Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1982.02.03333 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING February 3, 1982 Mayor Victor Mangini convened a Study Meeting of the BurlingameCity Council in Conference Room B of the Burlingame City HaII at B:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 3, L982. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN STAFF: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, KIRKUP, MONROE 1. SUBMISSION OF FINAL FORM FOR CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS Due to the numbers of interested persons in the audience, Mayor Mangini moved discussion of the Civil Service Rules and Regulationsto first on the agenda. Council had no changes and City Attorney advised these be adopted by resolution at a regular Council meeting.This item was, thereforgrput off until a later date. 2.a BURLINGAME STATE LANDS MASTER PLAN Monroe j-ntroduced the item by indicating to Council- that when they reviewed the BCDC Guidelines the point had been made that their re- vj-ew did not constitute an approval of any particular project or land use scheme. In the past when developers wished to propose a use for a property in the Anza area which varied from that proposed in the Specifj-c Area Plan, they requested informal Council review. This applicant is requesting this informal revj-ew for a proposal of a mixed office, retail commercial, and restaurant use, in an area designated restaurant in the plan. In the case of these three parcels two are leased State lands and one is privately owned. The State would propose to trade the privately owned parcel for another pj-ece of State leased 1and, allowing combination and planned develop- ment of the three parcel area. Ivlr. Robert Trout, Assistant Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission, made a brief presentation to the Council. He responded that the State Lands Commission is responsible for the State trust lands such as the Anza area and manages them for the State. In the past the State and Anza Shareholders Liquidating Trust arrived at an agreement on which portions of the Anza area were to be State trust lands and portions fee simple. As a result of that decision, 46 acres of the area were deeded to the State and subsequently leased back to the developer. Since the State is primarily interested in keeping publicly owned lands available for recreation, they have taken a great deal of interest and concern in the Anza development. They have expressed concern that the use of State lands to the right of the lagoon, designated primarily for restaurants, would saturate the area and that more diversification use would be to the public good. Simultaneously to presenting this to the city, Anza is moving ahead with a developei for one piece of this property. If this proposal by Anza is approved, the State will work with the developer to fit this project in with the total site plan. There is no con- flict between State and Anza and in order to enable diversification to take place, they are more than willing to enter into an agreement to exchange land parcels to further this plan. He also stated that the project is consistent with BCDC plans as well as being consistent with an agreement between State Lands, BCDC and the City of Burlingame arrived at in 1972. He would like to see the city accept this mixed use proposal as the state is anxious to go out and find a single developer who would proceed with development as shown in the mixed use p1an. Councilman Martin poi-nted out that an EIR would have to be done on this project, and that the EIR would indicate whether or not the mixed use proposal would be feasible for the site. It was his belief that the State should be given the opportunity to obtain the EIR. Councilwoman Barton stated that retail use in this area was a concept that was considered and not acceptable when the original plan was developed and that she continued to feel that same way. Councilman Amstrup and Mayor Mangini agreed. Mr. Keyston stated two issues were 834 involved for the city in this proposal: (I) how much traffic would be generated by the proposed mixed uses and (2) the economic feasi-bility of retail uses at this location. Mr. Keyston stated that he would contribute to a study on these two issues to help clarify theeffect of changed land use. Council agreed to study request further upon receiving these reports. 2.b TRAFFIC ALLOCATION - ANZA AREA In regard to past discussions concerning the awarding of peak hourtraffic a1l-ocations in the Anza area, Monroe submitted informationj-ndicating the traffic allocations to individuals' projects andtheir phases. Her report indicated that at this time there was notsufficient capacity to allow al-location for all projects requestingir. Councilman Martj-n objected, pointing our that in the past some pro-jects had been awarded the entire capacity they had requested andyet had completed only a portion of their development thereby holdingup allocations for other projects while not completing their own,e.9., Days Inn and Holiday Inn. He suggested that staff investigatethis problem and revise the figures j-f necessary. Councilman Crosbyagreed that an entire allocatj-on awarded to a project with more thanone phase could hold up development by other applicants if thatproject di-d not continue with further phases of their project, andthis issue should be clarified. Monroe will get further statisticsto Council so that they can decide if traffic atlocations should be awarded by phases or not. On processing, Monroe suggested that appli.cants be advised that theywould have to submit applications the 15th of the month preceding theCouncil review of project allocations, so that the city could have ample time for closure. She suggested that the procedure for pro-cessing applications be revised so that review