Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1981.11.02287 BURLINGAME, CALfFORNIA November 2, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaLl Council Chambers. Meeting wascalled to order at 8:I0 P.M. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini after an executive session starting at 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Margaret W. Monroe, City Planner. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:AMSTRUP , BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI , MARTIN NONECOUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: MINUTES Minutes of the regular meetj-ng of October L9,1981 were approved and adopted. COUNCIL HEARING OF CAROL HARM - ON CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT ON DISMISSAL EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Mangini announced the decision of the City Council was sustain the decision of the Civil Service Commission in the dismissal of Police Dispatcher Carol Harm. Vote to sustain been unanimous by Council members present, Councilman Martin to had absent. HEARING - SAIT KILKI, APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 330 SF STORAGE/CABANA STRUCTURE AT L44I DRAKE AVENUE City Planner, in presenting her staff report of November 2,1981, said a special permit for this structure is necessary according to code because part of it will be used for recreational purposes and. it exceeds the 50 SF limit allowab1e for a "lanai, patio shelter, or slmilar structure." This project brings lot coverage to the maximum. Planning staff had discussed possibility of conversion in its reports to the Planning Commission, and recommended approval of the special permit with conditions that the project be built according to plans submitted, that it be located 4t from side property line, and that precautions be taken with location of sewer service Iine. The Planning Commission had denied the application because of concern of allowing maximum lot coverage without an existing garage. The property has a car port. Council-man Amstrup, noting the time limitations for an appeal, questioned why the Council was hearing an appeal from a Planning Commission decision made on 9/L4/81. Mayor Mangini stated the Council had agreed to give Mr. Kilki this hearing because of special circumstances. Councilman Amstrup protested that if the City has a Iaw, all should abide by it; and other people will try to get special treatment. Mayor Mangini opened public hearing. Mr. Sait Kilki addressed Council, explaining that he was i1I at the time of the Planning Commission meeting and his contractor nad misunderstood conditions of appeal. He stated his need for the cabana for storage as well as for cabana space. In response to question from Mayor Mangini, City Planner reported that the structure as proposed meets all City codes. I l I I I I i I I I I {-lt.r - 4&4 288 Council briefly dj-scussed dj-mensions and height of building withcontractor Bob l,iepke. Councilman Martin objected to the factthat no plan with dimensions had been presented to Council intime for study before the meeting. One had been presented atthis meeting, but all Council members had not seen it. I{e suggested application be postponed. Councilwoman Barton moved that thj-s appeal be postponed for t\"/oweeks, with application to go back to Planning Commission ifany changes are mad.e in the plan; second by Councilman Amstrup,carried. unanimously on ro11 cal-l_ vote. HEARING - S.K. JADALLAH, APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITION CANYON COURTOF 18' HEIGHT LIMIT FOR LOT ]-, MILLS City Planner reviewed history of this request for amendment asdetail-ed in her staff report of Nover cer 2, l9gl. She noted the1968 subdivision condition of 18, height measured. from curb;Mr. Jadal-lah's May, 1979 requesE for 22, variance because of con-figuration of 10t, negatively recommended. by the planning Commission and denied by Council; his Ju1y, L979 request forI0-14' variance with revised plans, again not recommended bythe P]anning Commission, but delayed in presentation to Council;his ApriI, 1981 revised plans addressing concerns of planning staff and requesting a 15r height excepti-on. This last site planhas not been reviewed by planning Commission although theirrecornmendation of denial for the 10-14, variance is on record.The City Planner indicated a contoured model of the site,proposed dwelling,and other dwellings in the immediate area. Councilman Martin established that curb line is at 439r contourl-ine and Mr. Jadallah wishes to build to the 472' contour 1ine. Attorney Paul F. Ke11ey, San Mateo, addressed Council_ on behalfof Mr. Jadal-Iah. He pointed out that when the condition wasoriginally passed, the curb line was non-existent. He describedI'1r. Jadallahrs lot as unusual- in the subdivision, and describedhis efforts to compl-y with planning concerns and with neighborsrwishes. By means of model he demonstrated that the propoJedhouse does not interfere with neighbors' sight l-ines or Bay views.pointed out Mr. Jadaltah has a right to develop his properly andhas invested considerable money in planning. tte noted the - presence of both architect and soils engineer in the aud.ience. councilman Amstrup protested that the council was hearing materialnot yet heard by the Pl-anning Commiss j_on, anal questioned ifCouncil was to hear only the height situation. Staff comment\i/as that the height limit had been set by Council; while thePlanning Commj-ssion can make recommendation, only'the Councifcan change the condi tion . Councilman Martin reviewed the original premise of the heightlimitation in 1968, stating that more than just the height isat stake. AIso to be considered are blocking of viei,/s and.limitj-ng the cut. There must be considered the opinions ofneighbors and people in the area. He suggested that the plan shouldqo back to the Planning Commj_ssion. Attorney Kel_ley arguedthat the decision would end up before Council- anyhow in eventof either rejection or approval by the planning Commission;and only the Council has the power to change the hej_ght 1imitation. Council-man Amstrup again pointed out that the Council has takena stand of not dealing with anything the planning Commission hasnot seen. He noted that the planning Commission had recommencledin l-979 that no change be made. Councili,roman Barton agreed, stating there is a great waste oftime when applicants come before Council with plans that mustbe referred back to the Planning Commission. She moved thisappJ-ication be sent back to the Planning Commission, second byCouncilman Amstrup, carried unanimously on rol_I call vote. He I CHANGE OF NAME OF ANZA PACIFIC PLACE TO ANZA BOULEVARD HEARING Mayor lulangini opened public hearing on this request by SeabreezePartnership. Councilman Martin withdrew from discussion on groundsof possj-ble conflict of interest. There was no public response and the public hearing was declared closed. Resolution No. 78-81 "Resolution Chan qing Name of Anza PacificPlace to Anza Boulevard" was introduced by Councilman Crosby who moved its adoption, second by Council-man Amstrup, carried by unanimous roll call vote, Councilman Martin abstaining. STAFF MEMORANDA I Admi ni s tr ative Incumlcents New Aide re Term Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Administrative Aide's memo of October 15, 1981 noted terms ofDonald Cappa and Sophia Kreling expire on November 6, 198I andthey are both eligj-ble for reappointment. City Manager's endorsement of October 27, L98l- stated that these people arewilling to serve another term on this commission. Council had no objection to their reappointment. Mayor Manginj- announced their appointment to another term. I'lemo of October 26, l-98l- from City Planner requested that Councilschedule for study meeting review a presentation by CarrufCorporation on a project proposed for the south end of the Anza area. Mayor Mangini meeting. scheduled this presentatj-on for the December studv 3 City Attorney re Senate Bill 230 E1e c tion s Conso1idat j.on of Municipal City Attorney's memo of October 27, l98l explained details ofthis Senate BiLI which a1lows genet al municipal elections to beconsolidated with a statewide primary, general or school districtelection. He noted that the County Clerk had inilicated that theJune ballot will be too crowded for consolidations. Mayor Mangini stated this bilIstudy session. would be discussed at a forthconrirrg CORRESPONDENCE San Mateo Countyof Representative Mosquito Abatement District re Replacement Letter of October 20, 1981 from Clerk of the Board of San MateoCounty Mosguito Abatement District requested that a replacementrepresentative be appointed for Arthur H. Nelson who resigned9/l/81- Mayor Manginj- stated he and Councj_lman Martin wouldinterview applicants and asked that City Manager set up interviewdate, excluding ll/9 and lI/13/81 . There was some Council discussj_on and opinions expressed of thepractice of the Board's paying its members for attendance.However, it was suggested that since this involves a differenttaxing agency, the City does not have the prerogatj_ve of settingcondi-tions. 1 289 2. Cj-ty Pl-anner re Carruf Corporation Request for Study Meeting Review 290 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claim of Brenda A. Brown Denia.I Recommended City Attorney's memo of October 22, Lggl recommended denialthis claim because City's action j_n the circumstances of theincident appears appropriate. of 2. Resolution No. 79-81 "Resolution Authorizin g Project Appl-icationSouthern Paci- f .lc Station Consolidation - project No. 815,' 3. Fire Capi tal- Chief Request to Purchase Radio Improvements from Improvement Bud get By memo of October 29, l98L Fire Chief requested permiss j,on tojoin in a joint purchasing venture with San Mateo County Communicatj-ons for twelve new portable radios, He quoted bid as$1,465 per unit, a savings of 9350 per unit by participating inCounty bid; and noted provisions for this purchase in the Capitat Improvement budge t. 4. Tentative condominium Map for 4-Unit project at 620 peninsula Avenue Memo of October 28,of this map. I981 from City Engineer reconmended approval 5. Fj-nal Subdivision l4ap for l-8 Condominium Units, 1500 Wi-Llow Avenue City Engineer, by memo of October 28, l98I requested. Councifapproval of this map. 6. Tentative Condominium Map for 4-Unit Condominium at 12]9 Paloma Memo of October 28, 1981 from