HomeMy WebLinkAbout1044-1060 Broadway - Staff ReportTO:
DATE
� ci
��. o,�
BURLJN�AME
� . � :. STAFF REPORT
Honorable Mavor & City Council sue
BY
November 14, 1986
�ROM: City Attorney 8YI
s�e�ecT: CLAIM OF MICHAEL R. HARVEY
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of Claim.
BACKGROUND:
�a[N[�.r�V � � � �
1T6M M
We have received a claim from Michael R. Harvey for alleged damages
in the amount of $750,000. It appears that Mr. Harvey had a contract
with the owners of 1044 - 1060 Broadway for purchase and use in
conjunction with a proposed auto dealership in what we know as the
Bekins Building. According to a lawsuit filed by the owners of
1044-1060 Broadway against Mr. Harvey, he defaulted on the,purchase
agreement. The alleged basis for his default on the purchase agree-
ment is that the City had agreed in 1985 to install a signal light
at the intersection of Carolan and California and later refused to
do so. He wishes to pass to the City the liability for the broken
real estate contract.
You will recall that at the time of the hearing on the permits for
the use of 1044 - 1060 Broadway on July 7, 1986, there was consider-
able discussion about the signal matter, and the Council reiterated
that it could not commit to the installation of the signal until
appropriate traffic studies were performed. At that time_P4r. Harvey
stated his contention that the City had already agreed to install
the light and the Council stated that that had never been your
agreement.
We have reviewed the minutes and tape of the 1985 and 1986 hearings
on the Bekins Building and 1044-1060 Broadway. It is clear both
from those tapes and the Council's minutes that the Council's
position always was that the signal was dependent upon the completion
of traffic studies and that no agreement or contract was made to
install it. We therefore do not believe there is any basis for this
claim and we recommend that it be denied.
JFC/b
Attachment: Claim
cc: George Hills Company
�
MTG. � �����_
DATE
,
� Y
►
�
r
CITY CLERK, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, �URLINGT� 94010
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF BURLINGAI�1:�
Michael R. Harvey presents a claim for damages
(Name of Claimant)
against the City of Burlingame, California,in the sum of $ 750,000
Claimant's Phone 579-4290
Claimant's Address
Date of Occurrence:
Place of Occurrence:
P.O. Box 511; Burlingame, CA 94010
9/12/86
San Mateo Count
Said Claim Arises from the Following Circumstances: Claimant applied for
rer*nits an� variances for conversion of the Bekins building at 1070 Broad-
way. Signalization of the intersection at Carolan Dr., claimant to bear
25$ of the cost, was one condition of the approval (Resolution �85-104).
Claimant later applied for auto sales permits for contiguous property at
1044-1060 Broadway and the City denied its commitment to signalization,
making the entire project unfeasible. Claimant was forced to abandon
project and withdraw from purchase of ad'a�ent Ydperty.
Items, Nature and Extent 6f Damages or I�n�uriesP:
The seller of that property sued claimant for damages on the�aborted
sale. Claimant seeks indemnity for all damages and defense costs caused
by the City''s failure to honor its signalization commitment.
RECEI�/ED
NOV 13 1986
CITY CLERK
CRY OF BURLINGAMF
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby
declare that I have read the fore-
going and that the same is true to
th best of my knowledge.
Signature)
Date: 11/11/86
FARBSTEIN & BROWN
Attorneys for Claimant
MICHAEL R. HARVEY
. , , a ., . .,,.:.W.a��. �... .. . .. „� _.:<����.� � �,�
�a
, ,
.., •r .
. �
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
WILLIAM F._SULLIVAN
SHERROL L. CASSEDY
BROBECR, PHLEGER-& HARRISON
One Market Plaza
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-0900
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
.- .. .. � ;�.
, ,.., ..w . ..
_°_ _} ___ _- '_. -.--- _
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORrIIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
31.�_1. �''fi
ANTHONY J. CRISAFI, )
MADELINE CRISAFI, ROBERT )
N. WOODWARD and ANN WOODWARD )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL R. HARVEY, DOES 1 )
through 10, )
)
Defendant. )
)
No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY
PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs allege:
1. Plaintiffs, ANTHONY J. CRISAFI, MADELINE CRISAFI,
ROBERT N. WOODWARD and ANN WOODWARD, are now and at all times
herein were residents of the County of San Mateo, California, and
bring this action as individuals.
2. Defendant, MICHAEL R. HARVEY, is an individual
residing and doing business in the State of California.
3. The true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate or otherwise, of Defendants, Does 1 through 10 are
unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such Defendants by such
Page 1
. ,..-,. . •s::,_..:;w.y+�_t.: :. ,•�:>,:..: ..,..-.<��rs..., . .
