HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1986.03.05363
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COI'NCIL STUDY MEETING
March 5, 1986 7:30 p.m., City HaII
Mayor Victor A. Mangini convened the Study Meeting of the BurlingameCity Council on the above date in Conference Room B of Burlingame CityHaII at 7:30 p.m. Due to the size of the audience, the meeting was
then moved to the city Council Chambers.
PRESENT: COT,NCILMEMBERS AI4STRUP, BARTON, LEMBI , MANGINI , PAGLIARO
ABSENT: NONE
].. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ALTERNATIVES AND FINANCING
The City Manager reviewed his report outlining possible aLternative
approaches and financing methods dealing with downto$rn parking. Thepurpose of the report was to provide alternatives for council to
choose a direction for further study. The major alternatives were :rrstatus quo, r' phased acquisition of additional surface Iots, Iow leveL
decking, and a multi-Ievel structure. The financing alternativesincluded: pay as you go, parking mitigation/ in- lieu fee, special
assessment districts, revenue bonds, parking and business improvement
Ialvs and lease revenue bonds.
After ththeir op
dicated
acqui s it
ther t
ment o
pos s ib
esini
tha
ion
taff report review, individual council members expressed
on on the direction they favored. Councilwoman Barton in-t she was against a multi-Ievel structure and for phasedof additional surface 1ots. She proposed to use the ex-
heir parking. He encouraged that we explore six day enforce-arking restrictions, increasing funds by higher rates andraising fine revenue.
isting $350,000 in the Parking Fund, plus raising additional funds
through higher parking rates, such as increasing the $.25 all dayparking to $I.00 per day.
Councilman Amstrup agreed with Councilwoman Barton indicating that he
favored purchasing additional surface lots and raising fees. Hestated that by acquiring surface Iots adjacent to existing property,that a site for a future structure might be possible. He indicatedthat it might be possible to use some general fund monies, if
necessary.
Mayor Mangini indicated that he believed it was necessary to relievethe existing frustration on parking. The first task would be to raise
funds to address the problem. He stated that there are still some
penny meters. He had no objection to using some city funds to addressthe problem. He stated that a structure would be acceptable to him,but finds currently no good sites are available. He would not favoracquiring existing residential property for more surface parking. Hefelt that we should have a campaign to encourage people to walk fur-otfpIy
Councilman Pagliaro indicated that we all could agree that vre arefrustrated by the current parking situation and that people do not
seem willing to walk further distances for parking. He felt that what
was needed was "cLose-in'r parking and that acquiring additional sur-face parking would be too far out to address the current frustration.
He felt that we should look at Lot E near the Post Office as a sitefor a structure. This wouLd include squaring out the lot by purchas-ing the old Jenkel-Davidson property and a portion of the Post Office.
He felt a structure of two and one-half stories would be acceptablewith proper architectural treatment. He would also like to haveretail shops on the first fIoor. He proposed to finance this projectby using existing parking fee revenue plus increasing fees and finesand advancing General Eund money, which wouLd be repaid in somefashion from increased fees or merchant and property ownerassessments. He also favored giving parking receipts to those mer-chants or property owners who do pay for the structure.
I
STAFF
PRESENT: ARGYRES AND COLEMAN
364
Councilman Lembj- agreed in great part with Councilman Pagliaro. Hefelt that we should look into a structure or additional surface park-
ing for long term use. He felt that the Citizens' Committee on park-
ing structures established that a structure $rould not change thecharacter of down town Burlingame and he felt that with a structure we
would
costs
user f
GeneraIocati
term h
appropthe be
The Mayor concluded tthat the consensus of
explore phased acquisfuture location for a
user fees and parking
sible use of some cen
get
are
ees1F
onsefria
St
more value for each dollar expended, although the initialhigher. He felt that we should also look into increasing
, but asked that possibly a percentage of the hotel tax or
und revenue be pledged to parking. He felt that additionalfor surface parking would be avaiLable soon. For the shortelt that acquisition of additj-onaI surface lots would bete. He did not agree with Councilman Pagliaro that Lot E wassite for a structure. He favored looking at Lot C on Donnel-ley as the Citizensr Cornmittee had before.
Mayor Mangini repeated his comment that the first thing we need to dois to raise funds, but that he did not favor Lot E at the Post Officeas a site for a structure. He felt the Donnelly/Library parking 1ot
would possibly be a better location. He saw no problem in using someGeneral Fund monies if necessary, but that we needed to review the ef-fect of this upon other infrastructure Capital Improvements that have
been included in the current five year Capital Improvement P1an.
