HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1982.01.26324
BURLINGAME CITY COTINCIL
January 26, L982
CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Counci] was held on
above date j,n the City HaII Council Chambers. Meeting wasto order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini.
the
calfed
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Jerome Coleman, City Attorney.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN
COT]NCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-82 I'RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY OF BURLINGAME I S
AGENT FOR APPLICATIONS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR
PUBLIC DAMAGE - DISASTER PERIOD DECEMBER 19, 1981 THROUGII JANUARY
F. E.M. A. DECLARATION NUMBER FEMA-65I-DR''8, 1982 -
City Engineer's memorandum of January 2l , 1982 explained need for
swift approval of Director of Pubfic Works, Ralph E. Kirkup, as
city's official agent in order to receive federal financial assist-
ance for flood damages.
Counci l-man
Counci lman
Crosby moved approval of Resolution 6-82, seconded by
Martin, unanimously carried.
HEAR]NG - ORDINANCE NO 1214 - "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLTSHING BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AND REGULATIONS THEREFORE,'
Mayor Mangini stated that the main purpose of tonight's meeting
was to continue the public hearing on ordinance L214.
City Planner
to stabilize
character of
explained that the objectives of ordinancethe downtown parking problem, and preserve
Burlingame Avenue and auto row.
1214 were
the current
related retaif in Sub-Area
floor with permit.
General efements of the ordinance:
Eliminated parking credits, exemptions and in-Iieu fees.
Alfo$rs remodeling if floor area is not increased. Provides
new exemption only for first floor retail in Sub-Area A.
Affows continuation of existing uses.
Limits "office" use on Burlingame Avenue to second floor
with permit to encourage retail nature.
A1]ows office and financial institutions uses is Sub-Area B
plus second floor residential.
1
2
3
4
5 Prohibits residential and non-auto
D. offices only allowed on second
Some concerns, if ordinance is not passed:
There would be more 15,000 square foot offices and retail
in parkinq district which would compound the current parking
problems.
Possibfe loss of Burlingame Avenue retail space to finan-
cial institutions and office use.
Possible loss of
uses.
ordinance is not
auto row to office, retail or residential
1
2
3
4 a panacea for parking problems.
325
Mayor Mangini opened the public hearing.
Speaking against the ordinance were Joseph Karp, 1209 Burlingame
Avenue; Cyrus McMi11an, representing owners on auto row; Mike
Harvey, auto row owneri Gladys Costa, 1911 Los Altos Drive, San
Mateo, owner of 6 California Drive; John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling;
Ered A1len Jones, 4ff Cafifornia Drive; Jim Minto, Santa Rosa,
propertlz owneri Joe Putnam, 50 California Drive; Barry Hurley, 231California Drive; Don Spencer, cenera] Manager of Chamber of
Commercei A1len Horn, 405 Primrose.
objections raised, in order of presentation:
Some sma1l businesses would not be abl-e to provide the
12 parking spaces required of 5000 square foot are, if
they remodel.
I
2
3
4
6
7
The wording in ordinance regarding 10,000 square foot
grocery stores is ambiguous.
Lending institutions will not support a facility that is
locked into auto use onfy.
Is there a time limitation on property use when property
is vacant for some time?
Ordinance appears to suggest that some businesses on
Burlingame Avenue are no longer useful-i speaker felt perhaps
those were businesses that did not produce sales tax revenues.
Mayor Mangini requested City Attorney respond to questions raised.
City Attorney clarified that the section on grocery stores should
make clear that grocery stores over 10,000 square feet are prohibit-
ed; that property vacant for six months r^rould cease to be able to
continue non-conforming use.
Speakers continued:
Question the meaning of the word. "use" in ordinance, if you
mean "character of use" then say that in ordinance.
wording in ordinance should be clearer, if there are changes
to be made in ordinance let people know what they are now.
Councilwoman Barton commented that ordinance is confusing, if thereis a time Iimit on vacancies it should be mentioned in ordinance.
Councilman Martin reminded audience that definitions used in this
ordinance are spel1ed out in the zoning 1aw.