,`
1
,Z
3
►
d
S
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13 I
14
15
16
, 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
fictitious names, and will amend this complaint to show the true
names and capac'ities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that
each of the Defendants designated as a Doe is responsible in some
manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiffs are
entitled to the remedies herein sought against such Defendants.
4. On or about March 11, 1986, Plaintiffs were the
owners in fee of real property located in San Mateo County
California, commonly known as 1044 and 1060 Broadway, Burlingame,
California, also known as APN numbers 026-131-130 and 026-131-
140, and more particulary cescrihec� as:
PARCEL I:
BEGINNING at a point in the Northwesterly line of
Broadway extended, as said Northwesterly line is
established by Deed to the City of Burlingame,
recorded January 26, 1938 in Book 776 of Officials
Records at Page 219; Records of San biateo County,
California, said point being distant along said
Northwesterly line, North 33° 47' 30" East 100 feet
from its intersection with the Northeasterly line of
that certain right of way, 10 feet wide, conveyed to
Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Company by Deed
recorded January 12, 1903 in Book 94 of Deeds at
Page 530, Records of San Mateo County, California;
running thence on and along said Northwesterly line
of Broadway, North 33° 47' 30" East 112.50 feet;
thence North 61° 52' 30" West 149.91 feet; thence
South 33° 47' 30" West 113.35 feet; thence South 62°
12' East 150 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL II:
BEGINNING at the most Southerly corner of lands
conveyed by Clare F. Kemp and Mary H. Remp, his
wife, et al, to Industrial Realty Co., a
corporation, by Deed dated June 26, 1946 and
recorded August 3, 1946 in Book 1283 of Official
Records at Page 362 (File No. 18301-G), Records of
San Mateo County, California; thence running thence
along the Southeasterly line of said lands, North
33° 47' 30" East 39.75 feet; thence leaving said
Southeasterly line, North 62° 12' West 4.15 feet;
Page 2
1
2
3
.
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
thence South 27° 48' West 29.53 feet to the point of
beginning.
PARCEL III:
Non-Exclusive easements for ingress and egress over
the following described lands:
(A) BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the
fee parcel describe� in the Deed from Lincol.n
E. Higbee and wife to Aaron A. Rose and wife,
dated October 20, 1950 and recorded October 27,
1950 in Book 1965 of Of.ficial Records at Page
647 (Fi].e No.95737-I), Records of San Mateo
County, California; thence from said point of
beginning, North 33° 47' 40" East 110.25 feet;
thence North 27° 48' East 40 feet; thence
Southwesterly, along a curve to the right,
tangent to the last mentioned course, having a
radius of 65 feet, through a central angle of
90°, an arc distance of 102.10 feet; thence
Southeasterly and tangent to said curve, South
62° 12' East 49.34 feet; thence South 27° 48'
West 84.65 feet; thence South 62° 12' East 4.15
feet to the point of beginning.
(B) The Northwesterly 10 feet of Parcel One as
described in the Deed from John B. Lauder, et
al, to Arrigo Descalzi and wife, dated October
30, 1948 and recorded November 3, 1948 in Book
1588 of Official Records at Page 698 (File No.
59832-H}, Records of San Mateo County,
California.
Said easement was created by that certain agreement
dated Februay I4, 1948 and recorded March 11, 1948
in Book 1452 of Official Records at Page 416 (File
No. 2005-H), Records of San Mateo County California.
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 026-131-130
026-131-140
5. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written
agreement dated March 12, 1986, for the purchase and sale of the
real property described in Paragraph 4. A true and correct copy
of the Real Estate Purchase Contract is attached hereto as
Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference.
6. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written
Page 3
r
1!
21
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(�
agreement, dated March 19, 1986, mod�ifiying the March 12, 1986
Contract in certain respects. A true and correct copy of the
Counter Offer to Proposed Real Estate Purchase Contract is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by this
reference.
7. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written
Addendum to the Real Estate Purchase Contract dated April 16,
1986, acknowledging and ratifying the agreement. A true and
correct copy of the Addendum to Real Estate Purchase Contract is
attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by this
reference.
8. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written
Addendum to the Real Estate Purchase Contract dated June 16,
1986, modifying the March 12, 1986 Contract in certain respects,
including establishing the date for the close of escrow to be
August 8, 1986, and setting the total purchase price at
$1,020,000. A true and correct copy of the Addendum to Real
Estate Purchase Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit D and is
incorporated herein by this reference.
9. The agreement provides that reasonable attorney's
fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party in any litigation
under the agreement. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue
to incur attorney's fees in order to enforce their rights under
the agreement.
