Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.10.03 Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on October 3, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Jennifer Pfaff. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. CALIFORNIA DRIVE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION PW Program Manager Augustine Chou introduced John Pulliam, from Kimley Horn and Associates, who gave a presentation on the California Drive Roundabout Project. Mr. Pulliam reviewed the history of the project, stating that in 2000, staff determined that a traffic roundabout was a good remedy for the current precarious intersection. In 2007, a feasibility study was performed and verified staff’s determination that a roundabout would be the preferred design. In December, 2013, the City applied for a grant for design and construction of a roundabout project and in April, 2014, the City was awarded a million dollar grant for the project. Beginning in March of 2015, staff gave the Traffic, Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 Safety & Parking Commission monthly project updates on design options. Afterwards, staff held public outreach meetings in October, 2015 and May, 2016 to hear concerns about the preferred design. Mr. Kevin Agigi, from Kimley Horn and Associates, reviewed the existing intersection. He stated that the intersection is really two intersections. He explained that the current design creates a confusing situation for drivers, bikers and pedestrians as they try to navigate through both intersections. Mr. Pulliam stated that the purpose of the project is to improve the safety and flow of all three transportation modes at the intersection by: (1) creating highlighted crosswalks and new curb ramps for pedestrians; (2) creating class 1 or class 2 bike lanes; and (3) decreasing delays while slowing down the speeds of vehicles through the intersection. Mr. Pulliam gave an overview of the concept design for the roundabout. He stated that they would like to create a 2 lane roundabout that is centered towards the tracks. He explained that the roundabout would be created with an emphasis on preserving parking, improving access to parking adjacent to tracks and expanding buffer sidewalk and landscape areas. Mr. Agigi explained that based on meetings with the public, staff created an analysis of the benefits of a roundabout over installing traffic signals at the intersection. In reviewing the traffic signal option, he stated several issues including: (1) right turns onto Lorton Avenue may queue past Caltrain parking lot exit thereby blocking through movements; (2) traffic queues on California Drive reach excessive lengths when other movements are serviced; and (3) pedestrians have fewer options to navigate through the area and only one way to cross California Drive. In reviewing the roundabout design, Mr. Agigi stated the following benefits: (1) yield control allows continuous movement of vehicles; (2) northbound bypass lane allows one direction of California drive to avoid entering circulating intersection; (3) two routes for pedestrians to cross California Drive, with refuge areas providing buffers from vehicles; (4) roundabout circulation reduce severe crashes; and (5) the Lorton/Bellevue traffic delay will be considerably less. Mr. Pulliam discussed the project schedule. He stated that the consultants will be finalizing the plans in January, 2017 and construction will begin in April/May, 2017. He stated that the project would likely take a year to complete. Lastly, Mr. Pulliam discussed the aesthetic, urban design and landscape architecture opportunities for the roundabout. He showed a few slides as examples of how other cities added public art or landscaping to their roundabouts. As well, he addressed the possibility of continuing the aesthetic of Burlingame Avenue through the roundabout. He explained that staff would be holding a community outreach meeting in late October to discuss aesthetics and concerns about the roundabout. Mayor Keighran asked if the lack of stop signs at the roundabout would create pedestrian safety concerns. Mr. Pulliam stated that roundabouts are traffic calming features that slow vehicles. He stated that the maximum speed a vehicle can enter the traffic circle is 27 mph. As well, he explained that rectangular rapid flashing signs could be used at pedestrian crossings to get the attention of drivers. Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 Councilmember Beach asked why the roundabout was not a complete circle in the conceptual design. Mr. Pulliam stated that the shaved side (creating a straight line on one side of the roundabout) was to maximize space and not put the roundabout too close to existing commercial space. Councilmember Beach asked how cyclists would travel through the proposed intersection. Mr. Pulliam stated that there are two ways a cyclist will move through the roundabout: (1) an experienced cyclist will move with traffic and use the roundabout; and (2) less experienced cyclists have slip ups on the sidewalks to move their bike on and off the sidewalk, so that they can walk their bike around the intersection. PW Program Manager Chou stated that interested individuals can visit www.burlingame.org/roundabout to find out more about the California Drive Roundabout Project. PW Director Murtuza discussed the fact that staff would be working with the Police Department to educate pedestrians, cyclists and drivers on how to safely use the roundabout. As well, he discussed the decision to make the roundabout two lanes instead of one. He stated that if the roundabout was one lane it would have a significant adverse impact on traffic. He explained that without a road diet on California Drive to provide a systematic slowing down of traffic heading into the roundabout, a one lane roundabout would cause too much congestion. However, he added that in the future if California Drive is given a road diet, it would be easy to make the roundabout one lane and then create dedicated bike lanes. Councilmember Brownrigg stated his concern about the traffic calming mechanism going north on California Drive. Mr. Agigi stated that it is a smooth gradual transition and that other cities use a similar traffic calming mechanism. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how many parking spots would be lost. PW Program Manager Chou stated that 4 parking spots would be lost. (In a follow up this was later corrected to 10 spots – 3 on California Drive adjacent to Stacks Restaurant, 4 in the middle of the intersection at Lorton/Bellevue and 3 near the office building in front of 401 California Drive.) Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there was no perfect solution to this intersection. However, he felt that the current design was the best option. As well, he stated that he saw the center of the roundabout as a significant public art opportunity. Councilmember Colson asked when the meeting would be at the end of October. Mr. Pulliam stated that he should have that date within the next couple of days. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated he was in support of the roundabout. He stated that he agreed that until a road diet is done that it needs to remain two lanes. However, he stated he remained concerned about how cyclists would navigate the intersection. Councilmember Beach expressed support for the roundabout concept, but discussed her concerns about safety conditions created by a two lane roundabout. She stated that individuals traveling northbound on California and exiting onto Bellevue and Lorton Avenue would need to be aware of oncoming traffic on the left and right. Mr. Agigi stated that there would need to be some education on the roundabout and within time the community would feel comfortable using it. Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni discussed her concern that the roundabout should be one lane and not the current design of two. She stated that because the roundabout is not one lane, cyclists will not feel comfortable using it. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed her concern with vehicle speed in the roundabout. Councilmember Beach asked if the intersection as a single lane roundabout had been rated. Mr. Agigi stated it would be an E (failing). Councilmember Brownrigg further discussed his interest in placing public art in the center of the roundabout. He asked if his colleagues agreed with him. Mayor Keighran stated that this could be discussed at a later date. Councilmember Colson voiced her concern for sight line if a statue is placed in the roundabout. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Pat Giorni discussed wanting to recognize civic engagement in the City of Burlingame. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2016. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING GARBAGE CONTAINER REMOVAL IN COMMERCIAL AREAS City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance 1931. c. APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO CREATE AN APPRECIATION PROGRAM IN HONOR OF BURLINGAME VETERANS AND ACTIVE DUTY ARMED FORCES SERVICEMEMBERS Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 Councilmember Beach and City Manager Goldman requested Council’s approval of an appreciation program to honor Burlingame Veterans and Active Duty Armed Forces Servicemembers. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD CDD Meeker presented the staff report requesting an extension of a conditional use permit for an auto rental, storage and repair facility located at 778 Burlway Road. CDD Meeker gave a brief overview of the background of the applicant’s conditional use permit at 778 Burlway Road. He stated that a non-conforming car rental business had been occupying the property since 1985. He explained that per the request of the applicant, the conditional use permit had been modified and extended several times. He stated that previously the Planning Commission approved two, two-year conditional use permit extensions and one, five-year extension. In November, 2012, the applicant submitted an application for a ten-year extension. The Planning Commission denied the applicant’s request without prejudice. Therefore, the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, and Council granted a two-year extension of the permit. In its deliberations, the Council specified that the extension was to facilitate an orderly disposition of the operations, with an additional condition that the applicant demonstrate evidence of having proactively marketed the property so it could be developed with conforming uses. In anticipation of the lapse of the extension, the applicant initiated discussion with the City about an extension during the spring of 2015. On November 30, 2015, the applicant submitted an application to extend the conditional use permit for 7 years. The applicant stated that the extension was needed to allow time for SFO to complete an expanded and consolidated car rental facility. Once the new car rental facility opens at SFO, the applicant will no longer need to use the property at 778 Burlway Road. However, the facility at SFO is not scheduled to be completed until 2020. CDD Meeker explained that the Council heard this matter and determined that further work was necessary to evaluate the possible extension. Accordingly, an ad hoc subcommittee was created consisting of Councilmembers Colson and Brownrigg to work with staff on analyzing the potential negative effects of allowing this use to continue. CDD Meeker explained that the property is zoned as Shoreline Area which is intended to be used for visitor oriented development, such as hotels, offices and destination restaurants. He stated that it has been over a decade since there have been any significant new construction in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the concern is that the presence of a rental car operation with a sizable parking lot might be considered detrimental to the overall impression of the Bayfront as a desirable setting for new development. CDD Meeker stated that the ad hoc committee analyzed the impacts and determined appropriate offset payments for the requested seven year extension. The payments would be as follows: $1,854,000 for the Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 first four years and then $213,000 for each of the following three years if certain development milestones are met, and $713,500 per year if they are not. He explained that the alternative payment structure in the final three years is to incentivize redevelopment of the parcel and to compensate