HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1981.01.05t;58
BURLINGAME,
January
CALIFORNIA
5, 1981
1
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the
above date in the City HaI1 Council Chambers. Meeting was calledto order at B:00 P.M. by Mayor Martin.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Jerorne F. Coleman, City Attorney.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP,BARTON,CROSBY,I{ANGINI,MARTIN
COLINCIL MEIUBERS ABSENT: None
IiIINUTES
Mi-nutes of the special meetj-ng of 12/10/80 and regular meetingof L2/I5/80 were approved and adopted.
HEARING - APPEAL
PARKING VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199
BROADI^7AY BY GARBIS BEZDJIAN I^trITH ONLY I ON-SITE PARKTNG SPACES.
Documentation received by City Council included petition signed
br7 43 Broadway merchants and area residents urging Council togrant this variance, and a letter dated January 5,1981 from A.V.R.Realty, 1169 Broadway, protesting variance because of potential
use of alley next to their building.
City Planner reviewed his staff report of January 5, 1981 with
attachments which detailed ourpose and progress of this apr:lication.
The Planning Commission denied the application with a majority
opj-nion that the project should be redesigned to meet code. City
Planner suggested the following ooints for Council review:
Alternative desiqns for this site and reasons they were rejecLed.If lot coveraqe were reduced, would sufficient additional oarkingresult to justifv loss of retail sales space? ltrould economicbenefits to area of new shops be sufficient to balance oarkingvariance? Is site parkinq reouirement reasonable when older
businesses have no parking? Is additional oublic parking bettersolution? Comparison of two alternative parkinq plans. ItTould
restriction of B spaces for oublic and metered be feasible? Are
requirements for variance met?
Ilayor l{tartin ooened public hearing.
Mr. David Carr, attorney for Mr. Bezdjian, addressed Council. He
reviewed the four legaI requirements for variance and why this
application met them, r€ferrinq Council to his letter of November
L7, 1980 to the Planning Department for detailed justification.
He pointed out the unfairness of requiring oarking for new projects
while old buildings and rernodeled orojects are not required to
supply it. He then explored possibilities of a parking district
for Broadway, suggesting this as the onlv reasonable solution of
the Broadway parking oroblern.
Tn response to Council question, Mr. Carr defined "fosliqsslr as
a sma1l retail shop, of which there would be several in this
project.
Councilman Crosbv considered a Broadrvay Parking
alternative for the area, and discussed with Mr
District the only
Carr the idea of
4
159
the Broadway merchants spearheading this effort. Council dis-
cussed with t4r. Carr prior plans which met code but which werenot feasible economically, the actual addition of two street
oarking spaces by closure of service driveways, and a variancecondition which would limit use of building to certain businesses.
The following oeople spoke in favor of this project: Pat Ajemj-an,
L73 Sylvan Way, San Mateo; Ken Taylor, I30B Bayshore; Bill
Langston, 111 Lorton. Some of their reasons: Not fair to imposeparking on this owner when others are not so required. He isproviding more than others do. More problems parking on Burlingame
Avenue than Broadway. Project would be an economic benefit. Thissite, while not being remodeled, had been previouslr,, developed.It is important to have a good building instead of a vacant 1ot.
Following spoke in opoosition to this project: Pete Campanile,
1341 Columbus; Mrs. Anna Bruce of AVR Realty. Their reasons:
Parking problem is bad and City codes should be observed because
variance would compound the pr:obl-ern. Parking district is desirablebut meanwhile owners should conform to code.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared
closed.
Council discussed in detail legality of metering a private lot,possibility of more space by using angled parking but r,vhich would
reguire larger encroachment permit, kinds of uses to be conditioned,legal responsibility for liability on encroachment.
Council.woman Barton considered that
compound the parking problem.
granting this variance would
Councilman Crosby approved granting the variance with Planning
Commission conditions, again mentioning the formation of Broadway
Parking District and the suggestion that Mr. Bezdjian could spear-
head it.
Councilman Amstrup was reluctant to decide on variance until exact
uses of the building had been spelled out.
Councilman Mangini thought Mr. Bezdjian should not be penalized
for the parking problem. He moved the variance be granted with
the six Planning Commission conditions plus the stipulation thatcertain tyoes of uses would not be allowed. Councilman Crosby
seconded the motion.
After further discussion on the condition of uses of the building,
Mayor Martin tabled the motion to the meeting of January 19, 1981
so that staff could recommend types of usage for the project.