10. Plaintiffs have duly performed each and every
condition and obligation required to be performed by them under
the agreement set forth above.
11. On July 31, 1986, Plainfiffs were advised by
Page 4
. . ._.., ,,_ ..... .r.V... .�,_ _. ,
r
(1,
Defendant that he was not going to perform his obligations under
the agreement. �There is no basis for Defendant's repudiation or
non-performance.
12. On August 1, 1986, Counsel for Plaintiffs sent a
letter to Defendant's real estate agent, Coldwell Banker, stating
that Plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to perform under the
terms of the agreement and that they expected Defendant to so
perform. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit E and is incorporated herein by this reference.
13. On August 5, 1986, Counsel for Plaintiffs sent a
letter to Counsel for Defendant stating that Plaintiffs were
ready, willing and able to perform under the terms of the
agreement. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit F and is incorporated herein by this reference.
14. On August 8, 1986, Defendant breached the agreement
by failing to pay to Seller the sum of $995,000.
15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's
breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages of at least $500,000,
the exact amount of which damage will be shown at trial.
16. As a further direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach, Plaintiffs have suffered special and conse-
quential damages, including, without limitation, damages for lost
rental revenue, rental expenses, operating expenses, resale
expenses, broker's commissions, title expenses and escrow fees,
tax losses due to an inability to engage in a like-kind exchange
and similar special damages in amount of at least $250,000, the
exact amount of which c�amage will be shown at trial.
///
1
2
3
d
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
20
21
22
23
Z4 ,
25 �
26 I
27
28
Page 5
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10,
11
12 ',
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Z4
25
Z6
27
28
�
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against
defendant for: '
1. General damages in the sum of at least $500,000,
the exact amount of which will be shown at trial, plus interest
thereon from the date of breach;
2. Special damages in the sum of at least $250,000,
the exact amount of which will be shown at trial plus interest
thereon from the date of breach;
3. Attorney's fees and the costs of suit; and
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems
proper.
DATED: September �f , 1986.
WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN
SHERROL L. CASSEDY
BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON
BY � jv �. L L C�••_:` � <.L l,� �
William F. Sull'�
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Page 6
, . _ b ..., � .._ , . :.�_.,..:�:. .
. , ,
. , .
r
CITY CLERK, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGPs 94010
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF BURLINGAI�i�.
Michael R. Harvey presents a claim for damages
(Name of Claimant)
against the City of Burlingame, California,in the sum of $ 750,000
Claimant's Phone 579-4290
Claimant's Address
Date of Occurrence:
Place of Occurrence:
P.O. Box 511; Burlingame, CA 94010
9/12/86
San Mateo Count
Said Claim Arises from the Following Circumstances: Claimant applied for
permits and variances for conversion of the Bekins building at 1070 Broad-
way. Signalization of the intersection at Carolan Dr., claimant to bear
25$ of the cost, was one condition of the approval (Resolution �85-104).
Claimant later applied for auto sales permits for contiguous property at
1044-1060 Broadway and the City denied.its commitment to signalization,
making the entire project unfeasible. Claimant was forced to abandon
project and withdraw from purchase of ad'a�ent p�dperty.
Items, Nature and Extent df Damages or �n�urieS:
The seller of that property sued claimant for damages on the-aborted
sale. Claimant seeks indemnity for all damages and defense costs caused
by the City''s failure to honor its signalization commitment.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby
declare that I have read the fore-
going and that the same is true to
the best of my knowledge.
(Signature)
Date: 11/11/86
FARBSTEIN & BROWN
Attorneys for Claimant
MICHAEL R. HARVEY
,�
I�
-•-------...-... _._.. � . __ _ . ---- � -- ----� - -
LAW OFFICES OF
FARBSTEIN £� BROWN
A PROFESSIONAL COfiPORATION
400 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 595
SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402
MS . JUDY MALFAT'.r'I
CITY CLERK
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
�
.
�
'� � �� • ��,CITY �� ��\ �W ����-I--�� l ..
� .1 __...-....-�"__ A 6 H N D A �� �
BURLINCrAME i T Er.� n
��; �,. STAFF REPORT MTG. / /
DATE 7f 7f ��
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
� BY �I G�G�d' �,Un�Q
DATE: JUNE 26 , 1986
FROM:
CITY PLANNER BYPROVED
S�B,E�T: REVIEW OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR AUTO SALES AT 1044-1060 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1
RECOMMENDATION•
City Council hold a public hearing and take action.
