HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1990.02.21478
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
February 2l , 1990
CALL TO ORDER
Led by city Manager Dennis Argyres.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT:
MINUTES
BARTON, HARRfSON, LEIIBI , OIMAHONY, PAGLIARO
NONE
Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 5, the Regular Meeting of
February 5, and the Study Meeting of February 7, 7990 hrere approved
unanimously on motion of councilman Harrison, second by Councilwoman
O'Mahony.
CHANGE ORDER OF AGENDA
Mayor Lembi changed the order of the public hearings on the agenda
and noted the appeal for variance and permits to use an accessorystructure for living purposes at 919 Capuchino would be continued to
the March 19 meeting at the request of the appellant.
APPEAL FOR TWO VAR]A}ICES FOR ADDITION AT 462 MARIN AVENUE
City Planner reviewed her memo of February 13 which recommended
council hold a public hearing and take action. The applicant, Tom
Tachis, is requesting side yard setback and declining height
envelope height variances in order to extend the first floor of his
house 26 feet to the rear and build a second story addition over theexisting and nell, first floor waIIs. He is adding the first floor
area to extend his garage to the rear with a three foot setback
where four feet is required. The front seven feet of the garage
will be removed leaving the required 20 foot deep garage. The
adjacent house is two story, however the waII of the proposed secondstory at 462 Marin is higher than that of the house next door, thus
a variance to declining height is required. The existing house has
two bedrooms and one bath with an attached garagei with the addition
the house wilL have four bedrooms, three baths, family room and
attached garage. The Planning Commission approved the variance to
side yard setback but denied the declining height varj-ance at its
meeting of January 22, L990.
Councilman Harrison asked about the two houses behj-nd the subjectproperty which are both th,o story houses. city Planner said the
declining height envelope exception does not include houses at the
rear .
Ken lbarra, architect, reviewed that there are L3 out of 23 housesin the neighborhood which are thto story or split level; they propose
to scale down the bulk of the addition by setting it back and there
would be a 32 foot setback in the front yard.
Tom Tachis, applicant, said they presently have a two bedroom, one
bath home, and they have outgrown it; the planned addition will have
three bedrooms upstairs so the family can be together; if the
addition r^rere stepped along the side yard in it \"rould detract from
the esthetic quality of the project; aII the neighbors approve of
the addition.
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was
held on the above date in the City HalI Council Chambers. The
meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Donald P. Lembi.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGfANCE TO THE FLAG
Mayor Lembi opened the publi-c hearing.
479
Carol Gonella, neighbor, spoke in favor; Tachis are asset to city
and neighborhood; home across street exceeds height limits and a
number of houses in area have four levels; the applicants have done
a lot of work to improve their propertY. Mj-ke cortese, neighbor on
Cumberland, supported the applicants and the project; they are an
asset to the comnunity.
Mayor Lembi closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pagliaro said this is a case where a family needs more
room, they have worked to keep the proposed addition back away from
the street and other property lines; he favored approval. other
council members agreed. Councilwoman Barton questioned applicant on
need for varj.ance to declining height; applicant said it would be
aesthetically and structurally difficult to stay within the
declining height envelope .
Councilman Harrison moved the approve the variance from setback
requirements with two conditions of staff report and to approve the
variance to the declining height envelope, making findings as Iisted
in the staff report. Seconded by councilwoman orMahony, carried
unanimously by ro11 call vote. Mayor tembi noted he lives in that
neighborhood and the project would blend wel-I \"rith other homes.