approval of this map. City Engineer recommended Council Councilman Crosby moved approval of consent calendar, second by Council-man Martin, carried unanimously. STUDY MEETING Councilman Amstrup suggested that in view of all the public feedback Councj-l- had been receiving regarding the changed parking system, the next study session be devoted to the subject. He considered it time the Council brainstormed the matter so that some guidelines could be set. Councilwoman Barton agreed. She noted there hatl been many complaints about the diffj-culty in getting into spaces in some restriped downtown lots. She asked Director of Publ-ic Works if any pattern coul-d be discerned since downtown lots have been changed. He replied it was too soon to define a pattern since work on afl of the l-ots had not been completed. Mayor Mangini suggested that the study session be given over to parking onJ-y. Council discussed and agreed that the study meeting would be held November 12, with principal discussion to be onparking and Ordj-nance L2),4 with the two minor items alreatly scheduled. Members of Traffic,safety and Parking Commission are to be present at the meeting as well as the Finance Director. Councilman Martin suggested that notices on long be distributed until after the meeting, and asked be given to handicapped parking in City Lots. term lots notthat consideration Councilman Crosby asked what action would be taken. Director of Publ-ic Works said that at this time the action would be todistribute maps of the long term parking lots for citizeh in- formati-on. Councilman Amstrup spoke at length about the recent media coverageof the parking situation in Burlingame: in particular, publicitygiven a City commissj.oner's suggestions on a parking stlucture indowntown Burlj-ngame. He gave figures on the prohibitive priceof such an 850 sta11 structure, the minimal balance in the parkingfund; and noted the fact that parking fees were raised mainly asa method of al-leviating the parking situation, not to raiserevenue. He pointed out that such a parking structure wouldexc]ude the parkj-ng needs of the Broadway area, and City moneydoes not belong to any one area. fre not6d a previous attemptby the City to have leasing of a parking structure and the lackof response. With regard to the comparisons of free ma1l parking,he stated that parking i_n such places as Hillsdale is not ireebut is usuaLly paid for by the lessee. He did agree, however, withthe statement that in lieu fees should be abol-ished. NEW BUSINESS Parki ng Councilman Martin explored the mechanj-cs of financing the parkingstructure suggested, using 10? money and the assumption of a 30year bond. He estimated that it would be necessary to rent eachof the parking spaces for $100.00 per month. Ile discussed theformation of the 1962-63 Downtown parking District, which wasadversely treated in the publicity, and noted that at the timeit was the best effort to get a parking district going. He commented that no newspapers had contacted him for facts on thesesubjects. Council$/oman Barton stated she did not favor a parking structure.She said the problem is long term parking, and the changein rates is designed to correct this. However, she thoughtthat extra monies received from fees shoufd go for parking. Sheconsidered that downtown Burlingame is sold by its charm, andcited loss of stores in downtown San Mateo which does have a s tructure . Councilman Crosby commented he had been on the Council when theParking District was formed, and the Councif had considerabledifficulty in convj-ncing citizens to form it. He was not totallyagains! a parking structurerand considered the sma1l restripedspaces in the parking lots difficult. He approved of a thoroughdiscussion at the study meeting, and pointed out to the public thatthe Counci] is not trying to avoid the issue. Peninsula llo spi ta1 Councilman Amstrup requested. that Director ofin touch with Caltrans to cl-ean up the isfandsopposite Peninsula Hospital . Publ ic in Ef Wo rks Camino get I 2 3 4 5 ACKNOWLE DGMENTS 5 7 8 9 29L Letter 10/26/81 , Burlingame Chamber of Cornmerce transmittingresolution re parking and Ordinance No. 12I4.Letter, undated, Mrs. Russell B. Borda, 605 Vernon Way,re parking. Letter 10/22/8L, Fred T. Clifton, 535 Pu1]man Road, re parking.Letter, H. Kent Atwater, 330 Primrose Road re Ordinance 1214.Letter, L0/29/8L, Diane M. Dillon, 941- Chula Vista, re Broadway Overpass. Councilman Martin noted this is aCaltrans responsibility, not the City's. Mayor Mangini requested Cj-ty Manager to advise Ms. Dill-on of this fact.City Pl-anner, Negatj-ve Declaration, l0/28/8J-.Minutes: Park & Recreation, LO/15/81; Planning Commission,I0/26/81; Library Board., lO/20/81 .Letter of L0/29/8I from Dennis S. Marks, 1247 Dr ake Avenue, commending Park Director Quadri and members of Park Department.Letter 10/27/8L from Dr. Ray L. Ferguson, 708 Concord Way,re parking. I 292 Mayor t{angini reviewed assignments of Council members to interviewsfor Beautification - Crosby and Barton; Mosquito Abatement -Martin and Mangini; Planning Commission - Mangini and Amstrup. ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 9:40 P.M. -// -? /. l'-(y' '' ''' 1y H. HilICity Clerk