The Planning Commission recommended the following conditions:
l. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 9, 1986 shall
be met;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Department and date stamped May 29, 1986 with 12' light
standards each with 250 watt luminaires including appropriate
shields to confine all light and glare on the properties of 1060-
1044 Broadway and the adjacent wall of 1070 Broadway and that the
automobile sales lot shall be operated according to the terms of the
Controller's letters dated May 19, 1986 and May 29, 1986;
3. that the driveway from this property to Broadway be limited to right
turns only and the street channelization be installed before the
project is finaled by the Building Department and the project
include ingress from Whitethorn Way; and
4. that the properties at 1060-1044 Broadway be merged with the
property at 1070 Broadway before the project construction is finaled
by the Building Department.
Action Alternatives:
1. City Council can uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the
special permit for auto sales with conditions.
2. City Council can deny the special permit application.
3. City Council can deny without prejudice the special permit request.
If this alternative is pursued Council should give clear direction
about the kind of revisions they would consider.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Mike Harvey, is requesting a special permit to develop
an auto sales lot on two adjacent properties at 1044-1060 Broadway. In
order to develop the auto sales lot (paving, landscaping and lighting)
. ,
TO
DATE
� ,,.�: �'� — ia LlS� --
� -�';� �� i �� � D
��t, c�Tr Q� � ----�- ,� `�r'n�t;t/•�� +;,°l
�^. .. A G E N D A "-�.- ..
BURLINGAME I T EM k
; � . STAFF REPORT M7G. 7_18_88
�.fe DATE
jiQN(1RART.F. MAY(�R ANI� f`TTY CniTNC'IL SUBMITTED �i r-
B Y ��
JuT.Y �� 1 9 R R .
APPROVED
FROM: ._(`TTV UT.IINNFR BY
S�B�E=T: BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVED AT
1070 BROADWAY ZONED M-1
RECOMMENDATION•
City Council should discuss and take action.
required.
Action Alternatives:
A public hearing is not
1. Grant an extension to the building permit for one year to October
7, 1989 requiring that all improvements for Phase I car
sales/service and four floors of auto storage be completed by
October 7, 1989 and allowing a Phase II including removal of the
service facility and construction of the parking garage or
providing parking on site to code for all uses and conversion of
auto storage within the existing structure to office as approved
on October 7, 1985 without the structural addition on the west
side of the building to be completed before October 7, 1994.
Granting an extension to the building permit would also extend
the traffic allocation to this project to October 7, 1994.
2. Grant an extension to the building permit for one year to October
7, 1989 to allow a reduced project which would permit auto sales
and auto storage in the existing structure, addition of a 9,300
SF service facility structure and 50 on-site parking spaces as
required by code and deny continuation of the Planning approval
for the office/auto sales/service conversion originally approved
in October, 1985. The applicant would have to apply for Planning
approvals for the conversion of the existing building to office
at the time he wished to undertake that project.
3. Deny an extension to the building permit, thus requiring the
applicant to return to the Planning Commission for approval of a
single phase or multiple phased project on the properties at
1044, 1060 and 1070 Broadway.
Staff recommended conditions to be considered in Council action:
1. that Phase I include retail sales of automobiles
floor of the existing structure not to exceed
automobile storage for cars sold on the site o
storage on the upper four floors of the existing
9,300 SF shop/service building to be built at th
on the first
6,550 SF and
r classic car
structure, a
e rear of the
t
2
site and 50 parking spaces striped to city standard:� on site, 22
of them reserved for and clearly marked for employ�es� use, all
50 spaces shall be separated from the outdoor area te� be used for
car sales, and all improvements shall be completed by October 7,
1989;
2. that the three lots, 1044, 1060 and 1070 Broadway, in the same
ownership be merged before the joint use of these sites begins;
3. that the egress/driveway improvements to Broadway on both sides
of the existing five story structure as shown on the building
plans and approved by the City Engineer shall be completed before
any automobile sales or service use occurs on the site;
4. that total employees on this site not exceed 22 during Phase I;
5. that the following conditions included in the October 7, 1985
approval shall be met in the development of Phase I:
a. that all the conditions of the Fire Marshal�s July 19, 1985
memo and Chief Building Inspector's August 2, 1985 memo except
those applying to the separate garage structure shall be met;
b. that final landscaping and irrigation plans including plant
materials shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to
issuing a building permit;
c. that any change in usage of the floor areas of this building
or the parking structure shall require application to the
Planning Department and amendment to this use permit,
including storage of new or used cars in the parking
structure;
d. that new jobs for businesses located in this building shall be
advertised in local newspapers to keep relocation to a
minimum;
e. that the applicant shall pay 25� of the cost of signalization,
coordination and direct intersection improvements at the
Carolan/Broadway project intersection;
f. that the developer shall pay all city required site
