use again. (CS 25.50.040) In Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area a baseline of nonconforming uses is established as uses existing on the premise on October 1, 1981 and being on the premise continuously thereafter. (CS 25.36.040 (c)). This same code section states that when a nonconforming use goes away new uses must conform to the permitted and conditional uses for the subarea. In Subarea B parking is considered to be a use; so the new use must comply with on site parking requirements as well.(See Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance attached) It has been city policy for many years that basement areas of commercial buildings which house mechanical equipment to operate the building have been counted as storage for parking purposes. Since the basement areas have been considered as storage, as a service to building owners, staff has interpreted this to mean that tenant's already on site may use this area for storage. This is based on the idea that such storage would not generate any more trips, parking or employees on site than would be there in the course of the tenants normal business. This policy was clearly articulated in the 1980's in the settlement agreement between the city and property owner at 1420 Burlingame Avenue. It was also implemented in the consideration of Saks Fifth Avenue's later use of the building at 1420 Burlingame Avenue. It does not permit storage for off -site users. Recently (July 24, 2000) the Planning Commission took the storage concept further and recommended to the City Council that warehouse and storage facilities be prohibited in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Based on the Commission's recommendation, on September 18, 2000, the Council approved an amendment to the C-1 and C-2 district regulations which prohibits warehouse and storage uses in these zoning districts. Since this site is located in the C-2 zoning district, leasing of any portion of the basement area for storage uses for an off -site business would be prohibited when this ordinance becomes effective. (October 18, 2000) Facts for the Determination The reasons for the City's Planners determination were based on the facts as follows: 1. Planning Department files do not indicate that there is a nonconforming office use in any portion of the basement area of this building. In lfor stora a related to his city did issue a grocery businetional use permit for a first floor tenant to use 500 SF of the basementg This permit was revoked in 1994. 2. Planning Department files show that in April 1993, 1200 SF of the ground floor and 4000 SF of the basement area was leased to a tenant who thedfiled suit against the property owner for failure to disclose that the basement area could not be used. This suit was settled by the property Fa Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 owner acknowledging that the area could not be used and by the property owner making a settlement payment to the tenant. 3. At the time the property owner added a second exit to the basement area in 1994 the property owner accepted the following condition placed on the building permit: a) the basement area can only be used for storage; with or without a second exit; and b) any other use (i.e. not storage) will require a parking variance and application to the Planning Commission. The term "storage" here refers to storage related to uses on the site, since that is the city policy which had been applied to other properties in the area prior to issuance of this building permit. (see above) When building permits are executed such conditions represent a contractual agreement which is binding on the property owner. The second exit was added to the basement area and final inspection made. On the basis of these facts the City Planner made the determination that there is no nonconforming use existing in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and any use extended into any portion of the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue would be required to comply with existing zoning requirements including a parking variance based on the size of the proposed use. Property History According to the Sanborn Map (last updated in the early 1960's) the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is constructed of reinforced concrete, lot he to lot line, about 14,700 GSF per floor. There is no on -site parking. Mr. Auren's information indicates that the building is a wood frame structure with a concrete foundation. He notes that it was built in 1950. The building has, according to Mr. Auren, a 4000 SF basement (referred to by him as a ground floor) with two floors above. The first floor, at grade, is divided into retail shops, some fronting on California Drive and some on Lorton Avenue. The second floor is divided into 17 office tenant spaces (floor plan date stamped June 20, 2000 submitted as a part of an application for a physiotherapist office). In recent years, the Commission has granted two conditional use permits for medical services (physiotherapist and chiropractor) in the second floor office area. (Health services, Suite 203, 2 physiotherapists in 374 SF,July 24, 2000; Suite 212, chiropractic office, 344 SF, two chiropractors, May 27, 1997.) Use permits are required for health services because they have a higher parking requirement based on the way appointments 'are scheduled. Despite the fact that the site is nonconforming in parking, no parking variances were required for these two applications because in each case the added parking requirement was a fraction less than half of a parking space. The property at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is located in Zone 2 (which includes Donnelly Avenue and Lorton Avenue to California Drive) of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study (February 16, 2000). Data provided in this study for Zone 2 indicates that week day parking occupancy in the zone is 96%. Anything percentage of occupancy over 90% is considered fully used. The weekend parking occupancy in Zone 2 is also 96%. While there are a number of public parking lots in Zone 2 all of them are over 90% occupied on weekdays at peak 3 Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 hour. At week -end peak hours all public lots except the lot next to the library are used over 90%. In short there is little on -street and public parking available in this area at this time. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the request for determination and direct staff. This item is not required to be noticed for a public hearing, but the commission should take testimony from the floor as a part of your deliberation. Attachments: Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Code Monroe letter August 17, 2000, to Tim Auren, Re: Use of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Tim Auren letter July 13, 2000, to Monroe, Re: Request for formal determination of use of property Application for determination, August 29, 2000 Erika Lewit, FAX to Tim Auren, June 16, 2000 Anthony Smith, January 30, 1995 letter to Monroe, Re: 346 Lorton Monroe letter, February 5, 1987, to Parham Noori-Esfandari Re PC action, with attachments Interim Settlement Conference, November 7, 1995, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, File No. 391155; Bill Wyble, Al Bartoucchi, et. al. vs. Donald Sabatini, et. al. with attachments. Second floor office layout plan, June 20, 2000. I! September 18, 2000 Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Code The following are sections of the zoning code which provide direction for this determination. Most are from the nonconforming uses section of the code; one is from the C-1 district regulations (which also apply in the portion of the C-2 district which is within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area) having to do with vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. CS 25.50.030 Change of Use "No nonconforming use shall be changed to any other nonconforming use, whether within the same class or otherwise. When changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use." CS 25.50.040 Nonconforming use -automatic change by nonuse states: "When any portion of building or land which has been used other than in conformity with use regulations of the district of which it is a part is not used for such nonconforming use for a continuous period of six months, such nonconforming use is abandoned and shall not be reestablished in that portion. The area shall thereafter be used only in conformity with the use regulation of the district in which it is situated. Remodeling shall not constitute abandonment of a nonconforming use so long as it complies with the applicable city construction codes and is completed within six months of receiving a building permit or as determined on request by the planning commission with a public hearing. Whenever any part of a building, structure or land occupied by a nonconforming use is changed to or replaced by a use conforming to the use regulations of the district, such premises shall not thereafter be used or occupied by a nonconforming use, even though the building may have been originally designed or constructed for the prior nonconforming use." CS 25.50.055 Nonconforming use - Additional provisions "Nonconforming uses are also subject to Sections 25.70.040 (off-street parking) and 25.36.040 (d) (parking in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area) of this code, except that in the Broadway Commercial Area, additional parking shall not be required if a structure is totally destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster so long as the uses in the new structure are the same size as existed before the loss." CS 25.36.040 (c) Nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. "Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use occupying said premises on October 1, 1981; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing structures, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster is the use returning into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea. CS 25.36.040 (d) Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. "Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area: (1) Uses permitted and existing on October 1, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking requirements of this code. (2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area shall be exempt for parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying the premises on October 1, 1981. (3) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on -site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in subarea A shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or personal service uses...." r6, crrr o oURLNG ME CITY OF BURLINGAME Cuy Han - 501 Primrose Road TeL (650) 558-7250 Planama pepartrneat BorimErie, CaBforzia 94010-3997 August 17, 2000 Mr. Tim Auren Realtor 1323 Bernal Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Subject: Use of the basement area at 340-438 Lorton Avenue . Dear Mr. Auren, I am in receipt of your letter of July and 341�-349 Californiabout Drivle. use As you knowbasement there have been a building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue number of different city actions on this property. My comments are limited to the Planning Department files. I would begin by confirming Erika Lewitt's memo of June 16, 2000, in which she notes that the property is zoned C-2 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Subject to the restrictions of that zoning designation the basement area may be rented to any office tenant with storage associated, so long as the space meets all the California Building and Fire Code requirements for the proposed use and an application for a parking variance, based on the proposed use, is submitted to the Planning Commission and approved by them. Our files do not indicate that there is a nonconforming office use in the basement area of this building. In fact our records show that in 1987 the city granted a conditional use permit to a grocery business at 348 Lorton which allowed that business to use, along with 1200 SF on the ground floor, 500 SF of the basement for storage associated with the grocery business. This permit was revoked in 1994. Next our files show that in April 1993, 1200 SF of the ground floor accessed off Lorton and 4000 SF of the basement area was leased to a tenant who then filed suit against the property owner for failure to disclose that the basement area could not be used. This suit was settled by the property owner acknowledging that the area could not be used and by making a payment settlement to the tenant. In 1994 the property owner applied for a building permit to add a second stairway out of the basement area. In taking out that building permit, and subsequently executing it, the property owner accepted a condition placed on the permit stating: "Review of March 28, 1994 plans, conditions of approval: 1. Basement area can only be used for storage; with or without second exit. 2. Any other use (i.e. not storage) will require a parking variance and application to the Planning Commission." Such conditions represent a contractual agreement. Therefore, the future use of the basement area has nothing to do with any pre -exiting nonconforming use or any present illegal use. The property owner, in accepting the building permit to add a second staircase exit, also accepted the condition placed on that permit, that any use of the basement area other than storage would require application for and receipt of a parking variance. If you wish to use any portion of the basement area for any use other than storage associated with businesses on the site, we will be happy to provide you with the necessary forms to make application for whatever variances and conditional use permits might be necessary. A copy of the C-2 zoning district regulations are attached for your convenience. Our office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p. m. week days and Maureen Brooks or Ruben Hurin will be happy to assist you. Sincerely you�rs, V�AX'4r Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachment: C-2 District Regulations, City of Burlingame Zoning Code. cc. Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall City Attorney, Larry Anderson 2 'TIM AURAN RESIDE[ COMMu REALTOR° LE/ PHONE/VM 650.347 1323 BERNAL AVENUE - BURLINGAME - CA 94010 FAX 650.347 July 13, 2000 RECEIVED JUL 14 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Request for formal determination of use of property. Burlingame Planning, The purpose of this letter is to request a formal determination as to what uses are allowed at a specific property without a parking variance. The property is 348 Lorton Ave (AP#029-153-020) and the area of concern is the basement or ground floor. The property is described as a three-story wood framed structure with a concrete foundation. The building was constructed in 1950 and the zoning is C-2, Subarea B. The ground floor is the area in question and is approximately 4000 square feet with concrete floor and walls. It has an 8-foot ceiling height and is sprinklered. Upon completion this space was used as part of the retail space above which was owned and operated by the building owner (John's Place, a bar and restaurant owned by George Garbuio). The owner also used this space as office space and I personally did business with him in this space: Upon completion this space was:atso designated as a public assembly site for use in an emergency and emergency supplies were stored there by public agencies and were still there in 1987 when purchased by the current owner. The current owner has continued to use this space for his office since 1987 and I have used an area for an alternate office and conference room for 10 years. I currently have a party interested in leasing 200 square feet for office use. The user would be a local Transportation Workers Union. The space would store the records in file cabinets and have a desk; phone and answering machine. It would be occupied only 3 times a week to return calls and update records and that would be late afternoon or early evening. ` Heel -this is an example of low intensity use that should be allowed. Other uses could be storage for other downtown businesses such- as'wrestaurant� that caters could store tables, chairs and serving equipment. A off site conference room for local businesses. Single person offices for service industries or contractors serving our community or an art workshop or studio. This area is zoned for retail and office and has been used as retail and office and storage since it was built. It has also been designated as a public assembly site since it was built. I believe that the height of the ceiling and the sprinkler system are evidence of the intended use since construction. Please contact me for any further information you require. Yours truly, Tim Auran Don Sabatini � X, CIT CITY OF BURLINGAA19 '-. .y APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COYMMSION Type of Application; Special Permit Variance Other Dc ��� M .�� ��• '� lit c Project Address: 3`�0 �`' �-`J Iq"G Assessor's Parcel Number(s): dZ`1 1 53 - 02: co APPLICANT �-/ P�tOPERTY OWNER Name: 00.J - b.� `r/,..- Name Address: 3 `(,) L Oct `�� N R`'c Address: City/State/Zip: ��� `'`� c , �� ° City/State/Zip: Phone (w): 3'13 - SG L Phone (w): 6 &5 - S 6 6 G (h): & S ,S7- - SG C G (h): fax: 3 <It 3 576 ' z ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h) fax: ✓3 �C3 _ S-1 1 'L Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. Iq RECEIVE 3 � 7 AUG 2 9 200[ fax: CITY OF BURLINGP PLANNING DEPT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6e- �'^� �/ �� s Ve� a i c c,. r 2JN/NC x AlcJ / P�s S i�Q LC �41 f AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 4 Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. 4r.��G/��l.�lliJC�li Sze Property Owner's Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed: 8' 2-2' :Fee: Z S . o 0 Planning Commission: Study Date: q. ZS . 00 Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME Facsimile Transmission Record DATE (f Cv O� TIME • L415 NUMBER OF PAGES _� (including this cover sheet) FROM Fria Lewit DEPARTMENT Planning_ RECIPIENT'S FAX NUMBER: ((a -�C b `A 4 r J `UOD Please deliver this transmission to: NAME COMPANY � q La C n REGARDING LDK--p Yl 1 any ► 655 rnYn, --� .moo,--.�--I��i S �S +fib oYz �� -%e- Cp rruz rG�G PQ-C4(f� I -F V � WIM c'z u.% U y F s 0�-rdg<- bp, ANTHONY V. SMITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 700 TILTON AVENUE, SUITE ONE SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94401 (415)548-0100 January 30, 1995 Ms. Margaret Monroe, City Planner City of Burlingame, San Mateo County City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Subject Property: 346 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California Assessor's Parcel: No. 029-153-020 My Clients: Nova Compatible Hardware Systems, Bill Wible, Al Bartocchi Subject: Compliance with applicable fire, health, safety and building requirements Current Owners: Donald and Patricia Sabatini Dear Ms. Monroe: I represent the interests ofNova Compatible Hardware Systems and its principals Bill Wyble and At Bartocchi with respect to a claim for damages. against the owner of the subject property, Donald and Patricia Sabatini. I am writing this letter as it is my understanding that you have had personal involvement with respect to the owner's compliance with applicable fire, safety, health and building requirements dating back to at least 1987. My clients recently filed a claim for damages in San Mateo County Superior Court as a result of Mr. Sabatini's failure to disclose the restricted use of the basement portion of the subject property. I am writing this letter to request copies of any and all writings relating to compliance with the aforesaid requirements. My preliminary investigation of public records has revealed the existence. of correspondence between your office and the Burlingame Fire and/or Building Department, in addition to the Burlingame Planning Commission itself and the preparation of staff reports relaxing to the above. i would like copies of any and all writings as described above. My request would include any interoffice, communication or any and all documents that reflect communication with Yoush Gourmet Bazaar, David Tate, Tate Properties, Juanita Garbuio, Harry A. Hanson, Jr., Esq., Oscar Reyn, and/or any other individuals involved in the application of and/or action concerning special permits, and/or any action relating to the subject property. Please include any/all writings from the fire department, city engineer, building inspection department and/or director of parks. ci�Y 1/v`•Z-- It vIYC oft 44/A1 Please include in your response any/or records of public hearings held (including meeting minutes). of the Planning Commission and/or the Burlingame City Council. Ifyou are aware of the existence of any other writings of which you are not in your possession, custody, and/or control, please inform me in order that I may direct my request to the appropriate person. The possibility exists that I may need to take your deposition and/or the deposition of other members in your department at some time in the near future. At the time of the dictation of this letter,# do not know whether your deposition will be necessary. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (415) 548-0100. Ve truly , M thle "1Z OF Nur6umlv SAN MATEO COUNTY I✓ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 f PLANNING DEPARTMENT (415) 342-8625 February 5, 1987 Mr. Parham Noori-Esfandiari 2034 Polk Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Mr. Noori-Esfandiari: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the January 26, 1987 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit application became effective February 3, 1987. This application was to allow a grocery store/specialty food store at 346 Lorton Avenue. The January 26, 1987 minutes of the Planning Commission .state your permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector.'s December 22, 1986 memo, the San Mateo County Health Inspector's December 30, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's December 29, 1986 memo shall be met; 2. that the area for retail sales from this site shall be limited to 180 SF, and the storage area limited to 500 SF, the basement area shall be used onli to house and provide access to equipment necessary for the operation of the building; 3.that this business shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and -� 11:00 P.M. seven days a week with one full time and one part 'time employee; 4. that any change in the size of floor area used or type of activity on this premise or the type of goods sold, including a beer and 7 wine -or liquor license, shall require amendment to this use permit; 5. that access to the bathrooms according to the Uniform Building Code and Health Codes shall be required; and 6. that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance with its conditions in six months time. (July .1987) and each year thereafter. Mr. Parham Noori-Esfandiari -2- February 5, 1987 All site improvements or construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s Att. cc: Harry A. Hanson, Jr., Esq. (w/att.) David Tate, Tate Properties (w/att.) Chief Building Inspector (w/att.) San Mateo County Health Inspector (w/att.) Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 11, Block 1, Burlingame Land Co. Map No. 2; APN 029-153-020) 0 DATE: / V/ 71f 6 MEMO TO: C TY ENGINEER IEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL =R l AF �- FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: s,a,.