Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1987.08.19I 104 CITY OF BURLfNGAME CITY COUNCIL MEETfNG August 79, L987, 7:30 p.m. City HalI, Conference Room B Mayor Gloria Barton convened the adjourned regular meeting ofAugust t7 and the study session of the Burlingame City Council onthe above date in Conference Room B of city HaII at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS AMSTRUP, BARTON, LEMBf, MANGINI , PAGLIARO STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES, KIRKUP, MONROE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: RUTIT JACOBS, BILL GARCIA, HARRY GRAHAM ( IAtC) 1. BALLOT MEASURES - -ARGUMENTS AGAINST INITIATIVES. The city Council members discussed the draft argument against Measure S prepared by Councilman Lembi and Amstrup. It was agreedto revise the second sentence of the first paragraph to read thatit limits the rights of property owners to freely rent or leasetheir property and gives tremendous powers to a separately electedrent control commission from whose decisions there is no appeal.ft was also agreed to drop three words in the last paragraph in-dicating that rent control won't solve problems in Burlingame ltor anlnvhere else. " Council next discussed whether it should take a position on thefair property rights initiative. Councilman Lembi indicated that he is in favor of the initiative and that Napa had passed a similarinitiative which has been useful . Councilman Pagliaro indicatedthat he did not like the language of the proposed initiative andthat it may restrict future council's actions in matters concerning Iand use. There was a general consensus of the whole council thatcity should not take a stand on the property rights initiative and would not author the argument against. city council requested a 5:00 p.m. study session September 1, 1987, to discuss with the City Attorney the rent control analysis for the ballot. The Public Works Director explained that normally City requires Council action for a nonstandard sidewalk finish. The City cur-rently has no standards concerning the color. After Councildiscussion, it was agreed that the City should include in itsstandard specifications color and finish but that they ditl not ob-ject to the permit for 1440 Chapin. Councilman Amstrup indicatedthat he felt contractors should be notified that they need a permit if they intend to install sidewalks different than City standard. There was a motion by Councilman Mangini with a second by Council- man Lembi to approve the special encroachment permit with the con-ditions that staff has suggested. There was a unanimous vote by the council in favor of the motion. The adjourned regular meeting was concluded at 7:50 p.m. to the reguLar study meeting. 1. RESfDENTIAL ZONE STANDARDS the @t staff had compiled for council the current code sections in the R-1 area for reference. Mayor Barton indicated that she felt the major concern \^ras that there are more garages and additions in the City than previously. She asked for the discussion because she was concerned as to whether we are beingfair and consistent to the applicants and that we might be changing the character of the city. In discussion, Councilman Amstrup indicated that he felt we ha probtem with tack of parking in- the current remodels and tha are not following the set back requirements for second s additions. He indicated that he felt that everything i exception. The result is that we are changing the look of the datwetorysancity 2. SPECfAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT--SIDEWALK FINISH 1440 CHAPIN. 105 and should be stricter. Councilman Mangini agreed that we need tofo1low the ru1es, but he also felt the variance procedure was use-ful and that we were being fair. Councilman Lembi felt the problem was mainly with the fourth bedroom additions. He noted in reality that in many cases a garage could not be enlarged. He suggested that the code might be revisedto a1lolu more flexibility if additional off street parking could beprovided in some way even if it was in the front setback. Mayor Barton felt that the major problem was the increased number of carspeople no\d own and increased parking on the streets. Councilman Lembi indicated that he felt there was a problem in theregulations treating new constructj.on as opposed to remodels. Since the major part of the code was prepared in the 1-940ts, hefelt that additional flexibility was needeo given the large finan-cial- investment in shelter required today. We do not want to dis- courage families from locating in Burlingame. Councilman Pagliaroindicated that we do need flexibility, but we have problems such asEaston where people are parking on the street even if off streetparking is provided and available. He indicated that if the remodel house was to include four bedrooms and/or a library or study that might be considered a fourth bedroom, then the unitshould have a two-car garage. Mayor Barton agreed that we should be strict concerning requiring a two-car garage for a four or more bedroom house. Councilman Lembi then asked the Council to discuss the required onefoot set back for each story above the first fIoor. He thoughtthis was a high cost for one foot and that in many cases it was notnecessary. Mayor Barton indicated that we must be very carefulthat second story additions not sacrifice the quality of life ofthe neighbors. After Council discussion, it was agreed that there need be no changes to the zoning code. Councilman Mangini