Councilwoman Barton indicated that we needed to decide on a di-rection
and that she felt that we had a consensus at looking at phased ac-quisition of additional lots. Councilman Pagliaro indicated that he
was not in agreement with this position and that he felt that Lot E
was not the only location for a structure. Councilwoman Barton indi-cated that she felt that we needed to address the parking problem on
Broadway as well as Burlingame Avenue. Councilman Pagliaro stated hefelt we could all agree on purchasing the property for additional sur-face lots, but that we needed to zero in on a location that would bedesirable for a future structure and that meant deciding which area
$ras most desirable. Councilman Lembi indicated that he felt the CAPS
Committee had targeted the lot on Donnelly since the structure would
be hidden from Burlingame Avenue. Councilman Amstrup indicated hefelt that the focus on Lot C was based on a developer proposing tobuild a structure for free at that location and not because it was thebest available. Councilman Lembi asked Budget Chairman funstrup if $recould set a percentage of the hotel tax to go to parking. Councilman
Amstrup stated that the hotel- tax goes to the ceneral Fund and that itwould not be appropriate to pledge these funds in the future until the
revenue was received. Councilman Pagliaro indicated that he feltusing rrpay as you gorr financing provided too 1ittIe funds at the cur-rent time to address the problem and he felt that we needed to look at
some kind of debt financing. Councilman Amstrup indicated that hefelt that we needed to look at increasing user fees.
he council discussion by stating that he feltthe majority of the council was that we shouldition of surface lots which would provide for astructure. Staff should also study increasingtickets to finance these acquisitions and pos-eral Fund revenues. Also discussed was no free
arki-n enforcement for six days,ossibrffina.l-
meter ma.ids. At 9:0 e Mayor ca e ora rve m]-nu te recess.
2. TRANSIT JPA REPRESENTATION
The council- reviewed the proposed membership of the coverning Boardfor a Transit Joint Powers Agreement and the positions of the Regional
Planning CorNnittee and Samtrans. After discussj-on, it was thecouncilrs position that as a city at the upcoming Council of Mayorrs
meeting, we should state that we feel that two of the three san Mateo
County members of the proposed JPA Board should be appointed by the
Council of Mayors and the.City Selection Committee procedure. The
Mayor was asked to send a Ietter to aII cities stating that this would
be our position at the upcoming Council of Mayor's meeting.
p.m. t
2
3. BUILDING HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
Councilman Pagliaro indicated that a recent project pointed out the
need to clarify our code concerning the measurement of building height
above the parapet. He felt that five percent of the roof area that
was allowed to be above the parapet should be limited to elevatorpenthouses, and other equipment. The council had no objection to thisclarification on the height measurement procedures.
4. REGULATIONS OF BANNERS/TEMPORARY SIGNS
Councilman Amstrup inquired as to our currentcivic banners. Councilman Pagliaro indicatedprohibiting aII exterior banners unless counciatisfactory Iiability
code requirements onof merchants. Aftertaff should provide i
nsurance. He a1s
criteria for hangingthat he favoredI approves and that theyo inquired as to the ex-
indow signs and the current abuse of a
iscussion, it was the council consensus
ormation to the chamber of commerce for
t of his duty in reviewingrevision to our code con-
ed that he feels that the
have sisting
numberthat sdistri
i
fnbution to its membership on the restrictions in our current code
t_
concerning banners and window signs; and after this information has
been distributed, that the staff should become more proactive in en-forcing our existing sign code provisions.
The City Manager indicated that this will require more staff time andthe council agreed that this would be necessary. The Attorney also
explained our current enforcement procedure.
5. COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE
Councilman Amstrup indicated that he wished to revise our current pro-
cedure for committee nomination of commj-ssioners for appointment. Hefelt that to avoid surprises after the committee makes its
reconunendation, any councilmember who proposes that another name be
added, indicate this in advance so that aI] councilmembers are awareof the proposed nominees. Council had no objection to this revision.
A second point by Councilman Amstrup vras that he wished all existing
commissioners be interviewed for re-appointment prior to their secondterm. The majority of council felt that this would not be necessary
and that our current procedure of asking existing commissioners ifthey wish to serve a second term and then placing this matter beforethe council for action was satisfactory. Councilman Pagliaro indi-
cated that he felt that we should limit the practice of commissioners
moving from one commission, at the expiration of two terms, to another
commission by revising our existing commissioner appointmentprocedure. He proposed the revision of language on paragraph 5 asfollows: "Any former commissioner, having become ineligible for re-
appointment due to two consecutive terms of service on the same
commission, sha11 become eligible for appointment to a commissionafter the lapse of one year from the termination of his last term. "
Council agreed that this change should be made and directed staff to
submit this item to council for formal action.
Councilman Amstrup and Mayor Mangini both indicated that they wouldfavor dropping the current two term maximum ru1e. Councilwoman Bartonindicated that she would not favor this position. After discussion,the majority of the council agreed to continue the current two termlimit.
Councilman Pagliaro indicated that as pa
the warrant registers, he would propose
cerning councilmembers expenses. He sta
r
t
tcouncil should be reimbursed fta1 meetings, including mileag
lowed within the Burlingame ci ty limits. Council had no problem withthis revision and staff was directed to prepare a code revision forformal action by the council.
nses necessary for governmen-
hat no mileage would be aI-
or all expe, except
36s
6. OTHER
Council Expenses
3
366
Draft EIR on Seguoia 't ecPro t
The City Manager distributed to council- the Draft EIR on the Sequoias
Project for council information indicating that this document has
started its review period and would be coming to the Planning Commis-
sion at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
The meetinq was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
th A. Ma1 tticity Clerk
fg
i
4
- - .,-.t