REV]EW OF SECOND STORY RETAIL USE AT 311 PRIMROSE ROAD
city Planner reviewed her memo of February 13 which recommended
council hold a public hearing and take action. Ronnie Goldfield is
requesti-ng a three space parking variance to convert the second
floor area of her busi.ness into retail sales space for an artgallery and storage space. of the 1,480 square foot floor area of
the second floor, 254 square feet will be removed for lightwells and
is not counted as usable space for parking purPoses. The proposed
retail use would require three parking spaces, none of which areprovided. At the time of construction the second floor of this
building was used for offices and had a separate entrance. In 1950
the rear 500 square feet of the second floor was converted to
residential use legally, and later the remainder of the second floor
was converted to residential units rl,ithout building permits. The
two residential units never had parking spaces, and have been vacant
for over sj-x months and therefore are nonconforming. Any use on the
second floor would require a variance from parking requirements.
Since the second floor only has one entrance, the Fire Department
limited the occupancy to a maximum of nine persons at one time.
This requirement has resulted in the respective sizes of the retail,
storage and lightwell- area of the second floor space.
Mayor Lembi opened the public hearing.
John Gardner, architect, commented that the art gallery would only
have shows on Sundays which would not conflict with do$rnto\"rn
traffic; that art galleries have low foot traffic impact as compared
to other retail uses. In response to Councilman Pagliaro, Gardner
said the lower store is currently leased for three more months and
they would remodel after the lease is up; that the lightwells are
meant to reduce the amount of floor space on the second floor and
will also benefit the art gallery with an enlarged and open area to
display art.
Mayor Lembi closed the public hearing.
councilwoman Barton said she had called this issue up for council
review because of her concern that allowing this \"rou1d set a
precedenti council has reviewed other requests for second floor
retail and denied those requests; if this is allowed the city will
get more requests for second floor retail uses; council has had apolicy of not allowing this type use unless parking is provided.
She was also greatly concerned about losinq residential uses which
the city desperately needs; second floor residential is an excellent
mix with retail use on the first floor. She noted that she knows
this is a fine art gallery and has an excellent reputation.
Councilman Harrj-son thought this was a compatible use in the area
and guarantees minimal traffic; he favored approval. Councilwoman
480
Barton said if this retail use is allowed it can always remainretail; if the art gallery moved out a boutique or more intenseretail use could move in. She thought it vras a terrible mistake.
Councj-Iman Pagliaro agreed that Councilwoman Barton has brought up
some real concerns, but even if residential use continued they would
need a parking variance; he favored this low volume use. In
response to a question about the duration of the variance the City
Planner said the variance runs with the land, it is possible that
council could put an expiration date on the variance so that theproperty owner would have to come back to council to continue thevariance. Mayor Lembi said this is a fine gallery; he had voted
against other second floor retail uses but \"rith the Fire Department
requirements met he thought a gallery was underuse of the property.
Councilman Harrison moved to uphold the Planning comnission approvalwith conditions and findings. Seconded by Councilwoman o'Mahony.
Motion carried 4-1 on ro11 call vote, councilwoman Barton voting no.
SECOND READING - ORDINANCE 1,407 - ESTABLIS}IING STANDARDS FOR
SUBDIVISIONS IN VICINITY OF CREEKS - RESOLUT]ON 25-90 - APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-430P REGARDING C]TY CREEKS
city Planner reviewed her memo of February 14 which recommended
council hold a public hearing and take action on the negative
declaration and the proposed creek ordinance. The issue of creeks,
flooding and regulation of development has been a concern of councilfor a long period of time. Most recently in 1987 a number of lotdivision requests brought to council's attention the inadequacy ofthe available data on creek flows and capacj-ty as well as
development problems caused by subdivision and zoning requirements.In 1988 council enacted an interim ordinance to stop subdivision and
development of creek property until a ne!,, study of creek flow and
capacity could be completed and implementing legislation considered.
The 1989 Drainage Study was completed in late November and sincethat time staff has evaluated the data and worked vrith councif to
develop appropriate regulations for consi.deration for the city code.
The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to maintain the present
condition of creeks, prevent further encroachments which wouldaffect creek capacity and, where possible, when existing structuresj-n creeks are replaced ensure that current capacity needs are met.