development fees including the bayfront development fee;
g. that the improvements to the remodeling of the building shall
include modifications to reduce interior noise levels to 25 dB
on the south side of the building and 20 dB on all other sides
of the main structure, and shall provide a mechanical
ventilation system or air conditioning system;
3
G'�
h. that a written seismic evaluation shall be submitted with
building plans including structural analysis confirming
seismic safety; and —
i. that parking for construction workers shall be provided in a
small lot on the site or within the existing building;
that the following conditions included in the July 7, 1986
approval of the car sales lot permit at 1044-1060 Broadway shall
be met in the development of Phase I:
a. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 9, 1986
as follows shall be met:
(1) that applicant construct a temporary asphalt concrete
median from the Rollins Road median to Carolan Avenue to
prohibit left turns/turns to the site;
(2) driveway out of the proposed lot shall be restricted to
right turn only and signed and marked by the applicant;
(3) the applicant shall either install required restroom
facilities on the used car site or merge this site with
Bekins� site;
(4) access onto Whitethorn Way looks difficult if not
impossible as shown. Adjacent Parcel 9 has building close
to property line at the corner of Whitethorn Way. Access
must be confirmed by map research and survey of lot;
( 5) all lots on the used car site to be merged into one site
if not merged with old Bekins' site;
b. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 29,
1986 with 12� light standards each with 250 watt luminaires
including appropriate shields to confine all light and glare
on the properties of 1060-1044 Broadway and the adjacent wall
of 1070 Broadway and that the automobile sales lot shall be
operated according to the terms of the Controller�s letters
dated May 19, 1986 and May 29, 1986;
c. that the driveway from this property to Broadway be limited to
right turns only and the street channelization be installed
before the project is finaled by the Building Department and
the project include ingress from Whitethorn Way; and
d. that the properties at 1060-1044 Broadway be merged with the
property at 1070 Broadway within 90 days of finaling project
construction by the Building Department;
4
7.
that trucks bringing cars to or picking up cars from this site
load and unload only on this site; -
8. that Phase II
on October 7,
to be added
deleted; and
of this project consist of the project as approved
1985 with all conditions except that the 3, 000 SF
to each of the second and third floors shall be
9. that Phase II of this project shall be completed by October 7,
1994 or reapplication shall be made to the city.
BACKGROUND•
On October 7, 1985 the City Council approved three special permits for
auto sales in the M-1 district, construction over 35' in height and
office use exceeding 20� of the floor area; and three variances for lot
coverage, front setback and landscaping in order to convert an existing
five story warehouse building to retail auto sales and office use at
1070 Broadway, zoned M-1. The Planning approval for this project was
extended to October 7, 1987. On October 5, 1987 the applicant, Michael
Harvey, took out a building permit for the foundation of the parking
garage. The project approval had required the parking garage precede
other improvements on the site. On October 5, 1988 the building permit
for the Bekins project will expire and along with it the Planning
approval (Code Sec. 18.18.040). The applicant is asking now for an
extension to the building permit and to be allowed to develop the
project in phases.
Current Proiect Request
Mr. Harvey now realizes that his needs for use of the site have changed
and he would prefer to do the project at 1044-1060-1070 Broadway in
phases. The first phase would be to use the site as an auto
sales/service/storage facility. This would require the addition of a
9,300 SF shop/service/parts building at the rear of the site and 50 on-
site at grade parking spaces in addition to those shown in the out of
door used car lot. �
In the first phase the existing five story warehouse structure would be
used for auto sales and auto storage. The 6,550 SF first floor would be
auto sales showroom operated in conjunction with the outdoor car sales
lot on a part of 1044-1060 Broadway. (The three lots would be merged
before uses commenced.) The upper four floors would be used for car
storage. Some of the space would be leased to owners of classic cars;
the remaining space would be used to store the model of cars sold from
the site. The 50 space on-site parking requirement is based on the
proposed uses: 6,550 SF of auto sales area inside the building, 26,200
SF of auto storage inside the building, 2,600 SF of parts storage in the
service structure, 263 SF of office in the storage structure, 4,685 SF
of shop/service area in the service structure, and 1,720 SF of parts and
sales in the service structure. Of these 50 on-site spaces, 22 would
need to be marked for employees, the remaining 28 spaces would be for
5
service and sales customers. A permitted use goes with `ze land and any
type of auto dealership could operate from this facilit.y so long as it
functioned within the approved conditions.
Phase II of the development would be to remove the service/parts center
at the rear of the site and replace it with a parking garage or retain
service/parts center and provide code required parking for all the
proposed uses elsewhere on the site. Then the existing building would
be converted to office/auto sales/auto service uses previously proposed.