CERTIFICATION OF CIVIL SERVICE DECTSfON: MTCHAEI, GOODERMOTE
Mayor Martin announced this matter would be considered at
Council meeting of January 19, 1981 since Mr. Gooderrnote's
had not been informed of this present meetincr.
the
attorney
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM _ }{ICHAEL STECHER
By memo of December 30, 1980 CiLy Attorney recommended settlementof this claim for $8r000, and requested Council and City Manager
confirmation.
2. REQUEST FOR QUARTERLY ALLOCATIO}I CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
This request dated January 2t 1981, for ouarterly allocation of
$3,750.00 for the period January 1,1981 through March 31, 1981,
was substantiated by nromotional report for quarter ending
December 31, 1981.
3. RESOLUTIONS
a. RESOLUT]ON NO. 1_81 ''ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT
FOR SELF-INSURANCE CLAIMS''
r"160
b. RESOLLITION NO. 2-81 ''RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF
PERMIT AP-PUBLIC I{ORKS TO REPRESE}IT THE CITY ON BCDC
PI,ICATIOI{ NO. MBO_96"
C. RESOLUTION NO. 3-81 ''RESOLLITION ESTABLISHING 19BO-81
APPROPRIATION L].I4IT FOR CITY OF BURLINGA},TE PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CALIFORNTA CONSTITUTION''
d. RESOLUTION NO. 4_81 ''RESOLUTION ACCEPTING YTEED ABATEIVIENT
PROGRAM''
4 ESTABLISHMENT OF LAGUNA AVENUE ONE WAY NORTH FROM CARMELITA
TO BROADWAY
Mayor Martin received confirmation from the City Attorney that this
item and the following change for Hillside would both be documented
by ordinances which would require public hearings. He requested
that these two changes, referred bv Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission, be discussed further at next Council study meeting.
ESTABLISHMENT OF STOP SIGN FOR TRAFFIC MOVING I,ilEST ON HILLSTDE-
}{.AKING FOUR WAY STOP TNTERSECTION
Councilman Crosby moved apnroval of consent calendar, second
by Councilman Mangini, carried unanimously.
ORDTNANCE NO. 1191 "ORDTNANCE SPECIFYING PEACE OFFTCER POWERS OF
RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS "
5
Mayor Martin opened public hearing on this
no cornments from public and oublic hearing
Upon motion of Councilman Crosby, second by
Ordinance No. 1191 passed its second reading
unaninous ro11 call vote.
ordinance. There were
was declared closed.
Councilman Mangini,
and was adopted on
OLD BUS]NESS
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
In response to Council question, City Attorney stated the moratorium
on condominium conversions would expire on l{arch 3, 1981. Mayor
Martj-n suggested this be put on next studv meeting agenda-
NEI^I BUSII\IESS
REFERRALS TO TRAFFIC, SAFETY, AND PARKING CO}{M]SSION
Council requested that the following problems be referred to this
Commission: 1. Severe parkinq problem on Toyon, comgounded by
Teevan Painters parkino on Carolan. Possibility of making Tolzon
a one-hray street. 2. Request of residents on Fairfield for one
way street.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING LIMITATIONS rN CALIFORNIA
Councilman Mangini, referring to League Bulletin of December 16,
1980 and its suggestions as to what cities can do about removing
these Federal sanctions, asked if Council vrould like to take any
action. Council decided to wait until after the new Federal
Administration takes office in the possibility that the legislation
malz be chanqed.
Councilman Amstrup spoke of bill now in State Senate amending
State crirninal laws so that they would no longer be more liberal
than the Federal laws. He urged City communication in support of
this legislation. City Attornev was requested to provide Council
with summary of bill for information and discussion.
ACKNOWLEDG}IEI'ITS
1. Letter of Decernber 24, I9BO from Airport Land Use Commission
with sugqested resolution re the Joint Land Use Study. Mayor
Martj-n iifea that this be out on study meeting agenda for discussion.
16
2. Letter of l2/LL/80 re cable TV from Tom Marte1la, 740
Fairfield Road.
3. Memo of L2/23/80 from City Attorney re Burlingame Police
Officers Association.
4. Letter of December 5, 1980 from Williams & Caploe to Airports
General Counsel.
5. Letter of commendation for Joe Lusk, Water Department, from
l4rs. Irene A. Evans , L2/ll/80.
6. Letter of December 12, 1980 from U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency re funding limitations in California.
7. I4inutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, l2/ll/80;
Beautification Commission, 12/ 4/80.
COM}4ISSIONERS DINNER
City Manager suggested this dinner be held on January 30, at the
Hyatt Hote1. Council concurred.
STUDY }IEETING
l{ayor Martin set date of next study meeting as Januarlz 14, 1981.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting regularly adjourned at 9225 P.M.
€-,,1r*Zt ft4Evelyn/H. Hill
City Clerk
-l
I
I. : ,-
-l