In response to council guestions, the City Planner reviewed the 15foot setback from 100 year flood flow which would put 90 percent ofproperties in compliance with the proposed law. She then discussed
the proposed subdivision requirements and the fact that 60 percent
of a parcel could not inelude the creek area when considering
subdivisions. Mayor Lembi questioned not allowing bridges or decksto extend over culverts. City Planner said the draft ordinance
would al1ow them if they got a creek construction permit; or council
could consider an amendment allowing decks and pedestrian bridges.
Mayor Lembi opened the public hearing to those in favor of the 1aw.
James Yawn, 1815 Carmelita, Margaret White, 1148 Oxford; and Russ
impeding the creek flow; thougtht the 15
flohr t^ras too conservative; permit proces
be considered on individual basis; if city establishes standardssimilar to building code standards, then a builder would either meet
Jackson, spoke in favor. This proposed
of concerns about flooding and the fact
information was 40 years ol"d; a process
development will help the residents and
creeks are built without permits; have t
ordinance came about becausethat the city's creek
and standards for creek
the city; most structures in
o have a procedure to stopfoot setback from 100 year
s would allow structures to
standards or they could not build - there is n
consideration; have experienced flooding on he
council pass Iaw to protect both hillside andfoot setback may be overzealous, suggest 10 fethe natural beauty of Burlingame, would like t
suqgest developers t ould not like to see this
they want to use every bit of land.
OI
flaet,ok
ord
ndividualropertyi ask that
tland dwellers; 15
creeks are part of
eep it natural;
inance pass because
Speaking in opposition was: Pam Asp1und, 433 Occidental; Brian
Delehanty, 211 occidental; Debbie A1an, 1000 Bernal; Andrew Lapkin,
481
Mayor Lembi closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pagliaro inquired about the suggestion that any creek
construction be allowed under building code and wondered about
variances or permits; City Planner said there could be no varianceor exception from building code requirements i to provide someflexibility, a permit or vari-ance procedure was suggested for creek
structures in the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Harrison said this issue came before council before he
was elected to council and he believed it was the result of a
subdivision problem; there are two issues addressed in this
ordinance, construction in creeks and subdivisions; he might favor
some restraints on subdivisions but he did not favor the othersections. Mayor Lembi asked about subdivision procedures, city
Planner reviewed that these must be approved by both Planning andCouncil. Council$roman Barton said this Law came about because of
subdivision, some neighbors objected to neighbors taking up all the
creek property and damaging the visual and physical character of the
creek; but if creek property owners don't !'rant this law it is oKwith her, she doesntt live on a creek. Councilwoman o'Mahony said
she had a problem restricting property owners use of their property,
she couldn't support an arbitrary setback to floods that might
happen only every 100 years. She moved to deny the ordinance.
l-04 Pepper; Paul Bossert, 3012 Hillside; Lee Benning; Ecker Alan,
1000 Bernal; Robert Craig, 157 Occidental; Mr. Fitzgerald, 3003
canyon i Robert Courting, 12 EI Quanito; Eleanor Stone, 2750 EI
Prado; Alan Horn, l-325 Paloma; Ken Newman i Nate Taylor, 1,056 Drake;
Dino Diodati, resident and builder of 748 walnut, Jim Mitche1l, Ray
Park areai Joe Diodati, ?48 Walnut builder; resident at 750 walnut;
Donald Asplund, 433 occidental, Harry Graham; Patrick Kinsella;
concerns expressed were that 300 or more families vrould no Longer
have control of their propertyi would like to be abl-e to use
property near creeks; don't understand why you can't build retaining
walls with this law, why must keep creek naturali Hillsborough has
no restrictions on use of creeks; if city wants a greenbelt around
creeks it should buy the property; no owner of creek property would
harm the land; one house built over a closed cuLvert, would be
unable to make any changes to his house; objected to property owners
not being notified about this ordinance; why doesnrt city clean out
the creeks and culverts; why doesnrt city contact Caltrans because
they are causing flooding problems with highways by "putting a corkin the bottle"; because his house is next to creek, if house werelost due to fire would not be able to rebuild; in Marin county a
city was required to buy creek property because of a similar Lawi
have a large nearly two acre 1ot and would not be able to subdivide,