would occur every fourmonths. In regard to this processing Monroe referred to #7 of theprocedures for processing applications, and stated that perhaps thecity should consider a time limitation for awarding allocation topre-application projects. She recommended that if an applicant didnot activate his project wj-thin six months that his allocation revertback. Monroe also asked Council direction on the time frame forallocation after project approval has been made. Councilman Martin agreed with the policy as stated in the procedures for processing ap-plications, that the permit approval should be one year from the dateof receipt of a BCDC permJ-t. Councilman Martin poj-nted out that theproblem for a developer was the lengthy time necessary to get on the agenda of BCDC. Mr. Keyston suggested that an EIR should go to hearing before trafficallocation was completed so that a developer could be working on theproject in the interim based on comments in the EIR. Mr. Colemanpointed out that Council- could signify approval of a concept, but apolicy would have to be established for approval of the project at the time it was submitted. Councilman Amstrup wished to review mately every three months. Council allocation for concurred. phasing approxi- 2.c ANZA FREEWAY CONNECTION Argyres advised Council of leve1 of proceedings j-n obtaining permit for the freeway connection. City has received approval from BCDC, pending certain conditions, and the next step is to arrange a meetj-ng with CalTrans. Councilman Martin pointed out that Council should be aware that the cost of the freeway connection would have to be assumed in entirety by the City. 2.d PERMIT EXPIRATION TIMES Councilman Amstrup r,equested a review of the manner in which maximum time allowed to construct a project was based. Councilman Martin pointed out that he had no argument with total time allowed to com- plete a building, and that that portion of the Building Code not be changed. He stated that the problem in imposing a requirement for 'w=ffirrffi-ffit,- 335 2.e REGULATION OF SECOND STORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-1 ZONE Councilman Martin requested that this itemstudy session as he wished further study. be deferred to the next Council concurred. 3. REFUSE DISPOSAL AREA CLOSURE REPORT Kirkup reported that the dump on Marsh Road would be closed to thepublic on February 15 and to Browning-Ferris on June f. San Mateowill close itrs dump on April 28, but will keep it open for Cityforces and gardeners as part of a composting operation. Further, the transfer station will not be in operation until mj-d 1983. Burlingame is now faced with the problem of when it should close it's dump, and Kirkup submitted to the Councif information and recommendations regarding this problem. Councilman Amstrup suggested the first and most important step was to strictly enforce restrictions for the use of the dump for resi- dents onfy, so that the dump coulal remain open as long as possible for their use. Kirkup stated that, even with restrictions, the dump would have capacity only until the first of next year and Councif shoufd be giving thought as to how to proceed next. Council agreed to keep the dump open as long as possible for resi- dents. Staff to report back. 4 REPORT OF JPAC MEETING AND LAWSUIT AGAINST TT{E SAN FRANCISCO AI RPORT Councilwoman Barton reported on the meeting and stated that JPAC wished to know whether (a. City wished to continue as a member of JPAC and (b. does the City wish to change the method of electing or appointing a chairman and (c. wishes to know what the Cityrs goals are for the direction JPAC wifl take. Council discussj-on indicated unwillingness to participate any longer in JPAC. No decision was reached. Coleman reported on status of lawsuj-t and stated would review strategy in executive sess ion. 5. BRIDGE AT DRAKE AND EASTON CREEK Kirkup reported that staff has filed an application for $47,000with the Federaf Government and are preparing contracts. When City recej,ves clearance from the Federal government, staff will let Council know when the bridge can be repaired and reopened. 6. WAREHOUSE EIR - ANZA Mr. Keyston requested the City waive a requirement for an EIR on a proposed ,r6as6qusgtestaurant project in the Anza area. He would Like a negative declaration on the project. He indicated that he understood when projects came in which were in accordance with the SAP, that they wou]d not have to be restudied and an EIR undertaken. Monroe explained that because of new conditions not previously ex- isting when the SAP was prepared, an environmental assessment was advisable and that, if an environmental assessment was d.o ne by anza which showed areas which could not be mitigated, then an EIR would have to be done additional-Iy. Councilman Martin stated that is was his understanding that a master ETR was designed for this area in order to reduce time and eliminate an EIR for specific projects, It rdas Martin's understanding that if specific problems arose on a proposed project, then a supplemental ErR would be supplied; however, cumufative impacts should be addressed by the SAP EIR. If such impacts affecting all projects exist, then starting construction was difficult as there was no 1egal definitionas to the meaning of "start of construction". Coleman suggestedthat penalties could be based upon a percentage of the cost of thebuilding to be completed by certain established times. Council agreed that building permit penalties on completion ofbuildings be refined by staff and returned to Council for an ordi-nance amendment. I I I I the City shoul-d address itseff to covered by the program EIR, special problems that are not The decision was pro ceed. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m Ieft to the developer as to how he wished to 6.,,-L,,*, -4lynlu. niIIy Clerk Evecit 336 il/-t