A penthouse office area would be added on the roof but the 3,000 SF
extensions on the second and third floors previously proposed would not
be added to the structure.
The applicant is not sure at this time when he might wish to commence
Phase II, but feels that it could be five years in the future.
Staff Review
Several years ago Council amended the municipal code to limit the length
of time a building permit was valid when a Planning approval was
involved and no substantial construction had occurred under the building
permit (Code Sec. 18.18.040). The time limit on the building permit was
one year.
Based on this legislation, on October 5, 1988 Michael Harvey�s initial
building permit for the parking garage expires along with his Planning
approval. Aware of this, he has requested an extension. In the
extension request he has included phasing the development on the sites
at 1044-1060-1070 Broadway so that their use better meets his short and
long term business needs. Under this regulation phasing is possible;
however, the lesser project must meet the current city code standards
for parking, etc. The building permit extension procedure cannot be
used to grant a variance to zoning requirements. A variance requires a
full public hearing and Planning Commission review.
In the present request Council is being asked to:
1. grant a one year extension to the building permit issued October
5, 1987 to October 5, 1989 requiring that the service/parts
building and other improvements be completed by that time;
2. accept a phased development of the project at 1044-1060-1070
Broadway including as Phase I, 6,550 SF of auto sales and 26,200
SF of auto storage in the existing five story building with no
expansion to floor area, construction of the 9,300 SF auto
service/parts building at the rear of the site and providing 50
on-site parking spaces, 22 designated for employees; Phase II
would include the project as previously approved October, 1985
with the possible retention of the new service facility if all
parking requirements are met on site and without the 3,000 SF
floor area expansion on the second and third floors;
[�
3. place a five year limitation (October 5, 1994) on the Planning
approval of Phase II at which time if substantial progress on
Phase II has not been made would cause the 1985 Planning approval
and traffic allocation to expire.
EXHIBITS:
- Monroe letter to Michael R. Harvey, June 21, 1988
- Michael R. Harvey letter to Monroe, June 24, 1988
- Monroe letter to Michael R. Harvey, June 27, 1988
- Michael R. Harvey letter to Monroe, June 29, 1988
MM/s
cc: Michael R. Harvey
1 . �
V�� �4N� �� �NY��MM �'���
N
%
--Y� , ''-�.,..w�
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAO PLANNING OEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME, CA�IFORNIA 94010 (415) 3a2-8625
June 21, 1988
Mr. Michael R. Harvey
Post Office Box 511
Burlingame, CA 94011
Subject: Permit Expirations on Approved Projects at
1070 Broadwav and 1044-1060 Broadway
Dear Mr. Harvey:
In response to your telephone query on June 21, 1988, I felt it
would be best to respond to your inquiry in writing. This will
establish a log of the situation in order to save time in the
future.
First, regarding the property at 1070 Broadway, often called the
Bekins project. On October 5, 1987 you took out a foundation
permit for construction of a parking garage on this site. Under
the municipal code Sec. 18.18.040 substantial construction must
occur within a year after a building permit is issued on any
project which has any planning permits. Substantial construction
is defined in the code as total basic foundation formed and poured
and inspected. Since your permit was issued on October 5, 1987
this substantial construction must be completed by October 5, 1988
or the planning approvals and building permit will become voided.
The municipal code does provide for an extension from Council in
the case of a proven hardship. A request for hardship must be made
to Council before the expiration of the permit,. October 5, 1988.
The determination of whether to extend planning approval and/or the
building permit is at the discretion of the City Council.
Since you asked about downscaling the project and perhaps
completing it in phases, the best approach for the 1070 Broadway
property would be to write Council describing in some detail your
phased request (which I assume is within the scope of your original
project) and detailing your hardship. Staff will then review this
and place it on the Council agenda for their action. Their
determination could then address the expiration of the planning and
building permits, and possible extension as well as phasing of the
project. .
Mr. Michael R. Harvey ��xe 2
Ci ?1I88
Regerding the project �pProve.l. et 10�4-1060 Br�edway (known ae the
Crisafi property), the Planning Commission granted an extension of
this project�s original planning approval on July 7, 1987 to July
7► 1988. The municipal code allows only one extension of a
planning approval for a maximum of one year. In order to avoid
losing your planning approval on July 7, 1988 you must receive a
building permit before the planning approvals expire. In order to
get a building permit you would have to submit and have approved by
the building department a construction plan for black-topping
including drainage and lighting construction documents. A parcel
map application to merge the properties at 1044-1060 and 1070 is
also required since the approved use of 1044-1060 as a car sales
lot was based on an office area and restroom facilities located
within the adjacent building at 1070 Broadway. Picking up a
building permit includes payment of the permit fee prior to
issuance of the permit.