causing loss of property rights; this law is clearly designed to
take away property rights and is creating a litigation problem for
city; why this all-encompassing ordinance, there is a difference
bet$reen decks and subdividing; one man personally cleaned out
culvert and hauled away 30 yards of material - city should do this;
this ordinance will not benefit the creek ownersi one house that wasbuilt on pillars in the creek bed could not be built with this law;property above Canyon Road had culvert which collapsed and created a
cesspool and flooding problems, no$, that it has been subdivided and
the ne\", tot developed, the problem has been solved - with this Iaw
that problem would remain; the issue is to control silt and erosion
and this law will not do that; where creek is adjacent to street theculvert causes water to bounce off waII and creates erosion ofpropertyi people dump their trash into creeks; this Iaw does not
address the problem and limits property owners' enj olment of theirproperty; subdivision and decks should be under different sectionsi
decks should be controlled by building code; 75 year retaining walls
must be built of concrete or steel and are too expensive for
homeowners, suggest atlosring wood retaining walls; no one with any
sense would build in creek, this ordinance is a waste of time;
building near creeks need more flexibility and should be considered
on individual basis; subdivision should be separate; 90 percent of
creeks are not seen by the public, property owner should be able to
use their property as they wish; downtown buildings are built over
creek culverts and could not be built with this law.
482
Mayor Lembi said council had spent a Iot of time debating this; its
concern was development that crammed many large homes on creek lots.
He was sure homeowners woul-dn't do something damaging to their
creek, creek sites are very valuab1e. He did favor the subdivision
section of the ordinance .
Councilman Pagliaro saj-d some of the speakers had valid concerns but
he objected to statements that council had underlying motive to takeproperty, a week doesn't go by that some citizen says to council
"please preserve our town" and this ordinance does that; this came
about because one house was built so close to the creek that it
destroyed esthetics; council has tried to come up r^rith somethinq toprotect people on both side of a creek; you buy a creek site becauseof the sylvan setting, if you want to develop under the ordinance
you have to provide certain percentage of open space, but with the
ordj-nance you can come before council for an exception - it provides
flexibility; think it might be good to separate the two parts of the
ordinance; there are people who will build on pillars within the 100year flood linei council is working on earthquake requirements, an
earthquake may only happen every
buildinq code revisj-ons for that
L00 years too, but we are requiring- these floods may only come everyfor that also; he thought somethi-ngd suggested council adopt the
100 years and \4,e need to provide
reasonable could be worked out an
subdivision section and study the other area further. Councilwoman
Barton agreed, the original concern of this study was subdivision of
creek fots.
Councilwoman O'Mahony withdrew her motion to suspend the ordinance.
Councilwoman Barton moved adoption of RESoLUTIoN 25-90 Adopting the
Negative Declaration Regarding Creeks including findings from staff
report and moved adoption of the sections 26.08.075 and 26.24.050(e) of oRDINANCE 1407 Relating to the Subdivision of creek Lots.
Seconded by councilman Pagliaro.
Councj-Iwoman orMahony inquired about 60 percent 1ot coverage and
access from public street; she could conceive of lots that could be
accessed by a private roadway and that might require a bridge over
the creek for access by vehicles; city Planner responded that
councj.l would review any subdivision. Mayor Lembi noted there are
many such lots in Hillsborough which are accessed by vehicle bridges
across creeks on private lots.
The motion carried 5-0 on ro11 call vote.
Councilman Harrison moved to suspend the remainder of the ordj.nancerelating to construction in and near creeks. Seconded by
Councilwoman O' Mahony.
other council members inquired of staff the results of this actionistaff responded that there would be no change from what we required
before the interim creek ordinance was adopted; people could build
with building permits and proof that they were not impeding creek
capacity. People also need to get permission from the Department of
Fish and came and from the Army Corps of Engineers. Staff now has
the ne!., creek study which shows current flow levels and wiLl enable
staff to better determine if a project might restrict flows.