� ��.,�.w, ;z F� Ca 444C. An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S/—ZfZ)j� at their A: Jk meeting. We would appreciate_ having Your comments by Thank you. DEC 22 19 as •� j o B� SCf/ED of L � U /r- CGtif .c/GA,,'� .f �/�Ct7y�L� i�c D �i'�l.'lJ is-E`'e ".I �`=°�tif C�(/ �C frvG=•f/D/i . �ki�Ri(Gy��q� , �i ��iqd :r � /ter f •s � ��� � a J Helen Williams ,Q%�I D/v/f���� Planner $/Tllz1 �-(�� �` / n /✓ / t/ %7! lCi.�t f `a / /L C� / °' /�CtJ r[ y L C� �+? i•(l,l�S cr c /Jtdwti xv J t /aL� l e D w, r O' f� f Olt .fix f1.1 es Q /? �OG ��� fiC) it'd / fC H�eolf / _C 7, �`'"` 'mac-.-•� �/ FOOD PROGRAM OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT SAN MATEO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 363-A305 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 877,-SA63 OBA/NAME ) L/// ADDRESS �- RECHkCK DATE OWNER/OPERATOR/ - COMPUTER NUMBER MAILING ADDRESS TIME IN PROGRAM I ELEMENT SERZ> (✓/l TIME OUT APPLICABLE LAW PERMIT LICENSE The marked items represent Health Code violations and must be corrected MAJOR MINOR fOIIOWS: Food Temp. 1 2 Z Prep/Service 3. 4 - Storage/Disp. 5. 6 Frozen Food 7 8 / p Pure Food 9 10cc / - a. Reused Food Transportation 13 114 Handwashing 15 116. � w Disease Trans. 117 118 0 Employee Habits 19 Z Q Rodents Insects 21 122 —a- 123 124 w > Animal/Fowl 125 126 Wash.lSant. 127 128 _ Z n Equip. Cond. 29 30 w Uten. Cond. 131 132 Storage 133. 34 41x/ Fac. 35 36 Storage o al Refrig. Units 37 138. 00. 'a"k Thermometer 39 140 u N I Hazardous Mat. 41 . 143 42 v Spoils 144 Uj Water 45 146 Cross Conn. 47 J48 w Liquid Waste 49 50 Q Refuse 51 52 �--�• Premises 53 54, _ Lavatories 55 56 . w 00 Toilets 57 • 58CC Iz Dressing Rooms 159 60 rn Ventilation 61 62 - Vr / Floors 63 64 G� � Walls -Ceiling 65 66. '--�° Janitorial Fac. 67 68 : r U Lighting 69 70 ✓�� ' V Clothing -Linen 71: 72 _y - tn Living Quarters 73 74 Signs -Permits 75 764-L ,. v�-- ESTA . STATUS: (MARK ONE) 7 78 79 80 81 G A F p ICE�JADD iESS A�N PHONE NUMBER RE9EIVED (: EGAL. ACTION: SANI IAN: , 82 83 84 CITATION❑CIOSURE� OTHERa -z, I PAGE OF., AVW R'O-OPY— DATE: MEMO TO: VCITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: � �-f-/ re-wff4 / 2✓ '�L tj:!�d"ui 1,--L6. v �tvcwc.t.. An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for >`rl-fZ) at their meeting. We would appreciate having your .comments by f/s/r - Thank you. 7-0 Helen Williams Planner att. !aN `mil �Al Ly t 4 ' t 2710-199 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNW COUNTY OF St1.N MATEO HONORABLE:. ARAM SERVERIAN DATE: November 7, 1995 Gil G mr) - 39 1 155 JUDGE DEPT. NO.: LORNA SANDBERG DEPUTY CLERK 3 ELIZABETH GEE COURT REPORTER (TITLE OF ACTION) BILL WYBLE, AL.BARTOUCCHI, et al - vs , . DONALD SABATINI, et at (APPEARANCES) Anthony V. Smith for Plaintiff Jane.Corning for Def. Donald Sabat Bruce Imai, Personal Attorney for Donald Sabatini INTERIM SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Unreported conference held in chambers with the Court and the 'above counsel Court convened. Above counsel present. Also present were Plaintiff Bill Wyble and Defendants Donald and Patricia Sabatini. Mr. Smith recited the terms of the settlement for the record as follows: This matter has settled in that the Defendant will pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $45,500.00 to thf Plaintiffs jointly in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. Wyble indicated that he has the authority to enter into this settlement on behalf of Plaintiff Al Bartoucchi. Ms. Corning indicated that there will also be a dismissal of the cross action. Both Messrs. Wyble and Sabatini stated that they agreed with and understood the settlement as stated. Court in ret DATE: November 7, 1995 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE - SETTLEMENT 39 1 1 5 S-------- Name. Adorn& and :'ole0twne No. Of AROM0 0 Tane A. Corning, Esq. !1app, Moroney, Bellagamba, et al. 4400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 Ier_lo Park, CA 94025 :15-327--1300 ;tate Bar No. 104327 Attorneys) far ..Def eudaRts,.. jI)QNALD........... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI 9pa06 gerow far U.t of court Clem only DEC 15 1995 ry t;;�rj(ai MlJ ..7v/I�r/t:1 t�t1y � s CI.1rRK 1// SUPERIOR.,,. COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF. $ .MATED,., ,,,,,,,_, (Sup RIOR, MUNICIPAL. or JUSTICE) ................................................ ........................... ' (Name of fdlJnlclpat or .luscce cart oiatnct a of bronen court. if ar>� Plaintiffs} BILL WYBLE, et al. CASE NUMBER 391155 Defendants(sk DONALD SABATINI, et al. (anoreMted Tale) REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL I «0-ACTL,iv Cj Personal Injury, Property Damage and Wrongful Death- [] Motor Vehicle Q Other C3 Domestic Relations [= Eminent Domain ® other: (specify), Commercial, Lease........... TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action Is'follows: (Check applicable Doxes.) 1. Co With prejudice 0 Without prejudice 2 ® Entire action n Complaint only Petition only (] Cross -complaint only (� Other: (3pecify)- Each party to bear their own costs and attorney' s fees. Dat::a:. /( III disfmssai =ested is of apelyTec parties riY, et sPeci6ed cduseS of ACUO.- only Of Of s0�nb crOs faints ony, so state and identity the flerties. muses of action of cross-c0=1Alnts to tta dismised. TO THE CLERK Consent to the above dlsmissal is hereby given. Dated:. ............... *Wihen a Cfall-co taint (or Response (Marriages) aeewn9 aft(aa- we resen is on tile, the attom&As) for the (rasa-compiaau (reapondent) swat sign a" consent wrten requ;fee W CCP sat(t). M orw. w / Attorne -s for Def /X-Gompl. , S68ATINIS Jane A Corning (Type or print attorney(s) name(s)) (To be completed by clerk) [� Dismissa! entered as requested on ................................ ............................... ..... .........•.......... Dismissal entered on ............................... as to only .......... .................................................. `4C3e!fl.smissal not entered as requested for the following reason(s), and attocney(s) notified on cn r, Clerk . l ated..............qu 15.19% ............................ Deputy CCP Sat, etc.: r� KFgfI-f.pptedbyRU►esezdf REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL cal. liufesofcouft. ----------- Name. Aaart:%s anaTetepnone No. orAet fnavCO lane A. Corning, Esq. :lapp, Moroney, Bellagamba, et ale 1400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 4enlo Park, CA 94025 115-327-1300 state Bar No. 104327 Attorney(s)for..DefC=dantJS,. AQNAx.D........... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI. Space Setow for tlae Of C4V Fa#A% Af501 FILED "N MATEO couNTY DEC 14'1995 C he Sup ' r Court By MA oePlJ SUP FJOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF , SAN . 94?Zr�P.............. (SUPERIOR, MUNICIPAL„ or JUSTICE) ............................................................................................ (Nsme of munidoat or ructce court oaetrtct a of Drench court, iC any) Plaintiff(s} BILL WYBLE, et al. f CASE NUMBER 391155 Defendants(s): DONALD SABATINI, et al. Cmore,Aated TWO REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL TYPE OF ACTION [] Personal Injury. Property Damage and Wrongful Death: M Motor Vehicle Q Other ED Domestic Relations p Eminent Domain a] other: (specify). Commercial. Lease,..Fraud and Misrepresentation TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: (Check applicable boxes.) 1. ® With prejudice 0 without prejudice 2 ® Entire action © Complaint only ED Petition only CD Cross -complaint only ® Other: (Specify),- Each party to bear their own casts and attorney Is fees. I- Datea:.. •... el ......... .....[ L. ....... sit dtimasf aeted A Of SPtGtied pOrtly. Of tpedhec —,tees of action only or of apeCirotd cross-COC2 enta only. so state and identity the panes. causes of action of cross -complaints to be d em:naed. TC THE CLERK: Consent to the above disn'Mal is hereby given. Datea:. )N.QV Rtbe'r, . !At. - 19-9.5 ............... a-Nhan a doss-c=tamt (or Anvonse (Martta94 Seaw+o Atwma• erne reset) is on rile.. the nttOMCAa) to( the cf°as-oomPta'nt (responacnU fnuat sign this Consent when nPOuioea tly CCP SolC0. M at (M. Attorneys) for P print ONY V. SMITH Atto Tollor Def / -Compl . , SAB NIS Jane A. Corning (Type or print attarney(s) name(s)) (To be completed by clerk) GEC 141995 Dismissal entered as requested on ........................ Dismissalentered on .............................. as to only.............................................................•.. . {:3 Dism??Qal not entered as requested for the fo(lovAng reason(s), and attorney(s) notified on GEC 141995 Clerk Dated. ............,,- ........................................ 13 Fofm Adopted py Rtde SM of .�rnr freer r-^n nrM 1IQC Ill .Deputy CCP Sat. at% : N 0 Name. Aoate%% and Talepnane NO. Of Attornty(s) Tane A. Corning, Efaq. Tapp, Moroney, Bellagamba, et al. 1400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 4enio Park, CA 94025 115-327-1300 State Bar No. 104327 Attorney(s) for..Deieudante... D0NALD........... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI space edow roc Use of covet Clow only FJTR-1D NOV 2 81995 f0;:.w:.�r.:.mot U ri 31 CLEAK !gVRERIOR . , . , , COURT OF CAL]FORNIA, COUNTY OF . SAN , "ATEO.............. (SUPERIOR, btUN1cim, or JUSTICE) ................................................ . .......................... (Name of uuniopat or lusttce coup Olatria or or branch court. If any) Plaintiff(s): BILL WYBLE, et al. CASENUMBER 391155 Defenoants(s): DONALD SABATINI, et al. (Abbwatea 7tne) REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL TYPE OF ACTION (] Personal Injury, Property Damage and Wrongful Death: ('Motor Vehicle © Other Q Domestic Relations I] Eminent Domain ® other: (specify). TwQXAltlercial:. Lease,. Fraud and Misrepresentation TO THE CLERK: Please pismiss this action as follows: (Check applicable boxes.) 1. M With prejudice Q Without prejudice 2 ® Entire action © complaint only C3 Petition only O Cross -complaint only an Other: (Specify)' Each party to bear their awn costs and attorney r s fees . / i Oared:.. - V Ak ..... l[i.. 1. �.... . =if olsatssai rG wasted ie of speCined parus<a onOr. or spetfflea c4usaa or action any or of Spadllaa ctoss•cottlplAints only, as state and Iaently the WiOG. Causes of Amon of tx06s-cam0181nts to be ms(fassea. Attorney(s)for P V. SMITH attorney(s) name(s)) TO THE CLERK Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.°' Dated:. J9QYgmber.. I .,..1995............... sawnen a crosa-cowwtnt for Rewonge (Nn"laQv sedan9 a(A— Attorney(s)for Def /X—Compl . , SABATINIS ttve relief) is on ram, the ettorneAs) for me croea.comptaint oesponaend must sign mis consent omen feWtfed by QCP Jane A. Corning seal). Cz or cm. , (Type or print attorneys) name(s)} (To be completed by clerk) dDismissal entered as requested on......................................................................... ........... .... [Q Dismissal entered on...............................as to only ....._............................... ..................._..:. �Mismissal not entered as requested for the following reason(s), and attorneys) notified on L . Clerk Dated............ NOV ..819 ............................... . ,Deputy Farm Adopted by Rule 282 Of ccp 5e t, AM.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2� 2( 2' 21 AN'I'IIONY V. SM17T-I, ESQ•, STATE BAR #124840 LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY V. SM1TH 700 TILTON AVENUE, SUITE ONE SAN MATEO, CAU FORNIA 94401-1920 (415) 548-0100 ATTORNEY FOR PL.AI TrIFFS "los 10 � 4� � SAM MATED COUNTY *�14 1995 RATE SG'r'EID Y4 ..._.......� DATE SUS! ll1 7- i--0 COB IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BILL VMLE, AL BARTOUCCHI, individually and doing business as NOVA COMPATIBLE HARDWARE SYSTEMS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 391155 i COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR FRAUD; NEGLIGENT 1 MISREPRESENTATION DONALD SAmmu; PATRICIA SABATNL and CASE MANAGEMENT CONFEPEN :E DOES 1-100, REFER TO SAN MA? EU COUt i Y -SUPER1(?,F1 COU LE ✓- Defendants. DATE: J r TiME: JtYT: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1, Each Plaintiff is a competent adult except PWatiffNova Compatible Hardware Syste (hereifM&rrefenedto as 'Nova Compatible") which is a general partnership conducted by Plaintiffs F Wyble and Al Bartoucehi. Plaintiff Nova Compatible has complied with all fictictuous nan requirements relating to the operation of its business. 2. Defendants Don Sabatini and Patricia Sabatini presently are, and at all tunes mention herein were, residents ofthe City of Burlingame, County ofSauMateo, California. 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times mentioned here Defendant Patricia Sabatini, was the agent and employee of Defendant Don Sabatini, and in doing r things herein alleged was acting within the course and scope of e2 a %W9t1=tk '�282.00/03--23387 acting with the permission and consent of her principal and employer. -- ---7 -T 1r , 1 4. PlaitliM am igporant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOl 2 1-100, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend ti 3 complairtto allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and belie 4 and thereon allege that: each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for S 5 occurrences herein alleged, and that the damage to plaintiffs, and each of them, was proximately caul 6 by their conduct. 7 5. On or abom April, 1993, Defendants were the owners of certain real property located 8 346 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). T 9 subject property was available for lease on or about said time and place. The subject property consi 10 of a commercial unit that is approximately 5200 square feet. The storefront section is approximatf 11 1200 square feet in size and is located on the upper portion of the property. A basement section of 12 subject property is approximately 4000 square feet in size. 13 6. Onor about April,1993, Defendants represented to plaintiff, and each of them, that 14 subjectproperty was available for lease as a commercial storefront and basement without any restricts 15 relating to its use. Defendants and each of them, represented that one-half of the basement section 16 the subject property was available for lease without restriction as to its use or otherwise. 17 7. The representations, and each of them, made by defendants were in fact false. The ti 18 facts are that the subject property was subject to use restrictions at the time the representations 19 defendants were made. 20 8_ Plaintiff's, at the time these representations were made by defendants and at the ti 21 plaintiffs took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the falsity of defendants' representations < 22 believed them to be true. In reliance on these representations, plaintiffs were induced to and in fact 23 enter into ale= of0c subject premises. Had plaintiffs known the actual facts, they would not have tal 24 such action. Plaintiffs' reliance on the representations of defendants was justified in light of 25 knowledge, information and expertise of defendants, and each of them. 26 9. As a diced and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaint 27 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 28 / 1 FIRST CAT SE OF ACTION NF,GI,IGENT AUSREPRESFNTATION 2 3 10. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight of th 4 Complaint into this the First Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein- 5 11. Defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to exercise reasonable care with respe 6 to representations relating to the use of the subject property in that they undertook to make representatio; 7 relating to the subject property to plaintiffs. As such, defendauts, and each of them, were under duty 8 exercise reasonable care relating to the truthfulness and accuracy of any representations made relating 9 the subject property. Defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to disclose all material fac 10 relatingto the use of the subject property to plaintiffs at all times during the course of their dealings wi 11 plaintiffs. 12 12• Defendants made the representations with no reasonable ground for believing them to 1 13 true, in that dEndants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the restrictive u 14 of the subject property. 15 13. At the time of making the aforesaid representations, defendants, and each of the, 16 concealed from plaintiffs their lack of information and their consequent inability to make. the alleg 17 representations accurately. 18 14. The representations of defendants were made by defendants with the intent to indu 19 plaintiffs to act in the manner herein alleged 20 15. Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made by defendants, and at the ti; 21 plainfrffs took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the falsity of the representations of defenda 22 and each plaintiff believed them to be true. In reliance on these representations, plaintiffs were induc 23 to and in fact did enter into a lease of the subject property. The reliance of plaintiffs on 24 representations of defendants was justified in light of the knowledge, information and expertise 25 defendants, and each of them. 26 16. As adited and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaint 27 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 28 / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2i 2E 2' 21 17. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and elev of this Complaint into this the Second Cause of Action as'though fully set forth herein. 18, On or about April, 1993, defendants promised plaintiffs that the subject property %& available for rent without any restrictions relating to its use or otherwise. 19. At the time defendants made the promise to plaintiffs, defendants had no intention performing their obligations relating to said promise. 2p. 'Me promise was made by defendants with the intent to induce plaintiffs to enter int- lease agreement for the subject property. 21. Plaintiffs, at the time this promise was made and at the time plaintiffs took the acti( herein alleged, were ignorant of the secret intention of the defendants not to perform. Plaintiffs had reason to suspect that defendants had no intention to perform as plaintiffs could not, in the exercise reasonable diligence, have discovered the secret intention of defendants. In reliance on the promise defendants, plaintiffs disregarded other opportunities to rent comparable commercial property that } no tMtr-ictions as to use or otherwise. If plaintiffs had known the actual intention of defendants, plaint would not have taken such action. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INT ,NTIONAL WSREPRESENTATION -OF—FACT 23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, etc through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty one of this Complaint into this the third Cause of A,ci as though fully set forth herein. 24. When defendants made the representations set forth in this complaint, they knew the' r be fiLw,, and the stations were made by defendants with the intent to defraud and deceive plaintl and with the intent to induce plaintiffs to act in the manner herein alleged. 1 25. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent and deceitful conduct of defendary 2 concerning the facts alleged herein, plaintiffs were forced to expend their time, energy, labor, ar. 3 resources to make alterations to the subject property in an attempt to make it useful for its bargained-fc 4 purpose. 5 26. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff 6 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 8 9 27. Plaintiffs rcallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, elev, 10 through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one of this Complaint into this the Fourth Cause of Acti, 11 as though fully set forth herein 12 28. Defendants, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care in the assertions oft 13 represedmons described herein, in that they failed to conduct themselves as reasonably prudent perse 14 under the same or similar circumstances. 15 29. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plainti 16 suffered the injuries and damages set forth below. 17 F1ETH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIOIypI, Cr.C.ON OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 18 19 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, eleN 20 through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one ofthis Complaint into this the Fifth Cause of Action 21 though fully set forth herein. 22 31. 'Ibe conduct of defendants, and each of them, was intended to and/or, was substantia 23 certain to result in the injuries and harm to plaintiffs, and each ofthcm as set forth hcreitL 24 32. As adirect and proximate result ofthe conduct of defendants, and each of them, Plaint 25 Bill Wyble and At Bartoucchi suffered emotional pain and suffering, including, but not limited to strt 26 anxiety, worry, nervousness, insomnia, fright, fear, nervousness, hurt and physical pain and sufferin, 27 33. As adired and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaint 28 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 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 21 2E SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 34. Plaintiffs realiege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, elev , through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one of this Complaint into this the Sixth Cause of Actio, as though fully set forth herein. 35. Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with defendants for the lease of the subjec propertyonoraboutA.pril,1993. The material terms ofthe lease agreement between the parties provide drat defr.ndants lease the subject property to plaintiffs on a month -to -month term at the rate of $1,000.0, per month. 36. Pursuartto the terms ofthe initial lease agreement, plaintiffs leased the storefront sectio of the subject property in addition to one-half of the basement section of the subject property. 37. Affrr plaintiffs took possession of the subject property, defendants dananded an increas in the rate of the monthly rental payment to the sum of $1,500.00 per month. Defendants represente d-atftbasis fortheir demand for the new rate of the monthly rental payment was because plaintiffs wet using more than one-half of the basement section of the subject property. 38. Plaintiffs commenced the payment of the new monthly rental payment in response to th demand of defendants. 39. A portion of the complete terns of the lease agreement between the parties wet manorialir-d inawriuenagreement signed by Plaintiff Bill Wyble, Plaintiff At Bartoucchi and Defenda, Donald Sabatini. A true and correct copy of said written lease agreement is attached as Exhibit A to th.- Complaint 40. By reason of the complete terms of said lease agreement, both written and oral, th agreement between the parties included, but was not limited to the following: Defendant agreed t upgrade the subjectproperty by installing a second exit; to install or reimburse plaintiffs for the installatic ofa bahroorn which would be accessible to all persons including those with disabilities; and to otherwk rude the subjectproperty so as to bring the subject property into compliance will all applicable healt safety, fire, and building codes. 1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FARH BREACH OF CONTRACT 2 3 41. Plaintiffs rcallcge and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and elev 4 through fifteen of this Complaint into this the Seventh Cause of Action as though fully set forth herei 5 42. By reason of the special relationship ofthe parties created as a result ofthe contractu 6 agten= t between tile parties, and each of them, defendants were in a fiduciary relationship that impos 7 a duty to act in good faith and with loyalty respecting the performance ofthe obligations arising and 8 the contract 9 43. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, was intentional, malicious, oppressi'% 10 willful and done with the conscious disregard ofthe rights of plaintiffs, and each of them. 11 44. As adirnct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and.each of them, plainti 12 were injured and damaged as described below. 13 14 EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTNE EVICTION 15 16 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and elev 17 of this Complaint into this the Eighth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 18 46. On or about June 28, 1994, Plaintiffs were given notice by the Burlingame Fi 19 Department to remove all items stoned in the basement area of the subject property as the items we 20 stored there illegally. 21 47. Asadirect and proximate result ofthe failure of defendants to maintain subject propej 22 in compliance with all applicable building, health and fire ordinances, the subject property was render 23 untenable and unfit for the purposes intended 24 48. As a dimet and proximate result ofthe conduct of defendants, and each of them, plainti 25 have been injured and damaged as hereinafter set forth 26 / 27 / 28 ! 7T•J -i=iczwnn') ximnn) -A.I(Z c.ate Gkpn;7-uT--Inr r Kathleen Parkin - Stuff page I From: "ATTY-Palmer, Fred" <FPalmeraburlingame.org> To: "Kathleen Parkin (E-mail)"<CCO-Kparkintmail.co.sanmateo.ca.us> Date: 7/17/00 7:33 AM Subject: Stuff Hi: Once again 1 need your assistance. 1 am trying to find out if there were any court records of a lawsuit involving the parties at 340-348 Lorton Ave in Burlingame. The individuals involved would have been Don Sabatini, a Mr. Wyble , a Mr Bartocchi. and the Nova Computer Systems Company. it would have involved the use of the basement in the building and filed around 1995. Any info you could get would be appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Fred Cyuuai-a�;pc�, T, iV (no n3g1165 _ p . . � (c% ( 0.5 4a0--), --,D �6�u.i _DMCCld. 31115 '-�Sj- ( T - 1 '17CA1(lfl`1 1 Iw1nn1% "A IC - r .f)n ne-An'7-0T_'lrl!` •JUG718-2000 08:53 SMC COUNTY COUNSEL P.01/03 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 29 BEFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages against defendants, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof, I For special damages in an amount according to proof; 3. For prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code 3291; 4. For punitive damages according to proof; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; 6. For the award ofreasonable attorneys fees pursuant to the lease agreement; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ffiff3ji IMMMIIOMA� A JUL718-2000 08:53 Y 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMC.000NTY COUNSEL SEVENTH CAUS OF ACTION Bib FAITH BREACH -OF CONTRACT 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and ele through fifteen of this Corplaint into this the Seventh Cause of Action as though fully set forth her 42. By reason of the special relationship of the parties created as aresult of the contrw agrom=t between the parties, and each of them, defendants were in afiduciary relationship that impo a duty to act in good faith and with loyalty respecting the performance of the obligations arising un the contract. 43. The conduct of defendants, and each of theII4 was intentional, malicious, oppressi willful and done with the conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and each of them. 44. As adirec t and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaint were injured and damaged as described below. EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE E'VICUON 45. Plainti$s reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and elev of this Complaint into this the Eighth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 46. On or about June 28, 1994, Plaintiffs were given notice by the ]Burlingame Fi Department to remove all items stored in the basement area of the subject property as the items we stored there illegally. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of defendants to maintain subject proper in compliance with all applicable building, health and fire ordinances, the subject property was renderf untenable and unfit for the purposes intended. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintif have been injured and damaged as hereinafter set forth. 1 JUL-18-2000 08:53 SMC COUNTY COUNSEL 1Catt;leen Parkin - Stuff P.03/03 From: "ATTY Palmer, Fred" <FPalmer@burlingame.org> To: "Kathleen Parkin (E-mail)"<CCO`KparkinLMmail.co.sanmateo.ca.us> Date: 7/17/00 7:33 AM Subject: Stuff Hi: Once again I need your assistance. I am trying to find out if there were any court records of a lawsuit involving the parties at 340-346 Lorton Ave in Burlingame. The individuals involved would have been Don Sabatini, a Mr. Wyble , a Mr Bartocchi, and the Nova Computer Systems Company. It would have involved the use of the basement in the building and filed around 1995. Any info you could get would be appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Fred &_U r � C tU 00D31?1155 "T-, t 5 Tam, �� - _'J TOTAL P.03 "" 'T�Z1�pW ALL P146Gl=IX pHcnT�QA�V CORP J 1 ` ' 3 Ej}C1 000 -Z roc 7 � ' �/G ^jJ�� .��. .. T.G . iNfc.CNGi•♦ / �f rt..r �c. �� d�J , ?t?riCii�' drG PGR�`rJ 11 I '?p'CSU0 L. (I,'<,, pj� Ca�aav P -- - o,,,c P�.cs�.✓ VDU -41t ,2 c, f Gr•-r R�: t ,r,.•r. �---3; E. 3R� D��Ws.lcc roRHt.tly'•.3. �c'fl PREPARED M THE OFFICE OF: AdFREDRIC V. ALLEN, INC. 1777 Trel Ploee, Suite 314 Son Mote., Cofifomio 94402 Phone (415)345-7568 Fax (415)345-8607 Cwfl Englneerfng a LonC Planning • Surveying SECOND FLOOR SCALE: 1/8"=1' SABATINI BUILDING DRIVE BURLINGAME CA 94010 JUN 2 0 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. \2N0FLD` G %ALy 4JIOurangame W pv at +W- 4* Plan Review Process N-PPROP j W C-j'rt V ullding Department PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6gs_725o - 696-1600 Plan Review -Comments �N�� «u> Job,Address. f .. Job Description. �o .-� r• ;. r . Application Nu er: -9 coSEaa �O me , App1'n D ate � ......-Check S Date: Fiu Resubi Date.:. -.Recheckl Date:. ... By: By. , [ Aped Resub2 Date: '' 'Not.Appd Resub3 Date: ._..R .e'chedk3 Date: ...By. . [ l Not Appd NOTE: When...Plans are.APPROVED check -the Plans —...By: APPfoved box below and [ ] . Not Appd sign. Plans approved* [ ] Without further comment By:— Date: L /1 �-� IE V ►For each change: 'cloud' revision on original sheet & proide a revision marker at each cloud and in revision block with date. <. i T (E) CONCRETE WALL BASEMENT OUTLINE r--------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------- -- ---- ------------------------------- ^- --------- E) DOOR TO REMAIN \� qc' STUD WALL. H) 4 STUD WALL WRR s/i GYP. 00. m'E'X BOTH sro6 � �--- BREAKER 56.33' op. 'r CTR to � o FROM CORNER r- CORNER g O RELOCATE TO NEW WALL N) 3'DOOR I - 49.15� ` Ir CONCRETE BLOCK WALL INSTALL NEW DOOR JAMB AND CUT (q WINDOW TO FIT (N) DOOR A� D 1 (q CONCRETE WALL MMnJ46..' N ROOM N - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BATHROOM 33.70' DETAIL A DETAIL B Ui SCALE 1/2" = 1' 0 N.T.S. p A ,1 a ((N)) FL FIRE RATED WILL J 3 3 0 Y o GROUND N m LEVEL `a 3 _�^ 'aD SAWCUT 7'8"t REMOVE SPRKLR. SPRKLR. CONC. I I I � 8.2 I1 /2" (N) STRINGER - (�r.r:I a'= o•- s ANGLE i S/ pw BOLT$ TO SiRINOER AND 1—S/� D'A ANCHOR BOLTS TO SUB a' OEEV, SET WITH EPO%Y GROUT (E) SUB a DETAIL C N.T.S. SEMENT F OR SLAB " " 16'9" --�jl RECEIVED MAR 2 81994 CROSS-SECTION A -A CM°,IUWIG"E SCALE: 1 /4" =1' SHE, 0 DATE: JOB#: _ FTIe name: Q\FILES\5083\L0 , h � \ h1,i5 l Y K. STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAME To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000 Fxom: CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # 6c MTG. DATE 12.18.00 SUBMTT D BY aL � APPFRVED BYVpM �y SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dry Cleaning Processing Plant at 1360 Broadway, Zoned C-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council 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. For reference the possible action alternatives and criteria for a conditional use permit are included at the end of the staff report. The conditions approved by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2. that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on November 27, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) to approve a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway. In their action the Commission found that this proposed retail use is less intense in terms of parking (dry cleaning plant 5 parking spaces, grocery store 6, no parking -1- Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permitfor a Dry Cleaning December Processing Plant at 1360 Broadway, Zoned C-1. provided on site) and that while the facade will be cleaned up no exterior changes are proposed. Commissioner inquired about waste disposal and were told that the business operator would have all contaminated water removed from the site and disposed of by an approved waste disposal company. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Gunadi Kismohandaka, is requesting a conditional use permit in order to locate a full service dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway commercial district. The site was previously occupied by grocery store, but is now vacant. No major alterations to the building are proposed for the dry cleaning business; however upgrades to become compliant with public safety, environmental and disabled access will be made. The processing equipment is a closed loop refrigerated system. Contaminated water would be removed from the site by a professional disposal company. The business site is nonconforming in parking; there is no on -site parking. Since the proposed use does requires less parking'than the previous grocery store use, a parking variance is not required. However, if this retail use is approved, a grocery store may not locate on this site in the future without a parking variance. The site is accessible to public transportation, pedestrians, public lots "Q" behind the site off Capuchin Avenue and to on -street metered parking. The business will be open Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and closed Sunday. The maximum number of employees on site initially will be on week days before 5 p.m., when it will be three. In five years the maximum number of employees on site at one time will be the same. The applicant expects the peak times for pick up and drop off of dry cleaning will be in the early morning and late afternoon. City Staff have reviewed this request. The City Engineer in his memo of September 25, 2000 noted that the applicant would need to complete a sewer lateral test, provide the city with information on water usage, review the on -site cleaning process with and get approval from the waste water treatment plant, and address parking issues. The Fire Marshall noted that the Fire Department has discussed the solvents used with the applicant (September 25, 2000 memo). ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Findings Monroe letter to Gunadi Kismohandaka, December 5, 2000, setting appeal hearing Madeline Zerdelian, Peter Chai, Michael and Pandora Lai letter to City Clerk, November 30, 2000, requesting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, November 27, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, November 27, 2000, with attachments Public Notice, Appeal Hearing, Mailed December 8, 2000 Resolution -2- 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. CRITERIA FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 1360 BROADWA �b CITY G .11119 M. CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Califomia 94010-3997 December 5, 2000 Gunadi Kismohandaka 3725 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Dear Mr. Kismohandaka, At the City Council meeting of December 4, 2000, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area. A public hearing will be held on December 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, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 1360BROA.acc c: Madeline Zerdelian Peter Chai Michael and Pandora Lai Michael Seigel James and Stella Wu and Victor Wu, property owners City Clerk Tel. (M) 558-7200 YOUR CLEANERS BROADWAY CLEANERS, AND BROAD WA Y FASHION November 30, 2000 Ms. Ann Musso City Clerk, Burlingame Dear Ms. Musso: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: AN APPEAL HEARING SHOULI BE SET FOR DECEMBER 18, 2000. ANN T. MUSSO CITY CLERK This letter serves as a notice by the above captioned parties to appeal the City of Burlingame's decision approving the opening of a dry cleaning business at 1360 Broadway Avenue, Bulingame (approved 11/27/00). Attached to this letter is a check in the amount of $250 to cover the appeal fee. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Thank you. Madeline Zerdelian Peter Chai Michael and Pandora Lai Your Cleaners Broadway Fashion Cleaners Broadway Cleaners 1321 Broadway Ave 1175 Chula Vista Ave 1234 Broadway Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)343-2951 (650)579-4855 f650)348-1660 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2000 amendment toe sign code which would allow illuminated signs in the R-3 zone with a special permit. Chairman Luzuriaga sec ded the motion. Discussion o the motion: Call Primrose is still legal use with proposed motion. Could it be rebuilt in event of fire or natural di ster? C ote that Call Primrose could be rebuilt subject to current C-1, Subarea B zoning and building requ reme Staff directed to giv ority on the January 8, 2000 agenda. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). This item concluded at 8:47 p.m. 9. 1360 BROADWAY - ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT (GUNADI KISMOHANDAKA, APPLICANT; JAMES AND STELLA WU, TRS AND VICTOR S. WU, PR ()PFR TV OWNER Cl Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and conditions for approval. Commission had no questions for staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Michael Seagal, representing the applicant, and Jerald Laesser of Martinizing Dry Cleaning Franchise, were present to answer questions. Commission asked if contact water from the Thermo Tek evaporative water treatment system is deposited in the sewer system? Applicant responded that contact water is contained in barrels which are removed by a waste disposal company. There were no further comments from Commission or the audience and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the proposed retail use is less intense in terms of parking than the former grocery store use and that the proposed exterior changes are minor. C. Keighran moved to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2) that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 10. 1243 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - PLICATION G VARIANCE FOR A CLASSROOM USE (TRAFFIC SCHOOL) OC OLOGNE, OCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, APPLICANT; LIP H. SHAMIL T AL, PROPFR��R) Reference staff report, 11.27.00, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report and conditions for approval. Commission asked staff if it is possible to place a sunset clause on a use? CA responded yes. Commission had no additional questions. -6- City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for Dry Cleaning Processing Plant Address: 1360 Broadway Item # Cl Action Meeting Date: 11/27/00 Request: Conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area (C.S. 25.36.030, 8 ). Applicant: Gunadi Kismohandaka APN: 026-095-170 Property Owners: James and Stella Wu Trs, Victor S. Wu Lot Area: 3,901 SF General Plan: Commercial - Shopping and Service Zoning: C-1, Broadway Commercial Area Adjacent Development: Commercial Retail CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class l(a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Existing Use: Building is currently vacant. Most recent use was a retail grocery store. Proposed Use: Martinizing - a full service dry cleaning processing plant. The proposed use is in an existing retail building. Allowable Use: Dry cleaning processing plant requires a conditional use permit in the C-1 zone. Summary: The applicant, Gunadi Kismohandaka, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a dry cleaning processing plant in an existing retail building. The following application is required: • A conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant in the C-1 zone (C.S. 25.36.030, 8 ). The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a dry cleaning processing plant, Martinizing, which would occupy 1,672 gross floor area of an existing building at 1360 Broadway, located on the corner of Broadway and Capuchino Avenue. This tenant space was recently occupied by a grocery store (retail use), but is now vacant and for lease. The applicant notes that this is a full service dry cleaning facility. There are no major alterations proposed to the building. Interior improvements and upgrading to the building would be necessary to comply with public safety, environmental and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant notes that Martinizing uses a state-of-the-art dry cleaning machine (see attached color brochure for Union dry cleaning system). The machine is a closed loop refrigerated machine with an integrated solvent safety trough. Machines would be serviced by Safety-Kleen Co. for proper waste disposal. A Thermo Tek evaporative water treatment system is used for disposal of contact water. Martinizing would obtain guidance and resources in complying with environmental laws during the Martinizing Training Program and would receive materials and sources for additional information to evaluate compliance. Conditional Use Permit for Dry Cleaning Processing Plant 1360 Broadway The site is nonconforming in parking and there are no on -site parking spaces available. Since there is no intensification of use on the site (a grocery store and dry cleaning facility are considered retail uses) and by current code standards less parking is required for a dry cleaning facility (1:400 GSF) than for a grocery store (120% of required 1:400 GSF of parking), no additional on -site parking is required for the proposed use. The applicant notes that the employees would use public transportation and park in parking lot "Q" located behind the site off Capuchino Avenue (12,10-hour spaces and 12, 2-hours spaces). Customers would park in metered street parking (2-hour and 10-hour meters on Capuchino Ave. and 1-hour meters on Broadway) and public parking lots in the area (see attached map of street meters and public parking lots in the Broadway Commercial Area). The dry cleaning processing plant will be open Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. There will be three full-time employees on weekdays before 5 p.m. and two after 5 p.m. On weekends, there will be two full-time employees. The number of full-time employees is expected to stay the same in 5 years. One to two part-time employees will be added in the day time hours in five years. The maximum number of customers is expected to be 30 before 5 p.m. on weekdays and weekends and 20 after 5 p.m. on weekends. In 5 years, the number of customers is expected to increase to 95 before 5 p.m. on weekdays and weekends and 50 after 5 p.m. on weekends. A total of six people are expected on site at any one time including employees and customers. No deliveries to the site for this business are expected. The applicant notes that the peak periods for drop-off/pick-up of dry cleaning are early morning and late afternoon hours. Proposed Existing Allowed/Re 'd. Use: Dry Cleaning Processing Vacant Conditional Use Permit Plant* Grocery Store Most for Dry Cleaning Recent Use Processing Plant Floor Area: 1,672 SF 1,672 SF 1,672 SF * Conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant in the C-1 zoning district. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: See attached. Study Meeting: At the November 13, 2000 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commissioners asked several questions regarding the application. The applicant responded to these questions in the attached response date stamped November 14, 2000. In regards to exterior improvements, the applicant intends to remove the existing signs and exterior lighting, repair and refurbish the existing awning, and repaint the building. The Commission asked if the applicant will be requesting a sign exception. The applicant notes that backlit channel letter signs will be used and should conform to the sign ordinance. The applicant does not anticipate a sign exception. There will be no cleaning brought from other businesses or dry cleaning agencies to be processed at this location. 2 Conditional Use Permit for Dry Cleaning Processing Plant 1360 Broadway Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a dry cleaning processing plant, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings for the conditional use permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2. that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben G. Hurin Planner c: Gunadi Kismohandaka, applicant 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga calle4,0e November 13, 2000, regular meeting of lanning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m., II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreilin /eighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga None Present: City Planner, MargaretXo( ; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engined Murtuza III.ex,MINUTES The minutes of the October 27, 0 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with a correction to page 9, at the e of paragraph 1, add "The motion was seecpded by C. Osterling". IV. APPROVAL OF AGE A The order of the agen was approved with the following chan . Item 11 - 1443 Howard Avenue and Item 13 - 800 Airp Boulevard were both continued to th ovember 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. V. FROM T FLOOR Henry S nson, 525 Almer Road, asked tXoject at 535 Almer Road be called off the consent calend and a public hearing held. Thereurther comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1360 BROADWAY - ZONED C-19 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT (GUNADI KISMOHANDAKA, APPLICANT; JAMES AND STELLA WU, TRS AND VICTOR S. WU, PR ( PER TV QWNER R) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: is the applicant was expecting to make any exterior improvements to the building, if so what; will the applicant be asking for a sign exception; will cleaning be brought from other business sites or dry cleaning agencies to be processed at this location; do they have any idea what they might do to the exterior. There were no further questions and the item was set for the November 27 action calendar providing the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 11/15/00 12:39 V415 771 1115 TERRANOMICS Q 001/001 Terranomics Retail Services 126 Post Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, Ca 94108 Phone:415.414.6100 Fax: 415.771.1115 Web: www.terranomics.com To: Ruben Hurin 501 Primrose Burlingame,CA94010 Fax: (650) 696-3790 From: Michael E. Seigel Date: November 14, 2000 Subject: 1360 Broadway, Burlingame, CA Ruben, RECEIVED NOV 15 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The following are the responses to the Planning Commission's questions regarding Gunadi Kismohandaka's application for CUP at the above referenced address. 1) Signage: New back lighted channel letter signs subject to city sign ordinance. We do not anticipate request for a sign exception. 2) Outside cleaning: There will be no cleaning brought from other cleaning sites or agencies to be processed at this location. 3) Exterior improvements: a) Removal of old sign & lights b) Repair & refurbishing of canopy. c) Removal of old paint & repainting of entire exterior. Please let me know if there is any additional information , which we can supply. We will be present at the November 27 h Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Michael Seigel Agent for Gunadi Kismohandaka ROUTING FORM DATE: September 20, 2000 E _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-095-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, q , Zs . oa THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben Date of Comments rx-vue'-r uax��j Wt� Gil 1-aS- . b 7 1 ate^ r T WWT iP ROUTING FORM DATE: September 20, 2000 TO: _CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUr, G OFFICIAL )(g E MARS. SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-095-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, 01. Z S r p'C> THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben 11 a q2._- Date of Comments CITY OF BURLINGAMIJ APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COM2%HSSION Type of Application: ✓ Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: 1300 ]b 5URU r1GAMS , Cal Assessor's Parcel Number(s): QaG - OBI5 - t70 APPLICANT PROPERTY r OWNER - Name: GUNADI K1S1A01-IAtj0AV A Name: V � l OR Wµ Address: 104 LAKE M'G k= +4 0, Address: iz �o 'Po 5-c ST City/State/Zip: SAH rRAficisco .cACw132. City/State/Zip: A _ og Phone (w):1.1.t ii 51 585 59ci of Phone (w): Q4+ d 3 $ 3 (h): LH I5l 585 50igOl (h): fax: (.4+1,) 555 fax: CL p � ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person PROJECT DESCRIPTION: H e vn /y�� ef f I/a � //�/Jja��.� d� v o 6u1.116/�1A4" Tn Lt frn�.,.,ncl'ale / ,a.,itstI cI- rQ G4 for this application. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATUILE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct t the best of my knowledge d"belief. i � 2o0n Ap cant's Sign Lure Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Com rion. Property Owner's Signature Dafe ---------------- -- -FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -------------------- ���F D Date Filed: '.' t °I ' O o Fee: $ 33 S . o O SEP 19 2000 Planning Commission: Study Date: ► / • 13,00 Action Date: 11. 2,7 • D O CITY OF B U R L I N G A M E PLANNING DEPT. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements_ in the vicinity or to public health, sq/ety, general welfare, or convenience. f 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 3. , Wow- will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character -of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? RECEIVED Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience? The proposed project is MARTINIZING, a full service dry clean facility. MARTINIZING will not propose a major alteration to the existing proposed building that will affect neighboring properties. We do propose, however, a well needed upgrade to the building to comply with public safety, evironmental laws and American Disability Acts (ADA). MARTINIZING will attract and service the residents of the surrounding communities of Burlingame and Hillsborough. Our particular use of the property attribute to the community provide: very hospitable, pleasant environment, will not be noisy, and/or unruly. Our new store appearance will enhance the neighborhood business strip. MARTINIZING shares in the concern for protection of the environment. We will address those concerns by: *Using only State -of -the -Art Dry Cleaning Machine: A closed loop refrigerated machine with an integrated solvent safety trough. *Applying Eucopoxy Tufcoat: A high-performance floor -coating system designed to provide concrete surfaces with excellent wear resistance in combination with protection against chemical attack. *Using the service of Safety-Kleen Corporation for proper waste disposal. A Thermo Tek evaporative water treatment system is used for disposal of contact water. *Obtaining guidance and resources in complying with environmental laws during the Martinizing Training Program, along with materials and sources for additional information to evaluate compliance. *Join industry associations and obtain industry subscriptions to keep informed of environmental compliance. 2 How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed sites is 1360 Broadway, Burlingame, CA. According to Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, this proposed sites is located in the area spesifies for shopping and service and in the C-1 zoning. MARTINIZING is a dry cleaning service that will fit accordingly. RECEIVED SEP 19 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT 3 How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? MARTINIZING will not alter the existing structure and will not change the character of the neighborhood, however, our planned cosmetic improvements to the building will enhance the appearance of the street. MARTINIZING will not be more intense or offensive than surrounding retails. MARTINIZING is in and out transaction business that will not intensify traffic and/or parking. Early mornings and late afternoons are the most intense business hours. Since these times of the day are before and after the streets normal business hours, traffic and parking generated by Martinizing will not have a negative effect on the street. The site at 1360 Broadway will utilize street parking and the two public parking lots located North and South of Broadway on Capuchino Ave. Consider that MARTINIZING is a strong franchise, the oldest and most -respected name in dry cleaning. Virtually every household in America has a repeat need for our service. This service is not a fad or a luxury. Dry cleaning is a much needed service in good times and bad times. Dry -cleanable clothes must be professionally cleaned and now more than ever before, consumers tend to take better care of their wardrobes to ensure longer wear. COMMMCIAL APPLICATIONS �._:. �.•-'° PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 1. Proposed use of the site. A FULL S FRS r G E DKT C 5A P4 FA C, ► ' t� 2. Days and hours of operation. MOr QAY- FR(l)AY , 7am -'J�m , SkTuKDAY - qa 1A 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). riod Is 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this locatj,, ,• Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of Operation AM- After PM 5:00 PM AM- After PM 5:00 PM AM- After PM 5:00 PM Weekdays Full-time 3 z 3 z 3 2 Part-time 2 Weekends Full-time 2 2 0 2 Part-time 4 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of Operation AM- PM After 5:00 PM AM- After PM 5:00 PM AM- PM After 5:00 PM Weekdays 30 2.0 bo 40 Weekends 30 o 60 q5 6. What is the maximum number. of people expected on site at any one time (include owner; employees and visitors/customers): -- fo pb0 P c 7. Where do/will the owner & employees park? PUP 0 c, x- L0'%Tf W PARKIr4( LOT e F_f1t++0 Tilt s tT o orb CA Puctq(r40 Avr , 8. Where do/will customers/visitors park? sTgf,tT PARktr1Cr x- THE TWO P01t 'Ltc, P4P K(HG LaTS LOCATE-D 40ZF {.t- SouTi+ of e>R6ADKA: orl CAPucKu4c) Ave. 9. Present or most recent use of site. . AWA rt E e e & R0C6 R :C 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of oV lJ` 'o attach list if necessary). V E D SEP 19 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNINC, DEPT. Martin Franchises Inc. Franchisor of the World's Largest Dry Cleaning Franchise ENVIR ONMENTALL Y CONSCIOUS As the world's largest and finest dry cleaning franchise, One Hour Martinizing® Dry Cleaning shares in the concern for protection of the environment. Here are some things our independent franchise operators opening new stores typically do to address those concerns: • State -of -the -Art Dry Cleaning Machine: A closed loop refrigerated machine with an integrated solvent safety trough is utilized (brochure enclosed). • Epoxy Floor Coating: Eucopoxy Tufcoat is applied on the work area floor. • Waste Removal: Services of Safety-KleenOO Corporation are used for proper waste disposal. A Thermo Tek evaporative water treatment system is used for disposal of contact water. • Environmental Law Compliance: Obtain guidance and resources in complying with environmental laws during the Martinizing® Training Program, along with materials and sources for additional information to evaluate compliance. • Industry Associations: Join industry associations and obtain industry subscriptions to keep informed of environmental compliance. A full service One Hour Martinizing® plant would be a welcome addition to any upscale shopping center. 2005 Ross Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45212-2021 Telephone (513) 351-621 1 Fax (513) 731-0818 P735 - P735U2000 / P740 - P740U2000 Only Union could offer a system so advanced, yet so incredibly affordable ❑ Huge, 35 and 40 lb. basket ❑ Dual lint filters ❑ Still overflow protection ❑ Two self-cleaning tanks ❑ Stainless steel tank reflectors ❑ Self-cleaning disc Eco-Filter ❑ Carbon decolorator filter ❑ Stainless steel parts and construction ❑ Soap additive unit ❑ AutoDryTM sets fastest drying time per load ❑ Self -drying button trap famous quality... unbeatable price! raced features comply with all regulations :.:current and proposed! IT " v. r^ntrnl n i9(1 n ❑ COMPUTER DIALOG 700 micropi enntrnl with fi ill marn ml giver -ruin Unequa'led-in--.- Value. SPECIFICATIONS subject to change without notice. DESCRIPTION P735 P735 U2000 P740 P740 U2000 BASKET Dry Weight Capacity 35 Lbs 35 Lbs 40 Lbs 40 Lbs Diameter 317, inchs 31 7, inchs 35,5 inchs 35,5 inchs Depth 22,25 inchs 22,25 inchs 21 inchs 21 inchs Door Opening Diameter 20 inchs 20 inchs 20 inchs 20 inchs Wash Speed 40 Rpm 40 Rpm 40 Rpm 40 Rpm Extract Speed 408 Rpm 408 Rpm 400 Rpm 400 Rpm TANKS CAPACITY Tank 1 21 Gal. 21 Gal. 25 Gal. 25 GAI. Tank 2 34 Gal. 34 Gal. 40 Gal. 40 Gal. STILL CAPACITY Volume/Useful 39 Gal. 39 Gal. 43 Gal. 43 Gal. Actual Volume 46,5 Gal. 46,5 Gal. 51 Gal. 51 Gal. FILTERS Type Ecological + Deco Ecological � Deco Ecological + Deco Ecological + Deco Area 42 Sf 42 St 42 St 42 St Volume /4,5 Gal. 14,5 Gal. 14,5 Gal. 14,5 Gal. Circuits Nr.1 Nr.1 Nr.1 Nr.1 Number of Cartridges Nr. 1 Nr. 1 Nr. 1 Nr. 1 Number of Tubes Nr. 1 Nr. 1 Nr. 1 Nr. 1 MACHINE DIMENSIONS Width 37,79 inchs 37,79 inchs 49,21 inchs 49,21 inchs Depth 80,7 inchs 80,7 inchs 83,46 inchs 83,46 inchs Height/With Fan 78,75 inchs 78,75 inchs 81,10 inchs 81,10 inchs Minimum Entry Opening 38x79 inchs 38x79 inchs 50x78 inchs 50x78 inchs ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS Wash Motor 0.67 Hp 0,67 Hp 0,8 Hp 0,8.Hp Extract Motor 2,27 Hp 2,27 Hp 3 Hp 3 Hp` Fan Motor 1 Hp 1 Hp 3 Hp 3 Hp Pump Motor 0,67 Hp 0,67 Hp 1 Hp 1 Hp Air Exchange Motor 0,08 Hp 0,08 Hp 0,08 Hp - Compressor 1 3,35 Hp 3.35 Hp 5 Hp 5 Hp Mini Recuper fan _ 0.75 Hp 1 Hp Still residue pump 0,75 Hp _ 0,75 Hp SUPPLY CONNECTIONS Regulated Air Pressure 99 Psi 99 Psi 99 Psi 99 Psi Regulated Stcam Pressure 65 Psi 65 Psi 65 Psi 65 Psi Regulated Water Pressure 35 Psi 75'F Max 35 Psi 75'F Max 35 Psi 75'F Max 35 Psi 75'F Max SUPPLY DIMENSIONS Air 1/4' 1/4' 1/4' 1/4' Steam Inlet 112' 1/2' 112' 112' Steam Outlet 1/2' 112' 1/2' 1/2' Water Inlet 1/2' 1/2' 3/4' 3l4' Water Outlet 1/2' 112' 314' 3/4' MACHINE WEIGHT Empty 2510 Lbs 2690 Lbs 3328 Lbs 3574 Lbs With solvent 3480 Lbs 3660 Lbs 4442 Lbs 4684 Lbs DISTRIBUTED BY: State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD Executive Order G-96-014-93109.06d Relating to the Review of Source Test Results for Secondary Control Systems Required by the Dry Cleaning Airborne Toxic Control Measure Union Drycleaning Products, U.S.A. Victory 5000 SF -Series Models SF-353V, SF-453V, SF-553V, and SF-803V; Union U-2000 L-Series Models L-353U, L-45U, L-55U, L-80U, L-740, L750, L-760, L-780,. and L-790 and; and the Union U-2000 P-Series Models P-735 and P-740 Dry Cleaning Machines WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board (Board or ARB), pursuant to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations, Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 17, section 93109, subsection .(g)(2)(B), requires that new perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities that begin operations after April 1, 1996, operate dry cleaning machines equipped with both primary and secondary control systems; WHEREAS,. pursuant to section 93109, subsection (g)(3)(C)(4), the secondary control.system must be demonstrated to achieve a final concentration of 300 parts per million on a volumetric basis in the drum of the dry cleaning machine at the end of the dry cleaning cycle; WHEREAS, pursuant to section 93109, subsection (h), the ARB has established a testing procedure for demonstrating that secondary control systems meet the requirements of section 93109, subsection (g)(3)(C)(4); and WHEREAS, Union Drycleaning Products, U.S.A. (Union) has submitted a source test report prepared by Analytical Environmental Services, dated November 12, 1997, to the ARB to demonstrate that the Victory 5000 dry cleaning machines meet the requirements for secondary control systems, pursuant to section 93109, subsection (g)(3)(C)(4). WHEREAS, Union also has submitted information, dated November 26, 1997; September 23, 1998; July 1, 1999; August 12, 1999, May 3, 2000, and August 18, 2000; demonstrating that the technical designs and specifications of the Victory 6000 SF -Series, the Union U-2000 L-Series, and the Union U-2000 P-Series dry cleaning machines are essentially identical. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND that the source test report and information submitted by Union have met the criteria of section 93109, subsection (h). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ALSO FOUND that the source test report and additionally submitted infomtation demonstrate that the Victory 5000 SF -Series Models SF-353V, SF-453V, SF-553V, and SF-803V; Union U-2000 L-Series Models L-353U, L-45U, L-55U, L-80U, L-740, L750, L-760, L-780, and L-790 and; and the Union U-2000 P-Series Models P-735 and P-740 Dry Cleaning Machines dry cleaning machines meet the perchicroethylene concentration standard for secondary control systems for new facilities pursuant to section 93109, subsection (g)(3)(C)(4). Executed at Sacramento. California, this of 2000. Michael P. Kenny E4er cutive Officer By:. Venturini, Chief Stationary Source Division a N i�, 7"W AUMORMAUON TO MARIM 0 .-M., u^&%,-xvma X, Va. :md Is pernu=Oy-mm .Wmt that urea a am In deadmS Eqdpment (AN =Iry and Dryclesiggg Of mc= - Cavadlan Electric 1) Twarwetv of T.4pApk Tmdg EUCOPDXY TUFCOATCEIVED TWO-PART EPDXY COATING SEP 19 2000 EUCOPDXY TUFCOAT is a high-performance floor - coating system designed to provide concrete surfaces with excellent wear resistance in combination with protection against chemical attack. These outstanding properties are further enhanced by the availability of a wide selection of semi -gloss colors for superior aes- thetic benefits. EUCOPDXY TUFCOAT is a two-part coating that can be used as a primer for most products in the EUCOPDXY TUFCOAT line. PRIMARY APPLICATIONS • Food processing plants • Auto/truck repair bays • Warehouse floors • Chemical plants • Manufacturing plants FEATURES / BENEFITS • Provides excellent wear under traffic • Excellent resistance to a variety of chemicals • Hardens to a semi -gloss finish • Easy to apply with standard equipment • Can be applied as a nonslip floor finish • Available in a variety of colors • No separate primer required SPECIFICATIONS / COMPLIANCES • EUCOPDXY TUFCOAT is approved for use by the U.S.D.A. (Terra Cotta and Yellow are not U.S.D.A. approved). PACKAGING EUCOPDXY TUFCOAT is available in 2 gal (7.6 liter) and 10 gal (38 liter) kits. Mixing ratio is 1 to 1 by volume. CITY OF BURLINGAME TECHNICAL INFORMATION Typical Engineering Data The following results were developed under laboratory conditions. Re -coat time.............................................2-24 hours Suitable for foot traffic .............................. @24 hours Suitable for wheel traffic .......................... @48 hours Dry to touch'at 70•F (21 °C) ............................ 2 hours Pot life at 70OF (21 °C) ............................. 6 to 8 hours Mixing ratio by volume A to B ...........................1 to 1 Total solids content.............................................58% Dry film thickness ................................. 3-4 mils/coat Shelf life...........................................................1 year Flexibility............................................................ good Weathering ................................................ very good Abrasion Resistance: Taber Abrader ...................................... 30.2 mg loss CS-17 wheel with 1,000 gm/500 cycles CHEMICAL RESISTANCE Acetic Acid, 5%................................................... poor Alkalies........................................................ excellent Ammonia ..................................................... excellent Battery Acid ....................................................... good Beer............................................................. excellent Bleach.......................................................... excellent Brake Fluid ........................................................ good Ethanol............................................................... poor Ethylene Glycol ............................................ excellent Gasoline...................................................... excellent Hydrochloric Acid, 10%..................................... good MEK.................................................................... poor Methylene Chloride ............................................. poor MIBK................................................................... poor Nitric Acid, 5%.................................................... poor Oil................................................................ excellent Phosphoric Acid, 30%........................................ poor Salt water ..................................................... excellent Skydrol@............................................................ good Toluene.............................................................. good Urine............................................................ excellent Xylene.......................................................... excellent RATINGS: Poor- affected within 24 hours; Good - no affect for24 hours; Excellent - no affect after 2 weeks. NOTE: Where chemical resistance is rated as poor, check the ratings on EUCOTHANE as a possible topcoat for upgraded chemical resistance. A Holderchem / RPM Company I rh46rp i\tYgy-V -4; &j .i o tte'oar+f.111t No. 0 1 w Date: i safetq��leen � w Clear Solutions to Contaminated Material Problems Certificate of Asstirance and Indemnification For Safety-Kleen Corp. provides solvents for use in our equipment and in customer owned equipment. Safety-Kleen also removes contaminated materials from its customers' premises for processing. Safety-Kleen certifies to you that as long as you comply with applicable laws and regulations and the terms of your agreement with Safety-Kleen, Safety-Kleen assumes full responsibility for those materials once Safety-Kleen removes them from your facility: • We agree to transport, store, recycle, reclaim, re -refine and dispose of the contaminated materials we remove from your facility in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. • In the event a spill occurs while we are transporting, storing, recycling, reclaiming, re -refining or disposing of your contaminated materials we will pay all costs.and expenses :to clean up that spill. • In the event ground or water pollution results from our 6risporting, storing, recycling, reclaiming, re -refining or disposal of your contaminated materials, we will pay all costs and expenses to remedy that pollution. Safety-Kleen agrees to indemnify, defend and hold you harmless from all liability arising from Safety-Kleen's transporting, storing, recycling, reclairning, re -refining or disposing of your materials including, but not limited to the costs of any remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (also known as Superfund) or comparable state law, provided that you comply with applicable laws and regulations and the terms of your agreement with Safety-Kleen. SAFELY-KLEEN CORP. Over $1,000,000,000 in Asseis NYSE Symbol: (SK) D&B Rating: 5A2 Donald W. Brinc man Chairman urrd Chief Executive Officer Form91445Rev.8/97 ©1989 Safety Kleen Corp. Printed in U.S.A. on retyded pa[— 7'3 ! N / ,ww -ul p;v �a%'L' rq IV rn c 0 n i H o n d V { .. _- - - t )' °_ •,a 77 c7 )a , aim.) _ • �: , )• ., __ J 3 Av �• '_ — •r � A • .. � : )1 c, 71 , 1, � a •1..., a • , a "" •�'ai� �j' �'`"� sa �, • / S • a, eb vrvo-lvd boll r-3 N rl )1 � al ► )1 ►1 I OZ • •' M .- ` ti S: ,% � �'• �r Z ` ' w I 3A ?r, A „a w• V J a i • • I t f , .e js� •") ,7 97 „ sr -ra: to -• ._.. %/ �/— ,i V N n rJ V'j a3�/>'t�.Bt D pll �r, � ' , a , - " cdl ' if p )+ s, ), { u , 1 1 ° ,7 7 a n, ,a ' , t D sr • , .as, • 3 !1 l�J � to mac' =r . go V1SIA v ' 171 - 1-•.,,.. a ni a 4.i a 2'a, 21 4I 2 ' 07 — C :n �►s a ,1 ► is n tr itl ' SY+•... • j"C t ° 4r: r •�.J %� e _ '�' 1 ' . � i I - �s-7J~ - t •s,,�� < ..' i tom: Ia 0dl'1v0 w3AIa0 AA) - - ��^fix � � 1�'T •�-----• 71. ~��-��:��� _.... .. -13"nl:PTrya•!ass•9.+.iiPA'�9;n,^+..'rrvam+Q^!.�y,ym-.. ... ..r.._............,....:........-_.._....... .. .. '.. CITY OCITY OF BURLINGAME E PLANNING DEPARTMENT rnn� 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 .'`� TEL: (650) 558-7250 1360 BROADWAY Application for a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial PUBLIC HEARING Area. (APN: 026-095-170) NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, November 27, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed November 17, 2000 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the al to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you chal nge raising onl ho described i t1Le at or prior t t Property o i ier, tenants abo t tl CITY OF BURLINGAME i ands an r this project may be reviewed prior Plannin DOpartrnent at 501 Primrose Road, be limited to iblic hearing, ,d to the city ming their call (650) 558-7250. ianK u. 1 + Margaret ont C4 City Planner h� W pU .TICE (Please refer to other side) t ;.. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning_ processing_ plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area, APN: 026-095-_170, James and Stella Wu and Victor Wu, 126 Post Street #616 San Francisco, CA 94108, property owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 27, 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 Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class l (a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records . of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ann Keighran , 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 27' day of November, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 1360 BROADWAY effective DECEMBER 4, 2000 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2. that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. SIN CITY Ct CITY OF BURLINGAME BU:ttlN ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �b „,, „,.•'TEL: (650) 558-7250 1360 BROADWAY Appeal of a Planning Commission approval on an application for a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 PUBLIC HEARING Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial NOTICE Area. (APN: 026-095-170) The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, December 18, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed December 8, 2000 (Please refer to other side) �i . ;"y• ram} *�r'v`°'d'u'.z-�"'.a��� f."' �f _. � � , �`�'>� �.