asked about our policlr of denying withoutprejudice. The City Planner indicated that hre have no code sectionspecifically concerning this practice but it has been in use foryears. LegaIIy we may not reconsider the same application for oneyear. A denial without prejudice should be considered when theCouncil feels that it lacks information necessary to make a deci-sion or the applicant proposes a revision to the project notreviewed by the Planning Commission. When denying withoutprejudice, Council needs to teII the applicant and staff exactly on which of these grounds they are acting so that the legal. issue of reconsideration can be avoided. If the Council feels that the mat-ter may be addressed within the code, then it should simply denythe variance request before it. 2. CRfTERIA FOR COUNC]L CAI,L UP OF PLAIiINING COMMISSfON ACTTONS Councilman Lembi voiced hi.s concern and had asked for the matter ofreview to be discussed because sometimes applicantts and staffrstime can be wasted on a review which isn't necessary. He indicatedthat he felt it was important to check with staff concerning anyquestions on a planning commission action prior to deciding to callthe matter up. There was a general Council consensus on thisrnatter. It was also indicated that if a Council member does callup a matter, they should indicate for the benefit of the applicantwhy it was being ca1led up. Councilman Amstrup wanted it clearthat any Council member has the right to call up the matter even ifthe planning commission has voted unanimous Iy. He indicated thatwe do need to do our homework but that we should not deny anyone's The Mayor asked for comments from the Planning Commissionerspresent. Commissioner Jacobs indicated that she felt uncomfortablewith the four bedroom homes and our parking requirement par- ticularly since so many of the additions are so very large. Shefelt parking was our major residential problem. There was ageneral consensus of the majority of the Council that if a fourth bedroom were to be constructed, that the home should have a two-car garage in some fashion. This may be waived by the Council in a variance procedure but that we should attempt to be more consistentwith this policy. 106 right to call up a matter. Council concurred. 3. NE]GHBORHOOD BOARDS PROGRAT{. The City Manager reviewed the Council budget discussion on a $10,900 funding proposal from the Peninsual Conflict Resolution Center to expand their Neighborhood Board Program to includeBurlingame. Karen Gage reviewed with Council the proposal and the operations of the program. Councilman Mangini asked whether the commitment was for a multj--year program. Ms. Gage indicated thatit was a year-to-year contract but that if successful, they ex-pected that the City would continue funding the program on an an- nual basis. She also indicated that a large percentage of their case load is landlord/tenant relations. Councilman Amstrup indicated that he had heard the presentation atthe Council of Mayors concerning this matter. Councilman Pagliaroindicated that while the program may be good, he did. not feel thatit. fits Burlingamers needs. He also felt that the administrativecosts were too high. Mayor Barton indicated that she could agreewith Frank and that maybe some form of -commission might be consid.ered. There was a general consensus of the Council that theyhad deep reservations about funding the program at this time andthat they would take no action this year. 4. ALUC/RPC RESTRUCTURING PROPOSALS. Council agreed that there needed to be some reduction in the over-Iap between these committees. The City's representatives were in-structed to vote in favor of the proposed restructuring to reducethe number of commissions involved. 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS. Councilman Amstrup asked. that the Council review the new signs being put up by the Westin Hotel in Mi1lbrae. He felt that ourhotels may be at an unfair disadvantage since the City does not aI-low signs on the Bay side. After a general discussion of the Council, it was agreed that no action would be taken on this matterat this time. Ivlayor Barton indicated that she had received a letter concerning the Broadway Burlingame sign from the Merchants Association. City Manager briefly reviewed his response to that letter and indicatedthat Council would. be receiving copies. Mayor Barton also indicated that she had been contacted by Gilbert Rodli who is the new president of the Burlingame Hi1ls Improvement Association. She hoped that his leadership would help the City and the Hil1s to address the fire protection and water system issues in the area. She also indicated that it was very important that as many Council members as possible attend the August 28 Council of Mayors meeting. 5. FROM THE FLOOR.stevffiAcaciaDrive,addressedtheCounci1concerningthe need to revise our code concerning remodeling versus total reconstruction of a residential unit. Given the large financial investment, he suggested that the code needed to be revised to aI- Iow more flexibility for situations like his own where the condi-tion of the structure precluded remodeling. He also suggested thathe should be able to reapply for his variance request since he has made minor revisions to the house from the original pIans. Council directed Mr. Warden to discuss the matter with the City Attorney upon his return. ADJOURNMENTTh-effiy meeting was adjourned at 9'.20 p.m. 4 771*ga*, Judith A. MalfattiCity Clerk vmy (