The motion to suspend the remainder of the ordinance carried 3-2 on
roII call votei Councilmembers Harrison, Lembi and O'Mahony votingyes, Councilmembers Barton and Pagliaro voting no.
Mayor Lembi caIled for a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting
reconvened at 10:28 p.m. with all members present.
RESOLUTION 26-90 - NECESSITY FOR EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
REGARDI NG THE ZARO PROPERTY AT CALIFORNIA AND BROADWAY
Attorney Tom Adams representing the city in this action reviewedthat the Director of Public works would discuss the project and the
need for this property, then the public hearing should be held and
council should take action.
483
Director reviewed the severely impacted traffic patterns at the
intersection of California Drive and Broadway Avenue; there are long
peak hour delays; a traffic study resulted in the recolunendation
that widening the intersection to add lanes on both california and
on Broadway would help; in 1988 the city hired Dona1d Gardner
Associates to negotiate with property outners at all these
intersections to acquire land to widen these streets and add traffic
lanes; the city has been successful in acquiring property at all the
corners except necessary L44 square feet at the northwest corner of
Broad!'ray owned by Madeline zaro which is developed with a gas
station leased by Desert Petroleum. An agreement has been reached
with Zaro but in order to acquire the property a quitclaim must be
accepted by Desert Petroleum which refuses to sign it. Desert
Petroleum believes that one of the gasoline pump islands will become
useless because of the relocation of driveways on California Drive
and therefore they believe they will lose income. A letter was
received today from Gary Carson of Desert Petroleum, a copy was
before each council- member. This letter proposes that the city
relocate the island at its expense, or if the city is not willing to
make this financial commitment they request the city allow them to
subsidize their loss of income from the gasoline island by the sale
of soda, candy, chips and cigarettes from the station. Director
showed overhead projections of the property and the proposed changes
to the intersection and to the gas station.
Councilman Pagliaro noted that there wouLd also be a Ieft turn lane
into the Mike Harvey Acura auto dealership driveway, he wondered if
enough cars would use this left turn lane to warrant it; Director
did not have the figures of projected car use of the Ieft turn lane
but noted that Harvey was required to pay $50,000 toward the cost of
signals at this intersection as a condition of developing theproperty. councilman Pagliaro also wondered if people exiting that
driveway would be allowed to cross the intersection. Director said
yes, the signals would allow for this movement.
Attorney Adams suqgested the public be heard from; Mayor Lembi
opened the public hearing.
warren zaro, representing his mother Madeline Zaro the proPerty
owner, said the property ovrners had reached an agreement on the
value of the property but their tenant wilL not sign the quitclaim;
that he hoped councit would consider the request of their tenant
Desert Petroleum because they are losing the value of use of the
Iand for the gas station; the property witl be smaller and will
restrict the nimber of cars moving in and out; the tenant feels the
island wiII not be used and hoped council would pay to rearrange the
location of the island, or allow the tenant to seII other products
as requested; they always sold these items until two years ago $rhen
they \"rere told to stop; Zaro said the tenant has spent over $L00,000
computerizing the gas islands and feels they will lose their
investmenti they will not be able to use the gas station as they
have j.n the past .
Attorney Adams said council must consider the value of the property
before and after the proposed changes; Zaro has agreed on the value
of the 144 square feet, but council will need an appraisal or
estimate from experts as to the damage to the gas station business.
Councilman Harrison said if Desert has spent $100,000 on computers,
he doubted they would rather seI1 candy. Mayor Lembi said he had
voted in favor of allowing the gas station to selI candy; if he
entered that station from california and found it difficult to exit
the affected gas island he would just go out the other exit on
Broadway, therefore it is no hardship.