�._yc ..z �.�'�$�: .. .'�. 'sa�''�;��»�ro�'`'�' F'i1P ..0��':7'vi�S3f.�"'} s@.�'1'''F.. .. '+"tea-+ .•� � � CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the apphcat�iananstiis project ,maybe reviewed prior to the meeting athela g Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califorrua, If you challt�nge th bJ �n CQirt,�you may be limited to raising only thosessues eo sc xised of the public hearing, described fir th- �c to 0 poi egce�tleliverOd to the city Us at or prior t ttt Property ov `firers o_re r t xesponsrle for informing their tenants abo `t thi";ono r information, please call (650) 558-7250. anku. It I Margaret M nroe City Planner k` PURO&MIRINd TICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning_ processing_ plant at 1360 Broadway, zoned C-1. Broadway Commercial Area. APN• 026-095-170• James and Stella Wu and Victor Wu 126 Post Street #616, San Francisco. CA 94108. property owners; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November 27. 2000, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter wasappealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on December 18, 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 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 Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit 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 18th day of December. 20000, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EN=IT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 1360 BROADWAY effective DECEMBER 18, 2000 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 19, 2000 (floor plan); 2. that the dry cleaning processing plant may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of six people (employees and clients) on site at any one time; 3. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, hours or operation, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. CITY 0 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM to 6d euRUNGaME FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: 12 / 18 / 00 e Abo a eo c„nco ice. November 27, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: J� I"3 FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVED BY: Administrative Services Director � 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 � CITV O REPORTBURLINGAM p9aaw eTrp � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # 8a MTG. DATE 12/18/00 SUBMITTED BY DATE: December 8, 2000 APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY rf� SUBJECT: REVISED DESIGN for BROADWAY STREETSCW IMPROVEMENTS City Protect No. 9511 RECOMMENDATION: Council should review the revised design for the Broadway Streetscape Improvements and provide comments as appropriate after a brief presentation by the project consultant. In particular, Council should: 1. provide direction on whether to proceed with the revised design that incorporates Council comments from the November 6, 2000 meeting or an alternative design, and 2. reaffirm a scope of work for the next phase to include streetscape improvements on the north side of Broadway generally between Laguna Avenue to El Camino Real. BACKGROUND: At the November 6 meeting Council reviewed the 1996 master plan -based design for the Broadway Streetscape Improvements. Based on concerns about the loss of parking, Council directed staff to delete the alley planters to restore six parking spaces, increase the travel lane width to eleven feet by reducing the width of the sidewalk, retain the current 28 degree angled parking along the street, relocate the crosswalks closer to the intersections, and reduce the size of the intersection bulbouts. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Staffhas reviewed the revised design with the Broadway Improvement District (BID) on November 14 and December 5, 2000. After discussing the design, the merchant group requested that the City proceed with Option B, discussed below. (Refer to attached December 7, 2000 Ross Bruce BID letter). Also the BID agreed to construction during fall, 2001 with the understanding that there would be a risk of rain delays which may impact holiday business. DESIGN OPTIONS: With Council direction and BID feedback, staffhas developed three options, all of which reduce the size of intersection bulbouts; delete alley planters; and relocate cross walks closer to the intersection. However, each option has a design which results in a different combination of cost, construction time, parking loss and travel lane width impacts as summarized in the attachment (Refer to the Design Options Chart). Option A: Council Direction The emphasis ofthis option is to minimize parking loss and provide wider travel lanes. However, the design results in narrower sidewalks, higher construction costs, and a longer construction period (Refer to the attached Option A: Council Direction Plan). ■ Parking reduction: The number of on street parking stalls is reduced by two, for the corner bulb outs.. ■ Travel Lane and Sidewalk Widths: Travel lanes are increased from ten to eleven feet by reducing the sidewalk width from nine to eight feet. The existing parking stall angle is unchanged. IN Construction Cost: The construction stage cost of $620,000 is greater than the other options due to the need to relocate existing street lights and utility connections. ■ Construction Time Frame: Construction can begin July, 2001. However, a longer construction period until January 2002, is necessary in -order to relocate utilities. Option B: BID Request The emphasis of this option is to minimize parking loss, maintain sidewalk widths, reduce construction costs, and shorten construction time. However, this design results in maintaining substandard travel lane widths. ■ Parking reduction: The number of on street parking stalls is reduced by two for the corner bulb outs. ■ Travel lane and sidewalkwidth: The existing eight foot wide sidewalk, ten foot wide travel lanes and parking stall angle are unchanged. ■ Construction Costs: The construction stage cost of $550,000 is less due to no relocation of utilities. ■ Construction Time Frame: Construction can begin in July and end in mid November, 2001. Option C: Alternative Approach The emphasis of this option is to provide wider travel lanes, maintain sidewalk widths, reduce construction costs, and shorten construction time. However, the design results in a larger parking loss. ■ Parking reduction: The number of parking stalls is reduced by 14; that is 12, for a flatter parking stall angle and two for corner bulb outs. ■ Travel lane and sidewalk width: Travel lanes are increased from ten to eleven feet by flattening the parking stall angles and the sidewalk width is unchanged. ■ Construction Costs: The construction stage cost of $550,000 is less due to no utility relocation. ■ Construction Time Frame: Construction can begin in July with completion in mid November, 2001. SUMMARY: No one option can address all of the features desired for this project. Council may wish to prioritize these features (parking, sidewalk width, travel lane, time, and cost) as a means to identify the design option best suited for Broadway. SCOPE OF WORK FOR NEXT YEAR: At the request of the BID, the north side of Broadway between 1190 to 1454 is proposed as the next phase of construction. Funding of $500,000 is available in the 2000-2001 budget for this proj ect and an additional $50,000 to $120,000 will be necessary in the 2001-2002 budget. The south side of Broadway is estimated to cost $1,000,000 to $1,100,000 including $200,000 for a new storm drain system. In the future, the Broadway Streetscape Improvements Capital Budget will need to address an increase in the annual funding beyond the currently allocated $500,000. Alternatively, future phases could be completed over a longer time frame maintaining a $500,000 funding level. EXHIBITS: Design Options Chart Broadway Streetscape Parking Table Option A: Council Direction for Broadway Streetscape Improvements (two pages) Broadway Streetscape Sections A and B of Option A Broadway Streetscape Sections C and D of eight foot versus nine foot sidewalk Sidewalk Comparison of eight foot versus nine foot sidewalk Option C: Alternative Approach with 22 degree parking angle for Broadway Streetscape B.I.D. December 7, 2000 letter to Mayor and Council (four pages) c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Planner, Parks and Recreation Director, Bill Harris -Smith Group JJR, Dan Leary - Bellecci Associates, Broadway Improvement District merchant group - Ross Bruce (AVR Realty),Chamber of Commerce - Georgette Naylor SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\9511\StaffReports\Brdwy1190 to 1454Revised design.SR.wpd DESIGN OPTIONS CHART BROADWAY STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Design Construction Construction Broadway Travel Walk Options Cost (north) Time frame Parking Lane Width Width Reduction A: Council $620,000 July - Jan. -2 11' 8' Direction B: BID $550,000 July - Nov. -2 10, 9' Request C: Alternative $550,000 July - Nov. -14 11' 9' Approach Council Direction -Deletion of alley planters Increase travel lane width to I P by reducing sidewalk width Retain 28 degree angled parking Relocate cross walks closer to intersection Reduce size of intersection bulb outs BID Request - Council direction but retain current sidewalk and travel lane widths Alternative Approach - Council direction but increase travel lane width to 1 F by reducing parking angle to 22 degrees and maintaining current sidewalk width U:\Floppy Disks\Staff Reports and council presentations\Brdwy1190 to 1454Revised design chart.SR.wpd December 12, 2000 (10:07am) BROADWAY STREETSCAPE PARKING TABLE California Drive to El Camino Real -1100 to 1480 Broadway PROPOSED PARKING REDUCTION BY LOCATION 28 degree 22 degree Section Existing Parking Net Change Parking Net Chan On Broadway El Camino Real to Capuchino 15 15 0 12 -3 Capuchino to Paloma 23 23 0 18 -5 Paloma to Laguna 22 22 0 18 -4 Laguna to Chula Vista 16 14 -2 14 -2 California to Chula Vista 5 5 0 5 0 Subtotal 81 79 -2 67 -14 On Side Streets (to first driveway) Capuchino — north 6 6 0 6 0 Capuchino — south 4 4 0 4 0 Paloma — north 3 3 0 3 0 Paloma — south 6 6 0 6 0 Laguna — north 4 0 -4 * 0 -4* Laguna — south 6 6 0 6 0 Chula Vista — south 6 6 0 6 0 Subtotal 35 31 -4 31 -4 Total Lost Stalls 116 110 -6 98 -18 PARKING REDUCTION BY FACTOR The reduction in stalls can be attributed to the following factors: • Intersection bulbouts — Broadway 2 • New loading zone on Laguna — north 4 6 • With 22 degree parking 12 18 Bro adwayParkingCount 12/ 11 /00 12/08/2000 16:35 4153420428 AVR REALTY PAGE 04 - - IE C IEgV BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Additionally, we believe any driving complications due to the roadway width could be mitigated by reducing the speed limit and/or more vigorous law enforcement, as necessary. The former being Preferred to the latter. Sincerely, The Broadway Merchants Address Business Name 2of2 12/12/2000 11:48 4153420428 J- AVR REALTY PAGE 02 .BROA,DWA Y BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT � a 0 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 tic ftht:w 2. rAdditionally, we believe any driving complications due to the roadway width could be Ay® ' mitigated by reducing the speed limit and/or more vigorous law enforcement, as _ necessary. The former being preferred to the latter. Y Sincerely, F"HO u T ti The Broadway Merchants �fl) Merchant Name Address Business Name L-ia= 1 / N —M — — Mot 010� I •I 77, c� v 2 of 2 12/08/2000 16:35 4153420428 AVR REALTY PAGE =03 PF j3ROAD'WAX BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 Additionally, we believe any driving complications due to the roadway width could be mitigated by reducing the speed limit and/or more vigorous law enforcement, as necessary. The former being preferred to the latter. Sincerely, The Broadway Merchants Address Busioess Name �� 11 />4�� ���ti,. c.� i2���� = t���.� t-�•�.t rim "04y W94w 12/08/2000 16:35 4153420428 AVR REALTY E UA V L� D DEC _ 8 2000 ® ,RoAD'WAy BUSMSS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT + 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 d �+ December 7, 2000 r a ti Mayor and City Council City Hall iv501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 Be: The Broadway Developmmt Plan Honorable Mayor and City Council, The Broadway, Burlingame, business improvement district representing the Broadway merchants enthusiastically endorses the plan "B" version of the Broadway redevelopment plan with these characteristics: 1. The loss of only two parking spaces. 2. Keeping the existing road width. 3. Keeping the existing sidewalk width. 4. Northside construction to begin on or about July 2001 and scheduled to be completed on or about Thanksgiving 2001, weather permitting. The Broadway merchants feel that this is the best of the 3 options, because Burlingame • ; loses only 2 parking spaces with no loss to the sidewalk width. As you know, Broadway parking is at a premium, and we need to maintain our existing sidewalk width, as they are already pretty narrow. Even though our trees will be moved to the bulb outs, we still must accommodate street lamps, flower pots, city signs, and parking meters. Additionally, some of our merchants use the sidewalks for table or bench space to enhance their businesses. feel that Broadway's existing street width is manageable. If Broadway does indeed zience a higher number of fender benders per year than other streets, we believe it is to Broadway's abnormally high volume of traffic. =5 ION :a 40 o, S 9 IDEWALK SItSWAL.e, 01 I -off Vs. 8 f-ofl _ Section C - 8'- 0" Sidewalk SmithGroup JJR ftfthGr.VJjRk—p--d USBAS. a mW.&F1 a 6mft.d ,Cdr0.b 94014 t4I5b593 E415A95 l www.mMhpaupmm BROADWAY STREETSCAPE BURLINGAME CALIFORNIA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SECTIONS p- �mm" 6 s. 4 s r.r 23872.00 SnsithGroup JJR p 2255.b$ pe Ek-h F6w $m Rrotlrco, OBfw M14 t 415A59]900 f.41SA95.5091 wwnmkhpwp.com BROADWAY STREETSCAPE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SECTIONS 23872.00 AGENDA ITEM #_ 8b CITY OF BURLINGAME MEETINGDATE: 12-18-00 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: December 11, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Commissioner Appointment Prior to the December 18 council meeting, the citizens listed below are scheduled to interview for the Civil Service Commission vacancy. Civil Service Commission (1 position: term to 12-1-03; Interview team: Galligan/Spinelli) Bill Garcia Rolando Pasquali Council may wish to appoint a candidate to the commission. James Nantell City Manager v Attachments (Council only) CITY113�O.P ,aA STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: December_8, 2000 FROM: Lam E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8 8c MTG. DATE 12/18/2000 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO REDUCE MEMBERSHIP OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION FROM SEVEN TO FIVE MEMBERS RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance reducing membership on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission from seven members to five members by: 1) Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance; 2) Waiver further reading of the proposed ordinance; and 3) Introduce the proposed ordinance and direct that a summary of the proposed ordinance be published at least five (5) days before the proposed adoption. DISCUSSION: On December 4, 2000, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would reduce membership on the Commission from seven members to five members. The proposed ordinance would reduce the membership. Attachment Proposed Ordinance 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 REDUCING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY, AND PARKING COMMISSION FROM SEVEN TO FIVE MEMBERS The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The City's Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission currently has 7 members, but it has been increasingly difficult to obtain a quorum and the number of applications for vacant positions on the Commission has declined. The Commission will continue to consider important issues of commercial parking, school safety, and traffic controls in the coming months, and it is imperative that the Commission meet regularly and reach decisions efficiently. Section 2. Section 3.22.010 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 1 3.22.010 Organization — Terms of members — Compensation. There shall be a commission of traffic, safety and parking in the city consisting of seven 3 (Sj members, appointed by the council. Their term of office shall be for a period of three years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. At the time of their application for the commission and throughout their terms as commissioners, they shall be registered, qualified electors of the city. The members shall serve without compensation, but all necessary expenses incurred by them while acting in their official capacities shall be paid by appropriate council action. Section 3. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with law and shall take effect thirty 1 (30) days after the date of its adoption. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Burlingame on 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 28 200_, and the Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 200� by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp51\Files\ORDINANC\tspnmemb.pwd.wpd City Clerk -2- CITY 0 BU,sLJNGAME STAFF REPORT N TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: December 11 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: APPROVE EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY CITY MANAGER OF AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 12/18/2000 i SUBMIT TTF�_ BY u�2 APPRO BY- V GRANT DEED TO 1369 N. CAROLAN AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving execution of certificate of acceptance by City Manager of Grant Deed to 1369 N. Carolan Avenue, Burlingame. DISCUSSION: On June 19, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 67-2000 to authorize the initiation of eminent domain proceedings to acquire 1369 N. Carolan Avenue in order to renovate and expand the City's corporation yard. The City deposited $1.4 million with the State Treasurer as the updated, appraised value of the property. The owners of the property have agreed to accept the appraised value and the purchase is now in escrow. The City will pay all title insurance and closing costs. As one of the steps in the process, the City must execute a certificate of acceptance of the grant deed to the property. The proposed resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute the certificate and other necessary documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. [For the information of the Council, the City's eminent domain action to acquire 1347 N. Carolan Avenue is pending in Superior Court and will probably proceed to disposition in the coming year. The litigation will not delay the corporation yard work because an order of possession for 1347 N. Carolan has been obtained.] Attachment Proposed resolution approving acceptance and proposed certificate of acceptance RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT DEED TO 1369 N. CAROLAN AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN 026-121-050 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City wishes to acquire the real property at 1369 N. Carolan Avenue, Burlingame, California, and by Resolution No. 67-2000, the City Council authorized the acquisition of the property by eminent domain if necessary; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property and the City have reached agreement on a purchase price and the terms of the purchase of the property, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute an acceptance by the City generally as attached hereto as Exhibit A of a standard form Grant Deed and such other documents as necessary in connection with the purchase of the real property at 1369 N. Carolan Avenue in the form approved by the City Attorney, and the Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager. 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: COUNCULMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCH MEMBERS: CITY CLERK CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME From: ASTA E. HUPPE AND FRANCES I. WHITE, TRUSTEES OF THE HUPPE SURVIVOR'S TRUST, and OF THE HUPPE BYPASS TRUST Date of deed: , 200_ APN: 026-121-050 Pursuant to the authorization and direction of the City Council of the City of Burlingame expressed in Council Resolution No. , the City of Burlingame does hereby accept the Grant Deed for 1369 N. Carolan Avenue, APN: 026-121-050, located in Burlingame, California, executed by the Trustees for the above -entitled trust on the date set forth above, and requests that the Grant Deed be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, California. December 12000 M. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney D:\wp5ITilesTublic Works\Acquisition\Certificate of Acceptance.wpd CITY OF BURLINGAME City Manager AGENDA BURLtNGAME STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 4, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE INTERIM WATER 9a ITEM # MTG. 1 /18/00 DATE SUBMITTED BY At APPROVE /+ BY / SHORT GE PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution endorsing the Interim Water Shortage Plan. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame together with 28 other suburban agencies comprising the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA) purchase water from the City and County of San Francisco in accordance with a 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract. One provision of the contract provides that during a water shortage, each suburban agency's water allocation will be based on its proportional water purchase in the previous normal supply year. This, however, discourages agencies from taking steps during normal water supply years to reduce purchases through development of alternate supplies, such as recycled water or through demand reduction programs. In view of this, BAWUA has worked with San Francisco over the last two years to develop a mutually agreeable alternate method for handling water shortage situations that would supercede the contract's allocation provisions. DISCUSSION: The attached Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan contains two components: • Tier One which allocates water between the City of San Francisco water users and the suburban agencies collectively (Exhibit A) Tier Two which allocates water among the suburban agencies (Exhibit B) A summary of the key provisions of the plan are as follows: • Establishes a formula for allocating water between suburban agencies during droughts requiring up to 20% cutbacks. The methodology for determining allocations favorably accommodates the development of alternate water sources and conservation. • Authorizes the banking of water savings during a drought year. Excessive use charges are imposed on an annual basis, thereby allowing water savings in one month to be used to cover for water excesses in another month. • Allows the voluntary transfer of banked and/or allocated water between suburban agencies. • Remains in effect until the expiration of the contract which is September 2009. Tier One was unanimously adopted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on October 24, 2000. Under the terms of the contract, all 29 suburban agencies are requested to adopt both Tier One and Tier Two in order for the plan to become effective. BAWUA has asked that this take place well in advance of a July 31, 2001 deadline. c: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\lnterim Water Shortage Plan.wpd RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING INTERIM WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCATION PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.03(a) OF THE MASTER CONTRACT WITH SAN FRANCISCO RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is one of 29 agencies in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties that purchase water from the City and County of San Francisco ("San Francisco") pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract entered into in 1984 ("Master Contract"). Collectively these 29 agencies are referred to in the Master Contract as "Suburban Purchasers;" and WHEREAS, Section 7.03(b) of the Master Contract provides, in general, that during times when insufficient water is available in the San Francisco water system to meet the demands of all users, water will be allocated among the Suburban Purchasers based on each agency's proportional purchase of water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC") during the year immediately preceding the onset of shortage; and WHEREAS, a problem with the Master Contract method is that it discourages the Suburban Purchasers from taking steps during periods of normal water supply to reduce their purchases from the SFPUC through development of alternative supplies such as recycled water or through demand reduction programs; and WHEREAS, Section 7.03(a) of the Master Contract also allows for the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers to negotiate a water conservation plan which allocates water between the SFPUC's retail customers in San Francisco and elsewhere ("direct City water users") and the Suburban Purchasers in times of shortage. If such a plan is adopted by the SFPUC and all of the Suburban Purchasers, it will supersede the method provided for in the Master Contract; and WHEREAS, since November 1998, negotiations between the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers and discussions among the Suburban Purchasers have been conducted under the auspices of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Users Association (`BAWUA" ), an organization of which all Suburban Purchasers are members; and WHEREAS, these negotiations, and supporting technical analyses, have been conducted with the assistance of BAWUA staff, a consulting engineering firm engaged by BAWUA, and BAWUA's Water Resources Committee comprising technical staff of several representative BAWUA member agencies; and WHEREAS, the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan ("Plan") developed through this process comprises two components: A. "Tier One" Plan to which the SFPUC and all Suburban Purchasers are parties, which allocates water between the SFPUC's direct City water users and the Suburban Purchasers collectively; and B. "Tier Two" Plan to which only the Suburban Purchasers are parties, which allocates water among the individual Suburban Purchasers. WHEREAS, the Plan offers several advantages to all agencies which rely on the SFPUC water system, including: A. It provides for a pre -determined allocation of water during periods of shortage between San Francisco and the Suburban Purchasers collectively. B. It allocates water among individual Suburban Purchasers through a formula which lessens any disincentive for those agencies which reduce demand on the San Francisco system through development of alternative sources or conservation. C. It authorizes the "banking" of water savings by those agencies which are able to use less water than the amount allocated. D. It creates flexibility by allowing the transfer of a portion of any agency's allocation, as well as of its "banked" water, to other Suburban Purchasers. E. It remains in effect until September 2009, and may be reevaluated at that time, concurrently with the expiration of the Master Contract; and WHEREAS, On October 24, 2000, the SFPUC enacted Resolution No. 00-0244 which adopted the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan between the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers (the "Tier One" Plan). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as follows: 1. The Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan, consisting of both the Tier One and Tier Two Plans, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, is approved. 2. This approval is conditioned upon (a) the SFPUC and each of the other 29 Suburban Purchasers approving the "Tier One" Plan; and (b) all of the other 29 Suburban Purchasers approving the "Tier Two' Plan, such approvals being evidenced through adoption of similar resolutions or other equivalently binding written commitments, and all such approvals occurring on or before July 31, 2001. 3. If such resolutions or binding commitments are not adopted by that date, this resolution will automatically expire and be of no further effect on July 31, 2001, unless it has been extended prior thereto by further action of this Council. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK exllll3��' •¢ INTERIM WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCATION PLAN This Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan ("Plan") describes the method for allocating water between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC") and the Suburban Purchasers collectively during shortages caused by drought. The Plan implements a method for allocating water among the individual Suburban Purchasers which has been adopted by the Suburban Purchasers. The Plan includes provisions for transfers, banking, and excess use charges. The Plan applies only when the SFPUC determines that a system -wide water shortage due to drought exists, and all references to "shortages" and "water shortages" are to be so understood. This Plan is adopted pursuant to Section 7.03(a) of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract ("Master Contract"). SECTION 1. SHORTAGE CONDITIONS 1.1. Projected Available SFPUC Water Supply. The SFPUC shall make an annual determination as to whether or not a shortage condition exists. The determination of projected available water supply shall consider, among other things, stored water, projected runoff, water acquired by the SFPUC from non-SFPUC sources, inactive storage, reservoir losses, allowance for carryover storage, and water bank balances, if any, described in Section 3. 1.2 Projected SFPUC Purchases. The SFPUC will utilize purchase data, including volumes of water purchased by the Suburban Purchasers and by Direct City Water Users (as those terms are used in the Master Contract) in the year immediately prior to the drought, along with other available relevant information, as a basis for determining projected system -wide water purchases from the SFPUC for the upcoming year. 1.3. Shortage Conditions. The SFPUC will compare the available water supply (Section 1.1) with projected system -wide water purchases (Section 1.2). A shortage condition exists if the SFPUC determines that the projected available water supply is less than projected system -wide water purchases in the upcoming Supply Year (defined as the period from July 1 through June 30). When a shortage condition exists, SFPUC will determine whether voluntary or mandatory actions will be required to reduce purchases of SFPUC water to required levels. 1.3.1, Voluntary Response. If the SFPUC determines that voluntary actions will be sufficient to accomplish the necessary reduction in water use throughout its service area, the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers will make good faith efforts to reduce their water purchases to stay within their annual shortage allocations and associated monthly water use budgets. The SFPUC will not impose excess use charges during periods of voluntary rationing, but may suspend the prospective accumulation of water bank credits, or impose a ceiling on further accumulation of bank credits, consistent with Section 3.2.1 of this Plan. 1.3.2 Mandatory Response. If the SFPUC determines that mandatory actions will be required to accomplish the necessary reduction in water use in the SFPUC service area, the SFPUC may implement excess use charges as set forth in Section 4 of this Plan. 10.10.00 1.4. Period of Shortage. A shortage period commences when the SFPUC determines that a water shortage exists, as set forth in a declaration of water shortage emergency issued by the SFPUC pursuant to California Water Code Sections 350 et seq. Termination of the water shortage emergency will be declared by resolution of the SFPUC. SECTION 2. SHORTAGE ALLOCATIONS 2.1. Annual Allocations between the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers. The annual water supply available during shortages will be allocated between the SFPUC and the collective Suburban Purchasers as follows: Level of System Wide Reduction in Water Use Required Share of Available Water SFPUC Share Suburban Purchasers Share 5% or less 35.5% 64.5% 6% through 10% 36.0% 64.0% 11% through 15% 37.0% 63.0% 16% through 20% 37.5% 62.5% The water allocated to the SFPUC shall correspond to the total allocation for all Direct City Water Users as defined in Section 4.01 of the Master Contract. 2.2 Annual Allocations among the Suburban Purchasers. The annual water supply allocated to the Suburban Purchasers collectively during system wide shortages of 20 percent or less will be apportioned among them based on a methodology adopted by all of the Suburban Purchasers, which shall supersede the provisions of Section 7.03(b) of the Master Contract, as contemplated in Section 7.03(a) of the Master Contract. In any year for which the methodology must be applied, the Bay Area Water Users Association C BAWUA') will calculate each Suburban Purchaser's individual percentage share of the amount of water allocated to the Suburban Purchasers collectively pursuant to Section 2.1. Following the declaration or reconfirmation of a water shortage emergency by the SFPUC, BAWUA will deliver to the SFPUC General Manager a list, signed by the President of BAWUA's Board of Directors and its General Manager, showing each Suburban Purchaser together with its percentage share and stating that the list has been prepared in accordance with the methodology adopted by the Suburban Purchasers. The SFPUC shall allocate water to each Suburban Purchaser, as specified in the list. The shortage allocations so established may be transferred as provided in Section 2.5 of this Plan. The methodology adopted by the Suburban Purchasers utilizes the rolling average of each individual Suburban Purchaser's purchases from the SFPUC during the three immediately preceding Supply Years. The SFPUC agrees to provide BAWUA by November 1 of each year a list showing the amount of water purchased by each Suburban Purchaser during the immediately preceding Supply Year. The list will be prepared using Customer Service Bureau report 2 10.10.00 MGT440 (or comparable official record in use at the time), adjusted as required for any reporting errors or omissions, and will be transmitted by the SFPUC General Manager or his designee. 2.3. Limited Applicability of Plan to System Wide Shortages Greater Than Twenty Percent. The allocations of water between the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers collectively, provided for in Section 2.1, apply only to shortages of 20 percent or less. The SFPUC and Suburban Purchasers recognize the possibility of a drought occurring which could create system -wide shortages greater than 20 percent despite actions taken by the SFPUC aimed at reducing the probability and severity of water shortages in the SFPUC service area. If the SFPUC determines that a system wide water shortage greater than 20 percent exists, the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers agree to meet within 10 days and discuss whether a change is required to the allocation set forth in Section 2.1 in order to mitigate undue hardships that might otherwise be experienced by individual Suburban Purchasers or Direct City Water Users. Following these discussions, the water allocation set forth in Section 2.1 of this Plan, or a modified version thereof, may be adopted by mutual written consent of the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers. If the SFPUC and Suburban Purchasers meet and cannot agree on an appropriate allocation within 30 days of the SFPUC's determination of water shortage greater than 20 percent, then (1) the provisions of Section 7.03(b) of the Master Contract will apply, unless (2) all of the Suburban Purchasers direct in writing that an allocation methodology agreed to by them be used to apportion the water to be made available to the Suburban Purchasers collectively, in lieu of the provisions of Section 7.03(b). The provisions of this Plan relating to transfers (in Section 2.5), banking (in Section 3), and excess use charges (in Section 4) shall continue to apply during system -wide shortages greater than 20 percent. 2.4. Monthly Water Budgets. Within 10 days after adopting a declaration of water shortage emergency, the SFPUC will determine the amount of water allocated to the Suburban Purchasers collectively pursuant to Section 2.1. The SFPUC General Manager, using the percentages shown on the list delivered by BAWUA pursuant to Section 2.2, will calculate each Suburban Purchaser's individual annual allocation. The SFPUC General Manager, or his designee, will then provide each Suburban Purchaser with a proposed schedule of monthly water budgets based on the pattern of monthly water purchases during the Supply Year immediately preceding the declaration of shortage (the "Default Schedule"). Each Suburban Purchaser may, within two weeks of receiving its Default Schedule, provide the SFPUC with an alternative monthly water budget that reschedules its annual shortage allocation over the course of the succeeding Supply Year. If a Suburban Purchaser does not deliver an alternative monthly water budget to the SFPUC within two weeks of its receipt of the Default Schedule, then its monthly budget for the ensuing Supply Year shall be the Default Schedule proposed by the SFPUC. Monthly water budgets will be derived from annual allocations for purposes of accounting for excess use. Monthly water budgets shall be adjusted during the year to account for transfers of shortage allocation under Section 2.5 and transfers of banked water under Section 3.4. 2.5. Transfers of Shortage Allocations. Voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any Suburban Purchasers, and between any Suburban Purchasers, will be permitted 3 10.10.00 using the same procedure as that for transfers of banked water set forth in Section 3.4. The SFPUC and the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA) shall be notified of each transfer. Transfers of shortage allocations shall be deemed to be emergency transfers described in Sections 7.05 and 7.07(a) of the Master Contract and shall become effective on the third business day after notice of the transfer has been delivered to the SFPUC. Transfers of shortage allocations shall be in compliance with Section 7.05 of the Master Contract. The transferring parties will meet with the SFPUC, if requested, to discuss any effect the transfer may have on its operations. SECTION 3. SHORTAGE WATER BANKING 3.1. Water Bank Accounts. The SFPUC shall create a water bank account for itself and each Suburban Purchaser during.shortages in conjunction with its resale customer billing process. Bank accounts will account for amounts of water that are either saved or used in excess of the shortage allocation for each agency; the accounts are not used for tracking billings and payments. When a shortage period is in effect (as defined in Section 1.4), the following provisions for bank credits, debits, and transfers shall be in force. A statement of bank balance for each Suburban Purchaser will be included with the SFPUC's monthly water bills. 3.2. Bank Account Credits. Each month, monthly purchases will be compared to the monthly budget for that month. Any unused shortage allocation by an agency will be credited to that agency's water bank account. Credits will accumulate during the entire shortage period, subject to potential restrictions imposed pursuant to Section 3.2.1. Credits remaining at the end of the shortage period will be zeroed out; no financial or other credit shall be granted for banked water. 3.2.1. Maximum Balances, The SFPUC may suspend the prospective accumulation of credits in all accounts. Alternatively, the SFPUC may impose a ceiling on further accumulation of credits in water bank balances based on a uniform ratio of the bank balance to the annual water allocation. In making a decision to suspend the prospective accumulation of water bank credits, the SFPUC shall consider the available water supply as set forth in Section 1.1 of this Plan and other reasonable, relevant factors. 3.3. Account Debits. Each month, monthly purchases will be compared to the budget for that month. Purchases in excess of monthly budgets will be debited against an agency's water bank account. Bank debits remaining at the end of the fiscal year will be subject to excess use charges (see Section 4). 3.4. Transfers of Banked Water. In addition to the transfers of shortage allocations provided for in Section 2.5, voluntary transfers of banked water will also be permitted between the SFPUC and any Suburban Purchaser, and among the Suburban Purchasers. The volume of transferred water will be credited to the transferee's water bank account and debited against the transferor's water bank account. The transferring parties must notify the SFPUC and BAWUA of each. transfer in writing (so that adjustments can be made to bank accounts), and will meet with the SFPUC, if requested, to discuss any affect the transfer may have on SFPUC operations. Transfers of banked water shall be deemed to be emergency transfers described in Sections 7.05 and 7.07(a) of the Master Contract and shall become effective on the third business day after notice of the transfer has been delivered to the SFPUC. If the SFPUC incurs extraordinary costs 4 10.10.00 in implementing transfers, it will give written notice to the transferring parties within ten (10) business days after receipt of notice of the transfer. Extraordinary costs means additional costs directly attributable to accommodating transfers and which are not incurred in non -drought years nor simply as a result of the shortage condition itself. Extraordinary costs shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures in the Master Contract and shall be subject to the disclosure and auditing requirements in the Master Contract. In the case of transfers between Suburban Purchasers, such extraordinary costs shall be considered to be expenses chargeable solely to individual Suburban Purchasers and shall be borne equally by the parties to the transfer. In the case of transfers between the SFPUC and a Suburban Purchaser, the SFPUC's share of any extraordinary transfer costs shall not be added to the Suburban Revenue Requirement. 3.4.1. Transfer Limitations. The agency transferring banked water will be allowed to transfer no more than the accumulated balance in its bank. Transfers of estimated prospective banked credits and the "overdrafting" of accounts shall not be permitted. The price of transfer water originally derived from the SFPUC system is to be determined by the transferring parties and is not specified herein. Transfers of banked water shall be in compliance with Section 7.05 of the Master Contract. SECTION 4. WHOLESALE EXCESS USE CHARGES 41. Amount of Excess Use Charges. Monthly excess use charges shall be determined by the SFPUC at the time of the declared water shortage consistent with the calendar in Section 6 and in accordance with Section 5.03 of the Master Contract. The excess use charges will be in the form of multipliers applied to the rate in effect at the time the excess use occurs. The same excess use charge multipliers shall apply to the Suburban Purchasers and all Direct City Water Users. The excess use charge multipliers apply only to the charges for water delivered at the rate in effect at the time the excess use occurred. 4.2 Monitoring Suburban Water Use. During periods of voluntary rationing, water usage greater than a customer's allocation (as determined in Section 2) will be indicated on each SFPUC monthly water bill. During periods of mandatory rationing, monthly and cumulative water usage greater than a Suburban Purchaser's shortage allocation and the associated excess use charges will be indicated on each SFPUC monthly water bill. 4.3. Suburban Excess Use Charge Payments. An annual reconciliation will be made of monthly excess use charges according to the calendar in Section 6. Annual excess use charges will be calculated by comparing total annual purchases for each Suburban Purchaser with its annual shortage allocation (as adjusted for transfers of shortage allocations and banked water, if any). Excess use charge payments by those Suburban Purchasers with net excess use will be paid according to the calendar in Section 6. The SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers have discussed the possibility of dedicating excess use charges paid by Suburban Purchasers toward the purchase of water from the State Drought Water Bank or other willing sellers in order to provide additional water to the Suburban Purchasers. The parties may continue discussions of this concept in order to develop the accounting and operational details of such a program. However, unless and until the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers agree in writing to an amendment of the Plan to implement such a program, excess use charges paid by the Suburban Purchasers constitute "revenues received from the Suburban Purchasers for the sale of water" for purposes 5 10,10.00 of Section 5.07 of the Master Contract. SECTION 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCATION PLAN 5.1. Construction of Terms. This Plan is for the sole benefit of the parties and shall not be construed as granting rights to any person other than the parties or imposing obligations on a party to any person other than another party. 5.2. Governing Law. This Plan is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 5.3. Effect on Master Contract. This Plan describes the method for allocating water between the SFPUC and the collective Suburban Purchasers during system -wide water shortages of 20 percent or less. This Plan also provides for the SFPUC to allocate water among the Suburban Purchasers in accordance with directions provided by the Suburban Purchasers through BAWUA under Section 2.2, and to implement a program by which such allocations may be voluntarily transferred among the Suburban Purchasers. The provisions of this Plan are intended to implement Section 7.03(a) of the Master Contract and do not affect, change or modify any other section, term or condition of the Master Contract. 5.4. Role of Suburban Advisory Group. Section 8.04 of the Master Contract identifies the Suburban Advisory Group as a forum for ensuring that the Suburban Purchasers are informed of matters affecting the SFPUC water system. Regularly scheduled meetings of the Suburban Advisory Group will be used to ensure that the important information concerning potential water shortages is provided to the Suburban Purchasers for consideration and examination. The parties agree to meet upon request up to two times per month in order to keep the SFPUC and the Suburban Advisory Group (or a subset of that group) informed of the status of the available water supply and measures under consideration to alleviate shortage- conditions affecting the SFPUC water system. 