Councilman Amstrup felt any changes
be made cfear to the people now.
Mr. Jim 81ak1ey, Burlingame Ford, spoke
expressing concern that auto dealers may
will help keep area as auto row.
to be made in ordinance should
in favor of
leave area
ordinance;
and this ordinance
Speakers continued:
9. Owners on auto row do not want a sinq1e purpose zoning.
11. City should have a comprehensive pl-an, with short-and long-range
goals.
12. City should find out what residents want.
If auto business continues to decfine, auto dealers willnot be able to afford this prime property.
City Attorney explained that ordinance is just part of the Municipal
Code and time limitations are mentioned elsewhere in that code.
10, The 400-800 block of California should not be includ.ed in ordin-
ance. It will increase commercial use of property and increaseparking problems in area.
326
13.
r4.
t-5.
City should have a parking structure.
Ordinance will stop growth.
This could have a destructive effect on our community and on
property values.
Chamber of Commerce board of directors determined that:t6.
Ordinance 1214 does not work to solve or increase
accessabifity as the original premise.
restricts landowners/mortgage holders to the "privilegeof the market. "
parking problems could increase with passage of
Ordinance 1214.
may be "cart before the hoise, " i.e., concentrate on
additional parking-- increase lots by obtainj-ng additional
fands or multi-story 1ot possibilities.
Councilwoman Barton expressed dismay that Chamber of Co[unerce
been instrumental in developing this ord j-nance and, yet, nor..7
opposing it.
had
is
Mayor Mangini declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmembers discussed conments made at some l"ength.
commented that the in-lieu fee does not provide oarking;
15,000 square foot buildings are coming in providing no
that merchants want to keep Area A strictly retail.
Theythat over
park ing;
City Planner explained alternatives available regarding Sub-Area D
1. Adopt Sub-Area D as in ordinance I2L4
Delete Sub-Area D; revert to C-2 zoning as present
Modify permitted uses in Sub-Area D
Prohibit residential uses
Prohibit retail commercial- uses
Prohibit residential and retail uses
A11ow residential and/or retail uses with use
permi t
Council discussed the present C-2 zonrng of Sub-Area D; the fact
that residential is now allowed in that zoning. Requiring a use
permit for res idential/retai 1 would a1Iow council to review these
uses and to deny use permit if council determined it not suitable.
City Planner commented that if council wants to
it woul-d have to leave Sub-Area D in ordinance.
require use permit,
Councilman Martj-n commented that C-2 zoning allows many uses with-
out permitsi council would just be looking aL reLal-l-/ tes idential
uses in that areai this alternative would not keep it auto row,
we could end up with a row of sheet metal shops in 20 years.
Councilman Crosby commented he did not like to restrict use.
Councilman Amstrup said he wou1d not want residential use in that
area.
Councilwoman Barton moved that Sub-Area D be deleted from ordinance,
and retail,/res idential use be allowed in that area with a use permit,
seconded by Councilman Amstrup. Motion carried on ro11 calf vote:
AYES: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY'
NAYES: MARTIN
ABSENT: NONE
2
J
a
b
d
MANGI N I
327
City Attorney pointed out a one-1ine section J-n ordinance,section five, that eliminates the provision of the code that
aflows C-2 uses on a one block section of California Drive
between Burlingame Avenue and Howard; he assumed that the present
permj-ssion procedure as currently in code sti11 stands. Council
agreed,
Council pointed out that this ordinance will excfude all parking
credits and in-1ieu fees.
Councilman Martin declared that he intended to vote against the
ordinance because merchants had not been heard; council had only
heard from property owners and property owners appear to feel-
they do not have a parking problem.
Councilman Crosby stated merchants and owners will have to do more
to solve parking problems; this should be a joint venture--city
and me rchants,/owners .
Council reviewed ordinance and pointed out changes in wording and
corrections to be made. City Attorney will bring a new draft of
ordinance to council for first meeting in February for another
public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
a z/ zJ-tt
Evelvn H IIi 11
City Cl-erk
Meeting regularly adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
1
!
f