Mayor Lembi closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Barton said the city has studied improving this
intersection carefully and there is a desperate need to widen thisstreeti the public interest and necessity requires the acquisitionof the subject property. She moved for adoption of RESOLUTION 25-90
Resolution of Necessity for Eminent Domain Proceedings. Seconded by
Councilman Harrison.
484
Councilman Pagliaro said he would vote for this on the basis of
testimony of staff, Attorney Adams and property owner Zaroi based on
the letter from carson of Desert Petroleum and the amount of money
offered for the parcel belonging to zaro he believed there was
adequate compensation offered; any specific amount of additional
damages as perceived by Desert Petroleum for this property could be
determined by the court.
City Manager reviewed his memo of February 7 which recommended
council adopt a resolution accepting the property tax exchange
proposed by the County but authorize staff to oppose the annexationat the LAFCo hearing. Bob o'connor, resident of county land at 2811
Hillside Drive, has petitioned LAFCo to annex into Burlingame. The
first step in the procedure is for the city and County to agree on
an exchange of property tax. on February 1, 1988, council denied a
proposed property tax exchange for the same property. The County
had proposed that the city receive 15 percent of the property tax
rather than the average 17 percent the city receives from other
Burlingame property. The current proposal from the county is for
the city to receive 17 percent which approximates the city wide
average. Based on the current assessed vaIue, the city would
receive $1,120 a year. while this may be insufficient to cover the
costs of city service, it is the same as other residential property
in the city and appears acceptable. while the proposed tax exchange
may be acceptable, staff opposes the annexation for a number of
reasons: (1) it would create a more distinct island of county land
surrounded by city; (2) it would reduce the Burlingame Hj.11s sewer
district and increase costs to remaining property ownersi (3) it
contains a second unit on the site so the property is nonconforming
when annexed; and (4) we do not wish to be responsible for thatportion of Hillsj-de Drive if the site is annexed. orConnorrs
purpose in requesting the annexation is to request subdlvision of
the second unit (2108 Summit). Subdivision is not alLowed under
county zoning. This second unit was built to county standards which
may not meet city standards. Staff feels strongly that the city
should oppose piecemeal annexations from the Burlingame Hil1s area.
Councilman Pagliaro asked if city approves tax exchange and then
LAFCo approves annexation, what happens; staff responded that if
LAFCo approves annexation the property is in Burlingame. Because
OtConner has built another unit on the site, Councilman Pagliaro
could not approve of annexation.
Councilwoman Barton asked what choices council had; Acting City
Attorney Mike Riback advised that if council did not adopt the tax
exchange they risked litigation.
Bob otconnor said the only difference between now and 1988 is that
the unit was under construction at that time; he noted that both of
his neighbors are in the city limits; he said the second unit was
built to city standards and is connected to city sehrers, water andstreet; when you invest your life in property, the manner in which
you wish to use that property affects your life; he said he
personally cleans the street on Surnmit, he would not be creating a
burden on the city; he realized it was a city j.ssue, but it is also
a personal property rights issue and asked that the city accept the
annexation.
Council discussed hrith staff the construction of the house; that it
appeared to be eight feet taller on the plans which were submitted
to the city, so it does not meet city requirementsi o'Connor said
the contractor reduced the height; City Planner said he would have
to have a survey of the elevation of the lot at curb line and the
top of the house and the top of the driver^Iay by a licensed surveyor.
Council determined that O'Connor is a mortgage broker by profession.
Staff showed by overhead projections the location of the lot and the
near "island" it would create by annexation. Councilman Harrison
noted that if the homes were annexed and the second unit were sold
it rrould increase tax income to the city. Otconnor said if the
annexation were approved he would petition the city for a Iot split.
The motion carried unanimously on ro11 call vote.
PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF LANDS OF O'CONNOR - HILLSIDE/SIJMMIT DRIVES
485
Councilman Pagliaro moved to approve the tax exchange and directstaff to oppose the annexation. Seconded by Councilwoman Barton.
