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.