I am sure you are aware that construction plans require plan check
which has an associated fee and takes two to three weeks. Plan
check will not commence until the required fees are paid. The
building permit cannot be issued until all proposed plans have
completed the plan check review, been adjusted as required and the
building permit fee paid.
Thank you for your phone call. I hope that this clarifies what
needs to be done in regard to these two projects and their planning
approvals. Please call me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely yours,
i'� l� , , l' ,
�( w��,� I 1�� ti��
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Pete Kriner, Chief Building Inspector
Jerry Coleman, City Attorney
Dennis Argyres, City Manager
�
� Burlin9ame
Automofi�e
Management
,.;, ,
June 24, 1988
Meg Monroe
Planning Commission
Burlingame City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Meg:
Responding to our recent phone conversation, I would like to outline for
you and the City Council my intent with respect to the Bekins property
at 1070 Broadway, and indirectly, additional changes that will impact our
other facilities in Burlingame as well.
The requirement fueling all of the changes in locations for my auto
franchises, is the need for larger facilities for the Toyota franchise
currently at 790 No. San Mateo Drive in San Mateo. As was evidenced
through the previously approved Toyota sign application, it is my intent
to relocate the Toyota franchise to our present 0ldsmobile/Chrysler-Plymouth
facility, 1007 Rollins Road-1008 Carolan Avenue.
Prior to that however, I intend to relocate Chrysler-Plymouth to the recently
acquired facility (across from the Bekins building), 1049 Broadway-1100
Carolan Avenue.
Oldsmobile will temporarily occupy the vacated Toyota facility at 790 No. San
Mateo Drive. I intend to begin construction on Bekins as soon as possible.
Upon completion, my Acura franchise will be installed in that facility.
Finally, completing the 4 relocations, I will move Oldsmobile into the vacated
Acura facility at 200 California Drive, (at the north end of Burlingame's
auto row).
�
Meg Monroe
Planning Commission
Page 2.
I would like to specifically address in this letter, however, the
modifications to our original plans for the renovation of the Bekins
facility. As mentioned, ultimately Acura will be housed exclusively
in the 5-story structure.
Rather than erecting a 3-story parking structure at the rear of the
Bekins facility, it is my intent to build a service facility to address
Acura's requirements.
I have enclosed a site plan along with elevations and pzeliminary drawings
for the service facility.
This change, as you can imagine, eliminates the need for the originally
proposed service department on the 2nd floor of the 5-story Bekins structure.
Instead, our simplified proposal will include a showroom on the lst floor
and auto storage on the top 4 floors with no servicing of any nature within
the Bekins structure. The contiguous parcel at 1044-1060 Broadway (the
former Crisafi property) will be utilized as originally indicated for used
car sales as well as egress to Rollins Road.
Aesthetically, it is my intent to add windows to the 5 floors of the building
as well as a G,F.R.C. exterior treatment sa that the entire building will
receive an entirely new facade.
As a final note, the originally proposed 3-story wing, to be constructed on
the west side of the Bekins building, parallel to the Southern Pacific
railroad tracks, has been abandoned. Also, for the time being, I do not
intend to build the 6th floor, but rather as indicated, opt for auto storage
within the structure eliminating at this time the need for a mixed use, office
and auto complex.
I feel, Meg, that the existing parking on site wi11 accommodate the project's
needs. More importantly, the single purpose nature of this proposal, I
believe, will enhance not only this particular location, but more importantly,
the nature and direction of the automobile business for this particular part
of Burlingame.
I would request that the option for some degree of office use within the
5-story structure be left open for the future. This obviously is a very
costly renovation and the economic viability of this project has been, and
will be�dependent to some degree, on mixed use space in the future.
f
Meg Monroe
Planning Commission
Page 3.
Addressing for a moment our request for a hardship extension of the
existing building permit at 1070 Broadway, I am certain with your
experience dealing with corporations outside of this 5tate and, in
fact, outside of our Country, that you can appreciate the variables
and vagaries involved. In this particular instance, regarding our
building plans for Bekins, it was necessary to accommodate the
mandates and desires of 2 foreign manufacturers as well as 2 domestic
manufacturers.
Compounding the difficulties were additional requests for information
from our bankers, the manufacturers, as we11 as changes in the market-
place.
These concerns as well as others had to be addressed, coordinated and
appeased in order to see this project through to fruition. Certainly
it was not my desire, nor is it cost efficient, for this process to
linger as long as it has and apparently the only benefit has been my
expensive education as well as my firm commitment to think twice before
attempting a project of this nature again.