Councilwoman OrMahony asked if this matter would come back after
LAFCo approves. Staff said no. O'Connor said he would like anopportunity for a public hearing to present his reasons for
requesting annexation. Councilwoman Barton said we have heard itbefore. OrConnor n
s j-tuation. City PIof the tax exchange
Councilman Pagliaro
it would hold
asked whether
oted that three years ago it was a different
anner said after LAECo receives the city approval
suggested we put over to next meetwith staff to review the property
code.
a hearing within 30 days.council had to act tonight;ing and have the applicant meet
to determine whether it meets city
Councilman Harrison moved to table this issue until staff determines
whether property conforms to city la\,rs. Seconded by Councilwoman
orMahony. Councilman Pagliaro wj-thdrew his motion for approval ofthe tax exchange, but seconder refused to withdraw.
The motion to table took precedent and was carried 4-1 on roll callvote, councilwoman Barton voting no.
City Attorne
establishmen
history of p
Police repor
prevent j-ng t
ytsto
robrf
he
memo of February 13 recommended council place thisn the regular annual review list. Because of the
l-ems at the site, council asked for early reviews.
ew incidents and it appears the nehr management isprevious problems .
o Kincaids; the plans include the original 150 roomther 300 room hotel on the end of the site next to
Councilman Pagliaro moved to approve the Amusement Permit renewal tobe reviewed again at the annual renewal of al-I permits in June.
Seconded by Councilman Harrison, carried unanimously by voice vote.
TRAFFIC ALLOCATIONS - FEBRUARY 1990
City Plannerrs report of February 9 recommended council approve the
1 Project's traffic allocationd in May 1989. The applicantproject for the entire 8.7 acre
xtension of Pranav Hoteirport Boulevard grante
he project to a phased
re
OAdrtt
ano
request fofor 450-48
has changeparcel nexhotel and
Pattaya Princess restaurant. The traffic allocation extension ionly for the 150 room hoteI. A traffic allocation will need to
made in the future for the second phase hotel.
Councj.lman Pagliaro moved approval of the traffic allocationextension. Seconded by Councilwoman OtMahony, carried unanimously
by voice vote.
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTI{ENTS
Mayor Lembi noted he and CounciLman Pagliaro had interviewed
candidates recentl-y. Councilman Pagliaro recommended Frank Ke11y
and Michael Pera for the two vacancies on the Park and Recreation
Commission. There being no other nominations, the nominees were
appointed unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Pagliaro inquired about the compliance of the autodealers regarding providing parking at Northpark for employees. Healso noted he had some questions on items under warrants and Payrollwhich staff will report back on.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINA}TCE 1408
SIDE OF CAROLAN AVENUE
CHANGING PARKING HOURS ON WEST
City Attorney's memo of February 6 recommended councilintroduce this ordinance to extend the hours until 10 p.m.
instead of 7 p.m. as council directed at the last meeting atthe request of Mike Harvey for his auto sales personnel.
the
S
be
a
AMUSEMENT PERMIT REVIEW FOR SAFARI Rl'N 2OOO, 1306 BAYSHORE
486
b RESOLUTION 27-90 - DENYING SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SCHOOL USE AT
1 LORTON AVENUE
city Attorneyts memo of February 7 recommended council adoptthis resolution deny the use permit, formalizing the action
taken by council at the last meeting.
RESOLUTION 28-90 - AWARDING CONTRACT EOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGED
STREETS - CP OO1
Public works memo of February 14 recommended council award this
contract to P & F construction of oakland in the amount of
$45,88s.
d. RESOLUTION 29-90 - AUTHOR]ZfNG AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES FOR
BROADWAY/CALIFORN]A IMPROVEMENTS - CP 52].
Pub1ic Works memo of February 14 recommended council approve an
agreement with Harris & Associates in the amount of $132,000for construction management services on this project.
RESOLUTION 3O-90
- cP 910
AMENDING CONTRACT FOR STORM DRAINAGE STUDY
Public works memo of Eebruary 15 recorunended council amend this
contract with Wilsey & Ham for extra work to compare 1982
storms to report estimates flows, additj-onal flow study on
Ralston and Burlingame Creeks and provide f1ov, rates in creeks
below California Drive. Amendment total $13,895.
f. AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE 1982 FLOOD SUITS AND DISSOLVE JPA
city Attorneyrs memo of February 8 recommended council approve
the settlement contribution of $14,625 and accept dissolutionof the JPA once settlement payments are completed. Burlingamewil-I receive a few hundred dollars of the small operating fund
remaining from the JPA after it is dissolved.
DENIAL OF CLAIMS: (1)SCOTT HAWLEY; (2) GAYLE YOULDEN
City Attorney's memos recommended council deny the claims for(1) towing and citations from a vehicle parked in front of a
home; and (2) a trip and faII over a curb adjacent to 200
Primrose.
h. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR FENCE AT 1709 RAY DRIVE
Public Works memo of February 14 recommended council approvethis permit subject to standard condj-tions for a four foot taII
fence plus one foot of lattice perpendicular to the sidewalk
and encroaching about six feet into right-of-way.
WARRANTS AND PAYROLL1
Finance Director recommended approval of warrants 7498 - 7965,
duly audited, in the amount of $2,0'7L,277.5t and Payroll Checks** 2!771- - U18X,H for the month of January 1990 in the amount of
$1,031 ,164.82. **21771-22877, plus 23245 and 23246.
Councilman Harrison moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the
exceptions of certain parts of warrants and Payrol1. Seconded by
Councilman Pagliaro, carried unanimously by voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Schedule Hearing: Mayor Lembi scheduled an appeal hearing for March
5 for variance at 26 Victoria.
9.
Caltrans Meeting Regarding Freeway Soundwall: councilwoman Barton
noted that council- had recej-ved a letter from Caltrans regarding a
meeting tomorrow night and suggested council oppose the soundwall
stopping at corbitt Drive because she thought it should continue for
the entire residential- area until Toyon Drive. Councilman Pagliaro
noted these wa11s are 14 feet high and ugly, he hoped it h,as
487
esthetically pleasing. Councilman Harrison
would be there to support the construction.
said they planned on attending this meeting
opinion at the meeting.
said the high school
Several council members
and would express their
Senator Kopp's Letter: Councilman Harrison suggested council write
letter of support for SB 1107 and SB 1729. Council concurred.
Sunmer Jobs for Youth: Mayor Lembi noted a letter requestingcouncil's continued support of this program to employ students.
Council unanimously authorized $975 contribution to the program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Commissj.on Minutes: Beautification, February 1; Civil Service,
January 9; and P1anning, February 13, 1990.
Department Reports: City Treasurer's Report, January 31, 1990;
Po1ice Report, January 1990.
Letter from Senator Kopp regarding legislation.
b
d Letter from Womens club thanking
parking lot to access their rear
council for allowing gate in
parking Iot.
f
s
h
Letter from Caltrans regarding soundwall meeting.
Memo from City Manager regarding parking on holidays.
i. Letter from Mrs. Nagata regarding L418 Capuchino.
FROM THE FLOOR
Joe Diodati asked that council consider chanqing the city
requirement for 75 year foundations on retaining wa11s in the creek
since this installation requires heavy equipment such as cranes and
substantial cost. Director of Public works noted that staff ispresently reviewing a new building code which wiII come before
council for study soon, this issue could be considered at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:59 p.m
Judith A. Malfa
City Clerk
Proclamation: Arbor Day, March 7.
Letter from San Mateo County Transportation Authority statingits desire to administer the Congestion Management P1an.
Councilman Pagliaro suggested a letter stating that council would
support this plan if funds for administration of the CMP not come
from the Measure A funds. Council concurred.
j. Letter from Summer Jobs for Youth.