5.5. Inapplicability of Plan to Allocation of SFPUC System Water During Non -Shortage Periods and to Water Wheeling. The SFPUC's agreement in this Plan to a respective share of SFPUC system water during years of shortage shall not be construed to provide a basis for the allocation of water between the SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers when no water shortage emergency exists. Nor shall this Plan provide any precedent for the transfer, banking, determination of available capacity, or rate to be charged for water proposed to be wheeled through the SFPUC system from non-SFPUC sources by any person or entity under Water Code Section 1810 et seq. 5.6. Termination. This Plan shall expire on June 30, 2009. The SFPUC and the Suburban Purchasers can mutually agree to revise or terminate this Plan prior to that date due to changes in the water delivery capability of the SFPUC system, the acquisition of new water supplies, and other factors affecting the availability of water from the SFPUC system during times of shortage. 6 10.10.00 SECTION 6. ALLOCATION CALENDAR 6.1. Annual Schedule. The annual schedule for the shortage allocation process is shown below. This schedule may be changed by the SFPUC to facilitate implementation. 7 10.10.00 6.1.1 In All Years Target Dates 1. SFPUC delivers list of annual purchases by each Suburban November 1 Purchaser during the immediately preceding Supply Year 2. SFPUC meets with the Suburban Advisory Group and presents January 1-30 water supply forecast for the following Supply Year 3. SFPUC issues initial estimate of available water supply February 1 4. SFPUC announces potential first year of drought (if applicable) February 1 5. SFPUC and Suburban Advisory Group meet upon request to February 1-May 31 exchange information concerning water availability and projected system -wide purchases 6. SFPUC issues revised estimate of available water supply, and March 1 confirms continued potential shortage conditions, if applicable 7. SFPUC issues final estimate of available water supply March 15 8. SFPUC determines amount of water available to Suburban March 15 Purchasers collectively In Drought Years Target Dates 9. SFPUC formally declares the existence of water shortage March 15-31 emergency (or end of water shortage emergency, if applicable) under Water Code Sections 350 et. seq. 10. SFPUC declares the need for a voluntary or mandatory response March 15-31 11. BAWUA submits calculation to SFPUC of individual Suburban March 15- 31 Purchasers' percentage shares of water allocated to Suburban Purchasers collectively 12. SFPUC determines individual shortage allocations, based on March 25—April 10 BAWUA's submittal of individual agency percentage shares to SFPUC, and monthly water budgets (Default Schedule) 13. Suburban Purchasers submit alternative monthly water budgets April 8-April 24 (optional) 14. Final drought shortage allocations are issued for the Supply Year May 1 beginning July 1 through June 30 15. Monthly water budgets become effective July 1 16. Excess use charges indicated on monthly Suburban bills July I (of the beginning year) through June 30 (of the succeeding year) 17. Excess use charges paid by Suburban Purchasers for prior year July of the succeeding year 8 10.10.00 INTERIM WATER SHORTAGE ALLOCATION PLAN AMONG SUBURBAN PURCHASERS This Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan ("Tier Two Plan") describes the method for allocating the water made available by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC"), during shortages caused by drought, among the Suburban Purchasers. This Plan applies only when the SFPUC determines that a system -wide water shortage due to drought exists, and all references to "shortages" and "water shortages" are to be so understood. This Plan is adopted pursuant to Section 7.03(a) of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and the Suburban Purchasers ("Master Contract"). SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY AND INTEGRATION Section 1.1 Applicabitit4. This Tier Two Plan applies when, and only when, the SFPUC determines that a system -wide water shortage of 20 percent or less exists, as set forth in a declaration of water shortage emergency adopted by the SFPUC pursuant to California Water Code Sections 350 et seq. This Tier Two Plan applies only to water acquired and distributed by the SFPUC to the Suburban Purchasers and has no effect on water obtained by a Suburban Purchaser from any source other than the SFPUC. Section 12 Integration with SFPUC Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (Tier One Plan). The SFPUC has adopted an Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (Tier One Plan) which, among other things, (a) provides for the allocation by the SFPUC of water between Direct City Water Users (e.g., retail water customers within the City and County of San Francisco) and the Suburban Purchasers collectively during system -wide water shortages of 20 percent or less, (b) contemplates the adoption by the Suburban Purchasers of this Tier Two Plan for allocation of the water made available to Suburban Purchasers collectively among the 29 individual Suburban Purchasers, (c) commits the SFPUC to implement this Tier Two Plan, and (d) provides for the transfer of both "banked" water and shortage allocations between and among the Suburban Purchasers and commits the SFPUC to implement such transfers. This Tier Two Plan is intended to be integrated with the Tier One Plan described in this Section 1.2. Both Plans becoming operative only if both have been approved by all 29 Suburban Purchasers. Terms used in this Tier Two Plan are intended to have the same meaning as such terms have in the Tier One Plan. SECTION 2. ALLOCATION OF WATER AMONG SUBURBAN PURCHASERS Section 2.1 Annual Allocations Among the Suburban Purchasers. The annual water supply allocated by the SFPUC to the Suburban Purchasers collectively during system -wide shortages of 20 percent or less shall be apportioned among them based on the methodology described in this Section 2. Section 2.2 Methodology for Allocating Water Among Suburban Purchasers. The water made available to the Suburban Purchasers collectively will be allocated among them in T,'— 7 TWC A Ta Finol Alon Tll1(' 1 1 1 /16MA proportion to each Suburban Purchaser's allocation factor, adjusted as described in Section 2.2.4 below. Section 2 2 1 Step One: Determination of Allocation Basis for Each Suburban Purchaser. Each Suburban Purchaser's Allocation Basis is an amount, expressed in millions of gallons per day (mgd), which in turn is the arithmetic average of three components. Two of these components are fixed as of the date this Tier Two Plan is adopted; the third component is variable and will be determined when a shortage has been declared by the SFPUC. The first component is (i) the greater of a Suburban Purchaser's Supply Assurance provided for in the Master Contract or its average purchases from SFPUC during three fiscal years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99, or (ii) in the case of Hayward and Estero Municipal Improvement District, their projected purchases from SFPUC in FY 2010-11 as reported in the 1998-99 Annual Survey published by BAWUA, or (iii) in the case of San Jose and Santa Clara, the limits on purchases from SFPUC set forth on Exhibit M to the Master Contract. The amount of this first component for each Suburban Purchaser is shown on Attachment A-1. The second component is the average of each Suburban Purchaser's purchases from SFPUC during the fiscal years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. The amount of this second component for each Suburban Purchaser is shown on Attachment A-2. The third component is the average of each Suburban Purchaser's purchases from SFPUC during the three fiscal years immediately preceding the declaration of water shortage emergency by the SFPUC. Section 2.2.2 Step Two: Determination of Allocation Factor for Each Suburban Purchaser. Each Suburban Purchaser's Allocation Factor is a percentage derived from a fraction, the numerator of which is the particular Suburban Purchaser's Allocation Basis (in mgd) as calculated in Step One and the denominator of which is the sum (in mgd) of all Suburban Purchasers' Allocation Bases. Section 2.2.3 Step Three: Determination of Initial Shortage Allocation for Each Suburban Purchaser. The initial shortage allocation for each Suburban Purchaser is determined by multiplying the amount of water available to the Suburban Purchasers collectively (determined pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Tier One Plan) by the Suburban Purchaser's Allocation Factor (i.e., the percentage calculated pursuant to Section 2.2.2). Section 2.2.4 Step Four: Determination of Final Shortage Allocation for Each Suburban Purchaser. Once the initial shortage allocations are determined, the percentage reductions from each Suburban Purchaser's purchases from the SFPUC in the fiscal year immediately preceding the declaration of water shortage emergency will be calculated as a fraction, the numerator of which is the Suburban Purchaser's initial shortage allocation (determined pursuant to Section 2.2.3), and the denominator of which is the amount purchased from the SFPUC during such fiscal year. The result, as a percentage carried to two places to the right of the decimal, will be subtracted from 100%; the result is the Suburban Purchaser's percentage reduction. The percentage reductions for San Jose and Santa Clara will be compared to the highest percentage reduction of the other Suburban Purchasers. If both San Jose's and Santa Clara's percentage reduction is larger than the highest percentage reduction among other Suburban Purchasers, the initial shortage allocations established under Section 2.2.3 will become the final T;-'I TWC A A r;-i - rinr '% i m ounn shortage allocations. If either San Jose's percentage reduction or Santa Clara's percentage reduction, or both, is smaller than the highest percentage reduction of other Suburban Purchasers, the shortage allocation (in mgd) of San Jose or Santa Clara, or both, will be reduced so that the percentage reduction of each is no smaller than that of the otherwise highest percentage reduction. The amount of shortage allocation (in mgd) removed from San Jose and/or Santa Clara will be reallocated among the remaining Suburban Purchasers in proportion to the initial shortage allocation of each calculated as a fraction the numerator of which is the individual initial shortage allocation and the denominator of which is the sum of the initial shortage allocation for the remaining Suburban Purchasers (not including San Jose and Santa Clara). After such reallocation, the resulting amounts will be the final shortage allocation for each Suburban Purchaser. Section 2.2.5 Example Calculation. Attachment A-3 presents a sample of the calculations involved in Steps One through Four, using the values from Attachments A-1 and A-2 and recent water use data for the other values. It is presented for illustrative purposes only and does not supersede the foregoing provisions of this Section 2.2. In the event of any inconsistency between this Section 2.2 and Attachment A-3, the text of this section will govern. Section 2.3 Calculation of Individual Suburban Purchaser's Allocations: Directions to SFPUC. The Tier One Plan contemplates that in any year in which the methodology described above must be applied, the Bay Area Water Users Association ("BAWUA") will calculate each Suburban Purchaser's individual percentage share of the amount of water made available to the Suburban Purchasers collectively, following the methodology described above. The Tier One Plan requires SFPUC to allocate water to each Suburban Purchaser in accordance with calculations delivered to it by BAWUA. The Tier One Plan requires that each year, the SFPUC will provide to BAWUA by November 1 a list showing the amount of water purchased by each Suburban Purchaser during the immediately preceding Supply Year. The list will be prepared using Customer Service Bureau report MGT 440 (or comparable official record in use at the time), adjusted as required for any reporting errors or omissions, and will be signed by the SFPUC General Manager. Each Suburban Purchaser authorizes BAWUA to perform the calculations required, using water sales data furnished to it by the General Manager of the SFPUC, and to deliver a list of individual Suburban Purchasers' percentage shares so calculated to SFPUC as contemplated by the SFPUC Plan. Neither BAWUA nor any officer or employee of BAWUA shall be liable to any Suburban Purchaser for any such calculations made in good faith, even if incorrect. SECTION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 3.1 Construction of Terms. This Tier Two Plan is for the sole benefit of the parties and shall not be construed as granting rights to any person other than the parties or imposing obligations on a party to any person other than another party. Section 3.2 Governine Law. This Tier Two Plan is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. T." 7 1WCAP FGnol Plon iXl�` i 11 /14/MI Section 3.3 Effect on Master Contract. This Tier Two Plan describes the method for allocating water from the SFPUC among the Suburban Purchasers during system -wide water shortages of 20 percent or less declared by the SFPUC. The provisions of this Tier Two Plan, and the Tier One Plan with which it is intended to be integrated, are intended to implement Section 7.03(a) of the Master Contract. Both the Tier One and Tier Two Plans constitute the water conservation plan contemplated by Section 7.03(a) and supersede the provisions of Section 7.03(b). The Plans do not affect, change or modify any other section, term or condition of the Master Contract. Section 3.4 Amendment. This Tier Two Plan may be amended only by written agreement of all Suburban Purchasers. Section 3.5 Termination. This Tier Two Plan shall expire on June 30, 2009. It may be terminated prior to that date only by the written agreement of all Suburban Purchasers. T;—') TWCAD T?innl P1on 71l1(` 4 11/10;/AA ATTACHMENT A-1 The amount of the first component for each Suburban Purchaser is shown below. Suburban Purchasers First Fixed Com onen (mad) ACWD 13.76 Belmont 3.89 Brisbane 0.46 Burlingame 5.23 Coastside 2.18 Cordilleras 0.01 CWS Total 35.39 Daly City 4.49 East Palo Alto 2.18 Estero 7.23 Guadalupe 0.52 Hayward 24.00 Hillsborough 4.09 Los Trancos 0.11 Menlo Park 4.24 Millbrae 3.15 Milpitas 9.23 Mountain View 13.46 North Coast 3.84 Palo Alto 17.07 Purissima Hills 1.85 Redwood City 10.93 San Bruno 3.25 Skyline 0.18 Stanford 3.03 Sunnyvale 12.58 Westborough 1.32 San Josh 2.68 Santa Clara 6.57 Tin. � TWc e P Finol Alon Tll1!` i i n jinn ATTACHMENT A-2 The amount of the second component for each Suburban Purchaser is shown below. Suburban Purchasers Second Fixed Component (med) ACWD 11.95 Belmont 3.26 Brisbane 0.30 Burlingame 4.68 Coastside 1.35 Cordilleras 0.01 CWS Total 33.42 Daly City 4.49 East Palo Alto 2.10 Estero 5.45 Guadalupe 0.27 Hayward 17.56 Hillsborough 3.60 Los Trancos 0.10 Menlo Park 3.43 Millbrae 2.64 Milpitas 6.80 Mountain View 10.36 North Coast 3.29 Palo Alto 12.96 Purissima Hills 1.85 Redwood Ci 10.92 San Bruno 2.01 Skyline 0.16 Stanford 2.58 Sunnyvale 10.73 Westborough 0.98 San Jos6 4.10 Santa Clara 4.72 T;—')IW4ZeP F;...IPJ-nnr iinFrnn Attachment A-3 Sample Calculation 23.6% Average Suburban Reduction from FY 1998-" Purchases (Units in million gallons per day unless otherwise noted) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Allocation Basis Unadjusted Allocations Allocations Ad'. for Santa Clara & San Jost First Second Initial Subtotal Adjusted Final Suburban Fixed Fixed Variable Allocation Shortage FY 1998-99 Initial Allocation Shortage Adjusted Individual filrchasers Component Compemat Component Average Factors Allocation Purchases Purcbase Cutback Factors Allocation Purchase Culbac Share ACWD 13.76 11.95 11.95 12.55 7.12% 9.16 11.96 -2.80 -23.41% 7.504/o 9.18 -2.78 -23.23% 7.13% Belmont 3.89 3.26 3.26 3.47 1.97% 2.53 3.35 -0.81 -24.25% 2.07% 2.54 -0.81 -24.08% 1.97% Brisbane 0.46 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.20% 0.26 0.34 -0.08 -23.61% 0.21% 0.26 -0.08 -23.43% 0.20% Burlingame 5.23 4.68 4.68 4.96 2.760/6 3.55 4.65 -1.10 -23.57% 2.91% 3.56 -1.09 -23.40% 2.76% Coastside 2.18 1.35 135 1.62 0.92% 1.19 1.48 -0.29 -19.74% 0.97% 1.19 -0.29 -19.56% 0.92% Cordilleras 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00 0.01 0.00 -25.8916 0.00o/a 0.00 0.00 -25.72% 0.00% CWS Total 35.39 33.42 33.42 34.07 19.32% 24.87 33.45 -8.58 -25.64% 20.36% 24.93 -8.52 -25.48% 19.37% Daly City 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.49 2.55% 328 4.55 -1.27 -27.85% 2.6W* 3.29 -1.26 -27.68% 2.55% East Palo Alto 2.18 2.10 2.10 2.13 1.21 % 1.55 2.07 -0.52 -25.13% 1.27% 1.55 -0.52 -24.96% 1.2) % Estero 7.23 5.45 5.45 6.05 3.43% 4.41 5.57 -1.15 -20.73% 3.61% 4.42 -1.14 -20.55% 3.44% Guadalupe 0.52 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.200/9 0.26 0.28 -0.02 -7.39% 0.21% 0.26 -0.02 -7.18% 0.20% Hayward 24.00 17.56 17.56 19.71 11.18% 14.39 17.77 -3.38 -19.04% 11.77% 14.42 -3.35 -18.86% 11.20% Hillsborough 4.09 3.60 3.60 3.76 2.13% 2.75 339 -0.64 -18.83% 2.25% 2.75 -0.63 -18.65% 2.14% Los Trancos 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06% 0.07 0.10 -0.03 -26.93% 0.06% 0.07 -0.03 -26.77% 0.06% Menlo Park 4.24 3.43 3.43 3.70 2.100/6 2.70 3.39 -0.69 -20.45% 2.21% 2.71 -0.69 -20.27% 2.10% Millbrae 3.15 2.64 2.64 2.81 1.59% 2.05 2.63 -0.58 21.91% 1.68% 2.06 -0.57 -21.74% 1.60% Milpitas 9.23 6.80 6.80 7.61 4.31% 5.55 6.80 -1.24 -18.29% 4.55% 5.57 -1.23 -18.11% 4.32% Mountain View 13.46 10.36 10.36 11.40 6.46% 8.32 10.25 -1.93 -18.81% 6.91% 8.34 -1.91 -18.62% 6.48% North Coast 3.94 3.29 3.29 3.47 1.97% 2.54 3.34 -0.80 -24.02% 2.07% 2.54 -0.80 -23.85% 1.97% Palo Alto 17.07 12.% 12.96 14.33 8.13% 10.46 13.04 -2.58 -19.780/a 8.56% 10.49 -2.56 -19.60% 8.15% Purissima Hills 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.05% 1.35 1.93 -0.59 -30.37% 1.10% 1.35 -0.58 -30.21 % 1.05% Redwood City 10.93 10.92 10.92 10.92 6.19% 7.97 11.42 -3.45 -30.19% 6.52% 7.99 -3.43 -30.03% 6.21 % San Bruno 3.25 2.01 2.01 2.42 137% 1.77 2.47 -0.71 -28.54% 1.45% 1.77 -0.70 -28.38% 137% Skyline 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.09% 0.12 0.16 -0.04 -24.69% 0.100/0 0.12 -0.04 -24.52% 0.10% Stanford 3.03 2.58 2.58 2.73 1.55% L" 2.56 -0.57 -22.23% 1.63% 2.00 -0.57 -22.06% 1.55% Sunnyvale 12.58 10.73 10.73 11.34 6.43% 8.28 11.22 -2.94 -26.19% 6.78% 8.30 -2.92 -26.02% 6.45% Westborough 1.32 0.98 0.98 1.09 0.62% 0.80 1.00 -0.20 -20.27% 0.65% 0.80 -0.20 -20.09% 0.62% Subtotal 187.67 157.23 157.23 167.38 122.19 159.17 -36.98 -23.24% 100.00% 122.47 -36.71 -23.06% San Josd 2.68 4.10 4.10 3.63 2.06% 2.65 4.13 -1.48 -35.85% 2.65 -1.48 -35.85% 2.06% Santa Clara 6.57 4.72 4.72 5.34 3.03% 3.90 5.20 -1.30 -25.04% 3.62 -1.58 -30.37%1 2.81% Total 128.73 -39.77 -23.60%1 100.00% 196.92 166.06 166.06 176.35 100.00% 128.73 168.50 -39.77-23.60°h Derivation of the Santa Clara/San Josh adjustment: I. Largest permanent customer cutback: -30.37% 2a. Adjusted Santa Clara shortage allocation: 3.62 (Applying largest permanent customer cutback) 2b. Santa Clara adjustment: -0.28 (Difference between initial and adjusted ailoc.) 3a. Adjusted San Josd shortage allocation: 2.87 (Applying largest permanent customer cutback) 3b. San Josd adjustment: 0.00 (Difference between initial and adjusted alloc.) 4. Total Adjustment: -0.28 2b+3b Tic 2 Pb. And ..M A3..h Page 1 11n6mo Attachment A-3. Suburban Shortage Allocations Assumptions and Column Notes 23.60/6 shortage for the Suburban Purchasers compared to FY 1998-99 purchases. Column notes: Allocation Basis. The Allocation Basis is used for calculating Allocation Factors and is the average of the following three components: I . First Fixed Component: The greater of either the Supply Assurance values or the three-year average of SFPUC purchases for FYs 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99, with certain exceptions, a. Daly City's and Purissima Hill's values are based on their three-year averages, which is greater than their Supply Assurance values. b. Hayward's and Estero's values are based on their 2010-I 1 projected purchases, as reported in the BAWUA 1997-98 Annual Survey. a San Josd's and Santa Clara's values are based on the water supply caps in their individual water supply contracts with the SFPUC. 2. Second Fixed Component: The average of SFPUC purchases for FYs 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. 3. Variable Component: The rolling three-year average, updated annually, beginning with FYs 1996-97,1997-98, and 1998-99. 4. Average: The average of columns 1, 2, and 3. Unadjusted Allocations. The initial shortage allocations in column 6 are adjusted for Santa Clara and San Josh in columns 10 through 13. 5. Allocation Factors: The ratio of each Suburban Purchaser's column 4 average to the column 4 total. 6. Initial Shortage Allocation: The product of each Suburban Purchaser's column 5 Allocation Factor times the column 6 total, which represents the assumed available water supply. 7. FY 1998-99 Purchases: The most recent year's purchases to which the Shortage Allocation can be compared to determine the effective cutback. 8. Purchase Cutback: Column 6 minus column 7, in mgd. 9. Purchase Cutback: The ratio of column 8 to column 7, in percent. Allocations Adjusted for Santa Clara and San Josh. This adjustment is made so that Santa Clara's and San Joses cutbacks are at least as great as the highest cutback by the permanent customers. In this example, there is no adjustment required for San Josd because the formula results in an unadjusted cutback that is already greater than the highest cutback by a permanent customer. 10. Subtotal Allocation Factors: The ratio of each permanent Suburban Purchaser's column 4 average to the column 4 subtotal. ]I. Adjusted Shortage Allocation: The product of each Suburban Purchaser's column 10 Subtotal Allocation Factor times the Column 11 subtotal. a. The column I 1 subtotal is the sum of the column 6 subtotal plus the Santa Clara adjustment, 0.26. b. The Santa Clara adjustment is the difference between its column 6 Initial Shortage Allocation, 3.72, and its Adjusted Shortage Allocation, 3.48. c. Santa Clara's Adjusted Shortage Allocation is the product of its column 4 average and the largest Purchase Cutback, 33.53%, received by the permanent Suburban Purchasers. 12. Adjusted Purchase Cutback: Column 11 minus column 7, in mgd 13. Adjusted Purchase Cutback: The ratio of column 12 to column 7, in percent. Page 2 11116M BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 12, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM # 9b MTG. 12/ 18/00 DATE SUBMITTED BY ' APPROVED BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT AMENDMENVY NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIA/GROVE AREA STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 2 - CITY PROJECT NO. 9829 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing an agreement amendment in the amount of $16,997.00 with Wilsey Ham Engineers for engineering services for the California/Grove Storm Drain Improvements Project, Phase 2. BACKGROUND: Council awarded an agreement to Wilsey Ham Engineers for professional engineering services on May 1, 2000 in the amount of $98,253.00. The agreement included engineering design, preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimate, and contract documents, as well as bidding assistance, surveying, utility potholing and geotechnical investigation for Phase 2 storm drainage improvements. Phase 2 includes the installation of a storm drain pipeline from Hillside Drive along El Camino Real, Mills Avenue, California Drive, under the railroad tracks and into Mills Creek. The amended work scope in the amount of $16,997.00 includes the following unforseen items of work: • addition of storm drain inlets, manholes and pipelines • addition of the paving at California Drive and Mills Avenue • conflicting sanitary sewer pipeline relocation and abandonment • conflicting water pipeline relocation and abandonment • decrease in geotechnical work scope • additional meetings and submittals to complete the project design Staff recommends that Council approve the amendment for additional design and construction document preparation. The proposed total fee of $115,250 for these services is approximately 10% of the estimated construction cost of $1,100,000. The industry standard for this type of project is 10%. It is estimated that the design phase will be completed by January 2001. Staff will return to Council in a few months for the award of a construction contract as well as an agreement for construction phase professional services. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Agreement Amendment BUDGET IMPACT: The 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Budget inc funding for these services. yed Murtuza, P.E. City Engineer c: City Clerk Wilsey Ham S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9829 Amend.wpd.Dec12.00.wpd RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WILSEY HAM ENGINEERS CITY PROJECT NO. 9829 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: l . The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WILSEY HAM ENGINEERS CITY PROJECT NO. 9829 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WILSEY HAM ENGINEERS CITY PROJECT NO. 9829 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this day of 2000, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and WILSEY HAM ENGINEERS hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services, said agreement being dated MAY 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to amend said agreement as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment of Agreement Said agreement dated MAY 1, 2000, is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto. effect. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated MAY 1, 2000, shall remain in full force and IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation By City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Consultant SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\9829\AGREEMENTAMENDMENT W&H.wpd December 11, 2000 Doug Bell Project Manager City of Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Reference: Updated Cost to Complete Phase 2 Drainage Project Dear Doug. EXHIBIT A WILSEY■■ HAM■■ ENGINEERING ■ PLANNING ■ SURVEYING WH No: 140-35 We have reviewed your December 8, 2000 several page fax which sets forth the City's requirements for preparing the next and planned final submittal for the Phase 2 drainage project. In summary, we will update our July 24, 2000 plans and specifications by incorporating the following additional items requested by the City: 1. Add three new drainage inlets along Mills Ave. 2. Relocate existing sanitary sewer lines at Mills Ave., just east of El Camino Real and at the Mills Ave. and California Ave. intersection. 3. Relocate one existing water line at Mills Ave. and California Ave. 4. Add HGL to plans based on final hydraulics by the City's consultant. 5. Add new paving overlay at Mills Ave. and California. 6. Investigate, and if desirable, realign the storm drain line between California and Mills Creek. The foregoing six items along with making and additional submittal can be performed for an additional $9,750 as detailed on the attached spreadsheet and our earlier correspondence. In addition we have, at the City's request, performed through November 30, 2000 $9,700 in extra services as detailed in earlier requests and summarized on the attached spreadsheet. To complete our contract obligations we will perform the following services: 1. Retain Miller Pipeline to perform potholing at four locations along the two existing communications ducts within the JPB right-of-way, and if time permits the existing PacBell facility at the Mills/California intersection. 2. Retain Harza to perform a boring at Mills Creek. 3. Complete the Topographic Mapping between California and Mills Creek. 383 A Vintage Park Drive ■ Foster City, CA 94404 ■ 650 / 349-2151 ■ Fax: 650 / 345-4921 December 11, 2000 Doug Bell Page 2 4. Provide services during bidding. The foregoing work can be completed for a total of $115, 250 as detailed on the attached spreadsheet, for an increase in our current contract amount of $16,997. The estimate to complete assumes: ■ No changes to the plans with El Camino Real. ■ The potholing and borings will not discover any existing conditions that are incompatible with the current design. ■ No other significant changes to the plans not noted above, unless required by a previous oversight of Wilsey Ham. We are prepared to start work immediately, upon the City's authorization and forwarding of the previously agreed upon additional information and details of final requirements. Very truly yours, WILSEY HAM Ron Calhoun, PE Principal Enclosure: Spreadsheet of costs, to date and projected. P:\PROJECI'\140-35\12-11-00 Costup&te lu Doug BelLdoc Wil Hem Cost & Man Hours Comparison Report Uodeted Through 11f30M C1eWWn Acbal EMS Swvkes Ead,rt.aW Estlmtaad ToW Cost St Estlmded ToW Cost d oft in Do9ws-w/ EA. edlhu 11130 Co rft Task Aclid My Thmgh Pwh nod Cod b Cwrolft ComplStion v0o Erin Sorvic s Comple0m wf Edre Sw0cas Grads Ow LM Oran Nd Dlfferenes See 1~ dried 9114A0 Task Budyd Novwrbw Nanmber 30, 20M Thu1IMM Aaw 11l30A0 pwf nnad un 11/30 pwfomtad Mru i IA0 Oe*W Ed. Od9Md Ed. far %Wdoni eom wft and wpWwdtl ) kH M1 S M1 I. M..tiv C-dWaln,BubmlNb 1. C.-.1 C.er. & Made 16 4 8,219.00 65.0 276.00 2.00 10 314.99 106.50 1 800.00 9,514.99 10,316 72A 2,097 2. Pmpam Submkub 4 258.00 32.0 2,247.62 13.00 800.00 5.0 3047.52 5048 18.0 10A SUBTOTAL 11 476.00 97.0 270.00 2.00 1 662.5 119.6 / 8W.0 90080 5.0 11 682.E 13,363 00.6 Z097 10. 1,987, Mm mt9a, tubneSWs end mcoun*Q D own Men wSiclpabd It.. R-h D.r. Celbeden & S,fwep 1. Rese.reh&Dan Colkedov 11 2870.00 27.0 8050.50 47.60 1200.D0 6,860.60 0,061 47.6 5,193 AddWonsl neserch b debnnkt. edw8 sed location of Phase 1 and . 2. hme.W 9u 3 1 144.00 149.0 7990.81 91.50 900.00 29.0 10.790.91 10791 120.E 353.1 Greater eflkisrwy, lose tope Men odgin* satlmWd S. POWeSv 4 11588.00 43.0 5506.00 22.00 4.000.00 6.0 9506.00 91608 28.0 092. Reduced Se 4. O.onehak.l a 9472.00 12.0 3,860.00 4.0 3860.00 3950 4.0 622. RWuesd Scope SUBTOTAL Se,M.00 230.0 21567.3 161,0 1200.0 10660.00 39.0 31007.3 3 2D7 200,0 182.5 11067.1 III. Prodmie - Pt., SvbmkW 1. Pre B.. M.P.t e86.00 20m 9e4.76 88.50 4,200.00 2,604.76 0,866 88.5 4179 Could not ere City proV4@d Bose Map Info. 2. Proem w 8590.00 79.0 15,340.10 200.00 15,340.10 16540 200.0 6760 FW sulmYlW Clow to 90.85%pw Clty request Men nd cwastot ed. 9. DM S dog. 4 006.00 21.0 ♦ 980.00 64.00 4,860.00 4,900 54.0 954 Fkat.ubried Nosesb 9046% per CSy equeA Man eo IOW d. 4. Bwb of . 372.00 24.0 Z052,60 29.50 1 300.00 3.0 Z962.50 963 31.5 561 SUBTOTAL 15,06400 163.0 29717A 377.00 4200.00 300.00 3.0 2518/7A 30,017 390.0 14,363 0 14363 rv. Plvd Dn 1. Pro an 9rA PS&Z 12 S 4 24,998.00 255. 16,123.00 92.00 2,600.IX 12,623.00 16123 82. (9,073. FM Vebrrti6el more compl.c. Man won ly conbmpland.lncludes chenp. M4 typ. end ddjUor d M1 2. P.- 100%PS&Z 667 5966.00 59.0 230.O 2.00 12061.50 134.60 110.0 12,001.50 12,eS2 216.0 e,89e 0 SUBTOTAL 30902.00 314.0 230.0 2.01 27794.E 216.5 2SW.0 110.0 26284.5 27796 298.0 4898 ,873.00 17 V. Bid Padod Sank.. 1. Pro.61d M Addend. uesdo.. 14 079.00 19.0 2100.00 19.0 2,100.00 2100 19.0 0 0 No chwVs kom cdgimid s.Smatc SUBTOTAL Z079.00 19.0 0.0 0.0 2100.00 1 19.0 21D0.0 21D0 19.0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 98 253.00 013.0 508.00 4.D0 91 621.07 873.00 9700.00 13 860.D0 176.0 961771.87 106,472 987.6 20,338 (21,141) 7190 Extra Services Performed thou 11/30 E-M .& Adminbtrati" An.tpW 1,e00.00 Phua l w bu0t.k<e rnan.Pbn. got.eailabk 1,200.00 P.P- Bu. M.P. tram Senroh 4,200.00 ch.v8. SO MR & type of 9truecW Weer A06n. App. 2,500.00 Sub•T-1 9,700.D0 Exus Service. Proposed by aty B-®W.S Mill. A, 3,000 3,000 Enlud.d In RFP 98 Rskc.mn 2,000 2,000 Esk ded In RFP Add MCL m Plea. 1.000 1,000 Erin R.dmfdnp Bx SubmitW 2,600 2,600 Extra Plop, Packaghl;,&Pdnb Add nam PavinBd C.W'.&MOI. 1,250 1,260 Not in RFP w Cordwct 9ub•T.W 9,750 1 9,760 Cr.nd T. W=771 115,2221 116,222 Nob: 1 Refers to Corebact Ext. W L- Soma PWW* HOJECT14M5Casbumm. #kj AGENDA ITEM # 9C MEETING DATE: 12 -1 8 -0 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: December 11, 2000 FROM: "Old"City Manager SUBJECT: Updating Employer's Contribution for Employee PERS Health Benefits RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached Resolution updating the maximum employer contribution to PERS Health Benefits in accordance with approved employee agreements. BACKGROUND: Our contract with PERS Health requires that the City contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the same amount as determined by the employee agreements. The attached resolution is required by PERS to update the maximum monthly city contribution. We are currently in negotiations with the Police/Fire Administrators and Fire Fighters. The amounts for these two groups will be amended after settlements are reached. Budget Impact: Health care rates for 2001 are increasing between 9 and 22%. Current city costs for employees are $1.1 million annually and $691,000 for retirees. Dennis Argyres "Old" City Manager tto Jir"antell Attachment RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22825.6 provides that alocal agency contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount of the employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 2285 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is a local agency contracting under the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full costs of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of. - Contribution Code Bar ag inin Unit Per Month 01 Police Officers' Association $530 02 Local 1872, IAFF 485 03 Public Service Employee Association 530 04 AFSCME Local 2190 530 06 Teamsters Local 856 Dispatchers 530 07 Association of Department Heads 530 08 Association of Police and Fire Administrators 485 09 Association of Mid Management 530 Plus administrative fees and contingency fund assessments. 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 18th day of December, 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk [CAMy Documents\PERSNNL\PEMHCA-res.wpd] AGENDA 9d �b CITY a ITEM 8 BV!W?jGAME STAFF REPORT DATE DATE 1 2/18/2000 TO: Honorable Ma or and Council SUBMIT BY DATE: December 11 2000 APPROVE BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS TO BE THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY'S SELF -INSURED WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Athens Administrators to be the Third Party Administrators for the City's Workers Compensation Program. DISCUSSION: The City is self -insured up to $275,000 for claims in workers compensation. As part of such a self-insurance program, the City retains a third -party administrator to review and manage each claim and ensure that State workers compensation laws are met. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has been the long-time administrator for the City. However, ABAG has decided that it can no longer provide the level of service necessary to sustain an effective, focused program for the City. The City sent out requests for proposals to 5 potential tproposals the two leading vendors and interviews were conducted of all three. City staff hen contacted references for interviewed, and staff then visited the work site of the leading vendor. Athens Administrators is located in Concord, California. They are the third -party administrators for the Cities of Palo Alto and Concord and for the Marin County Risk Management Authority (9 Marin cities and towns) and the Fire Districts Association of California. Athens has excellent recommendations from a variety of users of the system, and will be able to provide prompt access for management on compensation questions through a variety of systems, including modem and internet. Most importantly, employees and supervisors should notice a marked enhancement in responses and treatment. Mayor and Council Re: Authorize City Manager to negotiate and execute agreement with Athens Administrators to be the Third Party Administrator of the City's Self -insured Workers Compensation Program December 11, 2000 Page 2 However, because of the much higher level of service, the cost of the program will be approximately $110,000 per year [ABAG is currently about $45,000 but has not been adjusted in some 10 years]. In addition, it will be necessary to transfer the files and records from ABAG to Athens, which will cost about $9,000. Because of the significant impact that workers compensation claims, disability, and leave have on the day-to-day operations of the City, employee morale, and final budgets, staff believes that this will be money well -spent. The City and Athens are working on the details of an agreement. By giving approval, the Council will allow the City to move forward quickly on executing an agreement and begin the transfer of files from ABAG. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS TO BE THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CITY'ASNWORKERS ��G THE CITY MANAATION GER TO UPON EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City wishes to retain an experienced firm to act as the City's Third Party Administrator of the City's self -insured workers compensation program; and WHEREAS, following a proposal process, it appears that Athens Administrators are qualified and experienced for such a task and will provide the level of service and expertise that the City requires, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to negotiate with Athens Administrators for an agreement to act as Third Party Administrators for the City's workers compensation program and to execute an agreement on behalf of the City with a fohens Administrators for that urpose, the first year of service shallnot exceed char to approval as to form. The annual service g $108,000, exclusive of conversion and file transfer charges. 2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUS SO, City Clerk ofthe City ofBurlingame, 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: COUNCILMEN BERS: NOES: COUNCU MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILmEMBERS: CITY CLERK CITY 0� STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 9e euRut►Me FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: 8-7-00 December 12, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVED BY: !d' Administrative Svcs. Director SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds for Homeless Shelter Contribution RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution BACKGROUND: On December 4, Council approved a $30,000 contribution to the City of South San Francisco for the homeless shelter program. A resolution is required to set up the budget. CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT Non Department Programs DATE: 12-12-00 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION 101 26000 $30,000 Unreserved Fund Balance FROM: TO: 101 64560 220 $30,000 Non Dept Programs —Contract Svcs. I - ::i Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) Per Council Action, 12-4-00 DEPARTMENT HEAD BY: 1`4VJ DATE: 2. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Remarks: ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: DATE (7-12,.—Od 3. APPROVE AS REQUESTED EIAPPROVE AS REVISED LID18APPROVE Remarks: CITY, MANAGER BY: "46 DATE: '' /,I — Ud NA RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of .20 . and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: CO.UNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK L:\Forms & DEC-03-00 SUN 02:24 PM �. .. Kathleen Wentworth December 2, 2000 1429 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-344-3186 Fax; 650-344-2381 Internet: CaptKathleen@compuserve.com Honorable Joe Galligan, Mayor Honorable Mike Spinelli, Vice Mayor Honorable Mary Janney, Councilmember Honorable Rosalie O'Mahoney, Councilmember Honorable Mike Coffey, Councilmember Via Fax: 650-342-8386 Re: Council Meeting Monday December 4 Reconsideration of Ordinance to Install Two Stop Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue Dear Members of the City Council: I have been one of the leading proponents in our neighborhood for traffic controls at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. As you may recall, many of our neighbors appeared before the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission as well as before your Council when this ordinance was approved. First of all, I would urge the City Council to maintain the status quo, leave the current ordinance in place and install the stop signs as determined by the ordinance in effect. However, if the City Council chooses to reconsider the ordinance and sets it for public hearing, I would request that the public hearing for such a City Council action be set somewhat into the future. There are two reasons for requesting that the public hearing be set somewhat out in the future. First, the next regularly scheduled City Council hearing is apparently set for Monday December 18, which occurs during the winter break for the schools. Many of the families who would like to appear at such at public hearing (including our family) will be unavailable to attend. DEC-03-00 SUN 02:24 PM ,P'02 Second, the Lincoln School. Site Council Traffic Safety Subcommittee is undertaking a traffic study of the pedestrian issues relating to Lincoln School. I believe that they have already initiated conversation with representatives of the City Engineers office. It might be productive to have the benefit of such a study before changing the status quo. I am scheduled to work Monday night December 4, but ask that this letter be read into the record as appropriate. Thank you for your consideration of my comments Very y yours, zi: Kathleen Wentworth d" CLK-Musso, Ann From: prasanna jena [prasannajena@hotmail.com] _'<< Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:28 PM To: COUNCIL-Galligan, Joe Subject: Rents in Burlingame Sir, I am a resident of Burlingame and stay in a rental apartment at 1977 Garden Drive, CA 94010. This is certainly one of the places in Bay Area affected by rent hikes. First of all the apartment does not discuss anything other than month to month lease. This allows them to increase the rents as and when they wish. For example on 31st October 2000, the Apartment manager slipped in rent hike notices to all tenents. The rent hikes ranged from 30-40%. My apartment which used to be charged $1150 per month will now be charged $1500 per month. Some had even worse problems. One person had his rent hiked from $900 per month to $1400 per month. That is a hike of 55%. By any standards that is exorbitant. The local landlords keep comparing their rents charged with the rates charged by landlords at Sunnyvale. I have seen a few of those Apartments. They provide all luxuries like air-condition, fitness center, swimming pool, club house. On top of it they are new constructions and the landlords are trying to recover their capital investments. Here the apartments are usually old type (around 30 years or more) and do not provide any facilities. My apartment has just no facilities, not even the swimming pool. I had opted to forgo all these facilities to avail of the low rent. Now the rent has been hiked so high that I am wondering if it is all worth it. Six out of the present eighteen tenants have already decided to move. I hesitate to move from here because I have started liking this this place. But there is a limit to the extent I can sustain with my present salary. Why cann't we have rent control here? Is there nothing that the city council can do about it? Yours Truly Prasanna Jena Apt # 307, 1977 Garden Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download http://explorer.msn.com 1 t r 1,.ING�il.;it Ms. Rosalie O'Mahony Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. O'Mahony, November 30, 2000 , Marika Metcalfe 401 Occidental Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 I did not have you to my home and speak to you of my love for my children as you stated at last night's City Council meting. I spoke to you of my concern for the lack of procedural and statistical documentation of HEN. Documentation that would be required to prove the program would not be injurious to our neighborhood. Are you privy to information that I am not that somehow convinced you otherwise? If so, I implore you to share it with me. My questions were never answered, not only by IHN, but now not by my own City Council. We presented the Council with some fair, reasonable amendments that would have allowed the program to run while giving the neighbors some necessary safeguards. This was a well-intentioned, well thought-out compromise that was not even given consideration. One of our major concerns has been the possible expansion of the program, which EH N has promised never to do. Why not put it in writing (amendment to Condition #5) and put our minds at ease? If you have such compassion for the neighbors as you stated, how could you not have even put those amendments on the table for discussion? The "high road," as mentioned several times last night, was not to simply approve the permit. The "high road' would have been to spend a little bit of time and effort to work out conditions of the permit that would give the neighbors some necessary safeguards while still allowing the program to run. We presented you with the "high road' and you didn't even recognize it. I am disappointed I do not need a lesson in compassion or compromise and resent the appeals for such from the Council members. The City of Burlingame can help homeless families and require essential, complete documentation of a program at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Council still seems to believe that it is fear of the homeless that motivates our concern It is not. It is fear of a program with no accountability, no documentation and no controls that motivates our concern If IHN shared information with the Council last night that was proof of this necessary documentation, I was at a disadvantage because I had not seen it. I would suggest the Council include that information as an attachment to the permit. If you so firmly believe that the proper documentation does exist, you at least owed us the courtesy of saying "yes, neighbors, the documentation does it exist and let me refer you to it." This wasn't even addressed I asked Mr. Spinelli specifically to what he was referring when he spoke of "reams of documentation" and he was unable to answer. It is my most sincere wish that this program operates without a hitch and I will never have the need to point out your oversights. If something does go wrong, however, I will personally be knocking at your door with the minutes of last night's meeting in my hand Sincerely, PMee CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: December 12, 2000 FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: Assumption of City Manager Duties As per my employment contract this memo is to notify the City Council that I am assuming all the duties of the City Manager. Over the past four weeks I have appreciated the opportunity to transition into my duties as City Manager with the assistance of Dennis Argyres. Although Dennis will continue to be available to provide his advise and counsel for roughly 12 hours per week, I will now assume all the official duties and responsibilities of City Manager. dphJ7 �Ot�g/