Yours very truly,
Michael R. Harvey
President �
encls.
, .
C�.�.P C�z�� .a.� ��x�.C.xr�.��zi"C,e
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PL.4NNING DEPnRTMENT
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 �a15) 3a2-8625
June 27, 1988
Mr. Michael R. Harvey
Burlingame Automotive Management
1025 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mike:
I have had an opportunity to make an initial review of the plans
for your phased development of the Bekins site at 1070 Broadway
which you dropped off Friday, June 24, 1988. Because each phase
must meet zoning code requirements there are several additional
items I will need before I can put together a packet for City
Council review. These include:
1. A site plan for Phase I(car sales and storage and service
facility) showing the parking layout clearly dimensioned and
to scale. This plan should also include site circulation.
The plan should reflect that all zoning code requirements
for parking, circulation, etc. are met.
2. Enumeration of all the employees on the site including car
sales, car service and repair and personnel to support car
sales and service such as car jockeys, etc.
3. Describe how the use of the adjacent 1044-1060 Broadway
property will relate, e.g., office area within Bekins
Building, type of use, related or unrelated operation to the
dealership in the Bekins Building, etc.
4. Describe how the car storage uses on the upper floors of
Bekins will be used, by whom, separately leased or for
storage of cars owned by your dealership on the premises or
by dealerships elsewhere in the city.
It is my understanding from your letter of June 24, 1988 that you
wish to retain the auto sales and office use project as originally
approved by the city as a Phase II on this site to be built at some
future date. However, the presently proposed structural
reinforcement makes the originally proposed three story wing on the
west side of the building unnecessary to future improvements.
Therefore, it's my understanding you would like Phase II to exclude
the additional floor area of the western wing addition.
Mr. Michael R. Harvey p-ge Z
Burlingame Automotive Management _une 27, 1988
Like you I would like to take your proposal to Council for their
review under Code Sec. 18.08.040 as soon as possible. Because of
the July 4 holiday I would suggest we try for the meeting of July
18. In order to meet this schedule we would need dimensioned site
and parking plans as well as floor plans to check for conformance
to the zoning and other code requirements not later than June 30.
It would be helpful to have the answer to the other questions at
that time, but they could be submitted by July 7 if it is more
convenient for you.
As you are aware from my previous letter, this matter goes directly
to City Council since you are requesting an extension to a building
permit not a planning approval. Thank you for your attention to
this matter. We look forward to resolving this project with you.
Sincerely yours,
1�n����'' ` ' I �Q�1 �
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Jerry Coleman, City Attorney
Dennis Argyres, City Manager
Pete Kriner, Chief Building Inspector
�
B�rli�► an►e
9
A�tomotiVe
Manageme►►t
June 29, 1988
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
City of Burlingame
City Hall - 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Dear Meg:
R���.,,,:,�
�' � i:
JiJiV 3 0198�
c�rr oF au�u,vc�M�
PlANNING DEPT.
Responding to your letter of June 27th, following is the requested
additional information;
1) A site plan should be received by yourself before the
30th of June. This plan will include on-site parking as well as
traffic circulation and will be delivered by our architects, Peter
Culley & Associates.
2) It is my intent to employ 10 sales personnel for both
new and used car sales as well as 2 sales managers. In the parts
and service departments there will be approximately 10 employees,
2 parts personnel and 7 technicians with one supervisor.
3) Regarding the adjacent 1044-1060 Broadway property,
this address, of course, will be eliminated on completion of the
new parcel map combining the 3 parcels of 1044-1060-1070 Broadway.
The adjoining used car lot will be used in conjunction with the new
car department and the individuals selling Acuras in the new car
department will also be responsible for the sales generated on the
used car lot.
4) Regarding the 4 upper floors of the building, they will
be used during Phase 1 as automobile storage. It is conceivable that
portions of the automobile storage will be leased on an individual
basis for classic car storage exclusively. (In other words, like the
Candy Store on Burlingame Avenue, the classic cars will simply be
stored with no maintainence or reconditioning on-site.)
Margaret Monroe -
June 29, 1988
Page 2.
The balance of the building will be utilized for new car storage
for the Acura franchise. I would hope that this storage would be
on a 50-50 basis, i.e., 50% classic cars and 50% utilized for the
Acura automobiles.
Finally, regarding the 3-story additional wing on the west side of
the building, as indicated in your letter, you are correct. It is
not my intention to include that 3-story wing in the Phase 2 permit.
Yours very truly,
Michael R. Harvey �
President -