Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1990.03.21498 CITY OF BURTTNGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING Wednesday, March 21, 7990, 7:30 PM City HaII conference Room A Mayor Don Lembi convened the study session of the Councif on the above date in Conference Room A of HaII at 7:31 PM. ings be divided into three classif ications : high and low risk buildings. They suqgested a time tab demolition rangj-ng from 3-7/2 years for high risk risk. The standard of reinforcement proposed wou geles Building Code Division 88, including the 19 code uses the 1985 UBC and requires about 55% of t Burlingame city Burlingame city PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS BARTON, HARRISON, LEMBI , O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, KIRKUP, MONROE OTHERS PRESENT: SEISMIC CONSUTTANT JIM RUSSELL, CITY TREASURER JOE HARVEY 1. UNREINFORCED MASONRY STUDY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Public works Director and seismic consultant Jim Russell reviewed with Council the committee recornmendations . The committee made several recommendations; first that unreinforced masonry build-riskIefto5Idb90chec , medium risk,or upgrade andyears for Iow e the Los An-hanges. Thisurrent code's s, one stionedto par- i lvroman nd thatto act as very lateral strength for buildings of medium and low risk and 74t of the coders lateral strength for high risk structures. The corunittee also recommended that if the onty work the owner is doing is to meet seismic structural requirements, the city should waive as many as possible of the other non-life safety code requirements such as zoning. Jim Russelt then reviewed the proposed legislation concerning seis- mic safety in Sacramento. The council discussed the five questions the staff had asked in the staff report. Councilman Pagliaro felt that the hiqh-risk time lines \.rere too long and recommended a shorter time period. After additional discussion among the Council- members, it was agreed that the committee recommendations were ac- ceptabte. There \^ras a general concern about the lack of financing for improvements. committee member Joe Harvey mentioned that a pro- cedure for removal of buildings from the current list needed to be developed for the proposed ordinance. Staff was directed to complete a draft of the ordinance for the mitigation proqram suggested by the commj-ttee and to hold a public forum with notice to all of the property o$rners on the current un- reinforced masonry list. After this forum, the Council would con- sider the draft ordinance. 2. BROADWAY PARKING Mayor Lembi indicated that because of a possible conf .Iict of inter- esl, he would not participate in any discussion of this item and turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Barton. Councilman Pagliaro felt that there were basieally two issue involving financing and the other, Iocation. He also que whether ihe property owners in the Broadway area are willing ticipate in any future land acquisitions for parking. Counc o'Mahony felt that Broadway parking is a very high priority a given the properties currently available, the city neededquickly. Councilman Harrison tiked the Rhinette option but w concerned about the availability of financing by the city. vice Mayor Barton indicatedfor parking would be for wait for the parking fund to felt that merchants shoultheir employees. CouncifmaRhinette location but we n Broadway about formation of he supported that the next funding roadway area but that we needed to 1d before committing funds. She sing the existj-ng Rhinette 1ot for iaro indicated that he favored the eeded to question the property owners on a parking assessment district. that sthe B rebuidbeun Pagl 499 After additional discussion, it $ras the consensus of the Council that the City Manager should contact the seller of the Rhinette property to inquire about availability and possible terms as \"reII as additionaL contact with the owner of Stanaway Market about some type of access or drive-through easement to the property behind on Rhinette. Letters should be sent to the Broadway Property owners to survey their willingness to form and participate in a parking as- sessment district. Ann Parsons, a Broadway Merchant, indicated that she felt the Rhinette property was too far from the main area of- businesses on Broadway and that she favored the Chula Vista alterna- tive b€cause it was more centrally located and had pedestrian access to Broadway available. 3. HfLLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMITS City Planner reviewed her deliberation of this item and felt that she needed additional council direction before trying to address their concerns. Councilman Harrison reiterated his position that the current ordj-nance is too subjective and that we needed some kind of parameters. Vice Mayor Barton questioned how we could arrive at a standard like a percentage of view, and she felt that we needed to review each application on its circumstances. Councilman Pagliaro agreed on the need to review each case and questioned whether it was possible to codify any reasonable parameters. Mayor Lembi felt that the word "significant'r was the key and that we should try and work on definitions and parameters using items like percentage of view, location of structure within view, and structurerelative to horizon line. Councilwoman o'Mahony initially thought that we should drop the whole ordinance but now felt that we should try and narrow its application by looking at views from specific rooms or with a certain radius or significant objects. After addi- tional discussion, the city Planner was directed to focus on trying to define "viewrt to narrow the subjective nature of the existing or- dinance and report back to a future study session. A resident from the hillside area indicated that spoI1 a1I of the residents in the area affected currently a petition being circulated concerning p rent ordinance. he an felt we shouldd that there wastecting the cur- 4. EXfSTING CREEK CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS Public works Director reviewed his staff report concerning the ex- isting regulations in p1ace. Councilman Pagliaro indicated that he felt we need to have some kind of special permit process to protect against culverting creeks, building decks which limit access to cul-- verts or creeks, and placing supports within the current 100-year flood line. After Council discussion, staff was directed to develop a proposed method for addressing the concerns raised by council-man Pagliaro and reporting back to a future study session. 5. TRAFFIC SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN city Manager reviewed the current proposal from the transit authority for adoption of a Transportation System Management Pl-an in order to qualify for Measure A funds. He indicated that if the council adopted the ordinance, that $re should look towards joining the current joint powers authority involving five cities for ad-ministration. councilwoman OrMahony questioned what some of the ex-isting cities such as Belmont, San Carlos, or Foster city are doingto meet the three goals outlined in the TsM pIan. She also ques- tioned the program cost. city Manager indicated that they are just starting up the program and that the current cost for the fivecities is approximately $270,000. on that basis, Burlingame's share would be approximately $10,000 a year. Councilmembers Harrison and otMahony felt that it would be most ef-ficient for the city to join hrith the JPA rather than trying toproceed on its own. councilman Pagliaro felt that we needed to review some of the specifics such as the appeals committee in orderto retain local control. After additional discussion, City Manager was directed to proceed with the adoption of the county plan and ex-plore joining the JPA as long as locaI control for the city could be retained . 500 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilwoman Barton said that she had asked the Police Chief forstatistics on the number of nuisance calls at Heritage Park. She questioned whether the park was worth keeping given the vandalism and neighborhood complalnts and proposed that the city might want tosell it and use the funds for recreation purposes such as a senior addition onto the rec center. Councilman Pagliaro disagreed with Councilwoman Barton and felt that the park was used and the nuisancej-ssues were a l-aw enforcement issue. Mayor Lembi felt he was will- ing to look at the idea but questioned whether the proPerty was abuildable site. Staff was asked to review this matter and report back at a future date. City Manager indicated that the city is proceeding with building a fence near the creek and Council indi- cated that we should proceed with this construction. FROM THE FLOOR Marti Knight asked the Council lvhether it would be appropriate to place a sign on the unreinforced masonry buildings indicating that a building was high risk. After discussion, Councilman Pagliaro asked the city Attorney to check as to whether we should post our fire station as hazardous in order to protect the cityrs liability posi- tion. Karen Key of the Chamber of corffnerce asked council if representa- tives to the Chamber coul-d meet with staff concerning questions on the TSM ordinance. City Manager indicated that he would try and contact the current TSM coordinator for the five cities and see if it was possible to discuss the issue together. Judith A. City clerk Mal f atti vmy Councilwoman o'Mahony asked that staff review our applications forgrade separations and questioned whether we needed additional vehicle counts to be submitted to the PUc. Public works Directorindicated that he would review our past studies on the matter and report back to Council. City Manager asked Council for possible dates for a joint Saturday morning breakfast meeting with the Planning Commission. The councilindicated that May 12 might be possible but they needed to look attheir respective calendars. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 PM.