the City for the increased burden of an extended period of underutilization. Councilmember Beach asked staff to explain the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. CDD Meeker stated that to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission, or Council on appeal, must make the following three findings: (1) 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; (2) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and the Burlingame Zoning ordinances; and (3) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as it deems necessary to secure use of the zoning regulations 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. Councilmember Beach stated that she thought the applicant’s use arguably might not meet these findings. She asked that given 30 years of automobile storage, repair, and affiliated uses is it fair to say that there might be some environmental impact on that parcel for future development. CDD Meeker stated that would be determined during an environmental analysis in a future proposal. He stated it was not uncommon to need environmental mitigation when dealing with automobile repair shops. However it is not yet known in this case. Councilmember Beach stated that in looking at the staff report from January, 2016 there was reasonable consideration that because the City is updating the General Plan that it is in Burlingame’s best interests to wait on new development until the General Plan is finalized. She asked when the General Plan would be finalized. CDD Meeker stated that the General Plan will most likely be done mid-2018. Councilmember Beach asked if the development requirements are not met would it trigger a termination of the conditional use permit. City Attorney Kane replied that under section 2F of the amended extension conditions, the City may terminate the applicant’s rights but they are not required to terminate. Councilmember Colson discussed the ad hoc committee’s approach to the situation. She discussed the applicant’s continuous use of the property since 1985 and the ad hoc committee’s determination of the mitigation/opportunity cost of the property. As well, she discussed the fact that the SFO facility provides finality to the conditional use permit. Councilmember Colson explained that the conditions for the extension of the conditional use permit were set up to encourage the applicant to work with the City to find a new development at the end of the conditional use permit. Councilmember Brownrigg expressed the City’s interest in redeveloping the Bayfront area to include hotels and restaurants. Therefore, he explained it was important to work with the applicant to mitigate their usage of the land and prepare it for new developers. He discussed the idea that the mitigation payments could be used to help restore the Bayfront Trail. Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the goal of the committee and applicant is that when SFO is within a year of completion on the parking facility that the applicant will be working with a developer to ensure ready to build plans on the day the applicant leaves. Vice Mayor Ortiz thanked the committee for their work on this project. He stated that Councilmembers Brownrigg and Colson made good points about the timeline of preparing the property for a new developer. Mayor Keighran thanked the committee for their work. She stated that originally she was against this application but because circumstances changed, and the General Plan is being updated, she agreed with the ad hoc committee’s recommendations. As well, she discussed the goal of having a developer ready to go when the applicant leaves the property. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Thomas Klinger, a representative of the applicant, thanked the Council for their assistance in this matter. Mayor Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the time the ad hoc committee spent on this matter and the good faith the applicant, Enterprise, exercised in this matter. However, she stated that this was not the best use of the land. She explained that she understood that developers would need to wait until the General Plan is amended to work on the land. But she stated she was opposed to extending the conditional use permit for seven years. She explained that she couldn’t support the extension because the situation is really about the land use and the chilling effect that the applicant’s use is having on the adjacent properties. As well, she stated that when reviewing the findings that must be met to obtain a conditional use permit she did not believe that the applicant met those findings. She stated that there are environmental concerns with the applicant’s use of the property. She also stated that the applicant’s use is not compatible with adjacent properties and therefore changes the character of the neighborhood. Accordingly, she argued that there is no mitigation that can make this right. She stated that she believed Council got the matter right in July, 2013 when the Council gave the applicant two more years and said that was it. However she stated that the game changer is that the General Plan is being updated so she thought Council should enter into a two-year extension with the applicant. She stated that if the Council allowed them any longer it might not be in the best interests of the City. She stated that while a higher mitigation fee is a higher penalty that it is not comparable to what the applicant would need to lease new property for their auto rental, storage and repair facility. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve the amended conditional use permit for 778 Burlway Road; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Beach voted against). 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. Burlingame City Council October 3, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Brownrigg discussed his concern about the open space of the post office project. City Attorney Kane stated that a study session should be scheduled to discuss Council’s concerns and allow the public an opportunity to voice their concerns. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were no acknowledgements. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. in memory of Dale Schenk. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk