Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1979.04.02323 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA April 2, 1979 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaII Council Chambers. Meeting was ca11edto order at B:00 P.M. by Irvlng S. 7\mstrup, Mayor. PLEDGE OF ALLEGTANCE TO THE FLAG Led by John R ROLL CALL Yost, Assj-stant City Planner. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE MINUTES Minutes of the Study Meeting of March 14, 1979 and the regular Meeting of March 19, 1-979 were approved and adopted, with amend- ment to show that Resolution 10-79, awarding the Washington Park Lighting Contract, was adopted at the meeting of March L9, L979. 1. APPEAL I'ROM DENIAL 4OO PRIMROSE ROAD OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, ANNCO PROPEP.TY At the request of Mayor Amstrup, Director of Public Works reviewed this after-the-fact request for an encroachment permit for a 21" high planter r,vhich projects 54' into the City right of way. Director of Public Works had denied this permit because the planter restricts the sidewalk- area, particularly with the existing parking meter pole and electrolier po1e. I{e stated the planter was not shown on the original plans; the City had not known of it until it was being constructed, dt which time the developer was told to re- move it. The developer had requested and received information on encroachment permit process; but had gone ahead, finished theplanter, and then filed application for encroachment permit. Ms. Marilyn Moore of Annco Property addressed Council. She apolo- gized. for inadvertent failure to file for the permit in time,stating the construction superintendent had instructed another employee to get the permit; it was forgotten, and the planter was th'en -tinisfred. She -presented Council- dompilAtion of a survey taken in front of property which showed the majority in favor of the planter and did not consider it dangerous. She displayed photos of other similar City sidewalk encroachments -bike racks, plantings, hedges. City Attorney reported that applicant for encroachment permit must sign agreement that he will be responsible for liability. Council discussed questionable ethics of applicantrs actions, and proposed solutions. Councilman Mangini suggested removing the front part of the planter so it would encroach less and conform to the existing sidewalk. Councilman Martin suggested raising height for accident protection. Councilwoman Barton suggested raising height and moving electrolier. Councilman Crosby questioned the location of the parking rfleter. Mayor Amstrup also suggested the planter be cut back to the side- walk line. I'Iark Coffey, architect for Annco Property, told Council the planter was built in one d.y; several days later City staff said it was i1Iega1; and no further construction was done, although the planter was filled with dirt and plants added. He added the planter was not a structure, it was a decoration, and the sidewalk had originally been planned as Council suggested, but the City wanted it otherwise. Director of Public Works reported that in order for the building to 324 have enough landscaping, the City had approved the sidewafk being built to the curb line, with landscaping at the front of the building rather than in the planting strip. Councilman Mangini moved that Annco be requested to remove the planter, second by Councilman Martj-n. After further discussion, motion and second were withdrawn. Council agreed to continue this matter to meetj-ng of April 16, 1979, with applicant to confer with staff in j-nterim re- garding solution. DESTRUCTION OF TREES Mayor Amstrup reported that many trees had been cut down alongthe east side of California Drive north of Broadway. These included City trees and it was done without City knowledge. He asked for citizen input to determine responsibility. City Attorney announced input directed to him would be confidential . REWARD FUND Mayor Amstrup announced City Reward Fund haal been used vantage several times by the Police Department but was depleted. He requested citizen contrj-bution. to ad- be ing 2. BEN-STMON pROpERTy, 9ll/915/927 EL CAI\,IrNO AND 1509 SANCHEZ AVENUE: ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-5OP RECLASSIFICATION : PORTION LOTS 2 AND BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION FROM R_1 TENTATIVE PARCEL }4AP, MERGER OF LOTS LOTS 1,2, 3. SETBACK VARIANCE ADJACENT TO SANC}IEZ 3, ALL OF LOT 23 TO R-3 22, 23 AND PORTTON OF AVENUE Counc i 1 1. ') 4. 6. had received the following documentation: EIR-5OP Adoendum to EIR 5 0-PLetter of 3/28/79 from Richard G. Randolph, Attorney, f20 N. E1 Camino, San Mateo, attaching individuaf and group letters from neighborhood citizens with basic opposition to the inclusion of R-l 1ot at 1509 Sanchez in the proj ect.Letter of 3/73/79 with signatures of nine families objecting to entire application. Nine communications, various dates, various citizens, objecting to inclusion of R-I Iot. Detailed report of 4/2/79 from Assistant City Planner exploring aI1 facets of application. Report attached map of site, Ietters of l/22/ 79, and 2/2/79 from Albert E. Polonsky, 207 Southgate Avenue, Daly City, attorney for zev Ben-Simon, anal other data. Mayor Amstrup announceil Council's first consideration would be EIR-50P, recommended by the Planning Commission. He then opened hearing to comments from the floor. Mr. Polonsky re- sponded, stating he and his client consider EIR satisfactory, noting the fact that it takes both extremes into consideration- no project to heavy building. There were no further conunents and the public hearing was declared cfosed. RESOLUTION NO. 14-79 "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS VTITH RESPECT TO RECLASSIFICATION TO R-3 DISTRICT OF THOSE R-1 PORTIONS OF PROPERTY AT 9IL/9I5/927 Et CAITIINO REAL - EIR-50" was introduced by Councilman Martin who moved its adoption, second by Councilwoman Barton, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote. Mayor Amstrup announced ground rul-es of public hearj-ng on the remainder of the items, and asked for report from Assistant City Planner. 32s A ssi s tant City Planner reviewed his report of April 2, 1979,illustrating with slides of the site and proposed usage. Threelots involved in rezoning from R-1 to R-3 front on EI Camino Rea1. Front of lots is R-3, back is R-1. Project is 18 unit condominium and parking on these lots with use of addltional R-l lot on Sanchez for swimming pool, cabana, and five guest parking spaces. This lot will not be rezoned. Developer requests 15' setback on Sanchez instead of 34' . Mayor Amstrup opened the meeting to public hearing, with pro- ponents to speak first. Mr Polonsky's summation of position included these points: 1. Original proposal had been for 14 unit apartment on two lots- Area 14,000 SF. This proposal is for 18 unit condominium and doublethe area-281400 SF. Clearing of site has eliminated rundown structures along El Camino Real. 2. Before L976 and adoption of Resolution 24'75, R-l portion of R-3 lots would have automatically taken the R-3 zoning with development. Original subdivj-sion in 1907 had lot lines running north and south. Lots were zoned on Iot lines running east and west. 3. Condominium withstable clientele.Iarge owner occupied units will attract 4. 1509 Sanchez will be an open space buffer between the P.-3 condominium and the R-1 neighborhood. Its R-I zoning guarantees control. This was a ramshackle renter-occupied building for years and had only recently been brought up to code. 5. Proposal has good on-site parking and EI Camino. 1509 Sanchez needed for guest to the house remaining as a clubhouse. 6. Alternatives: Without 1509 Sanchez, this economj-cal1y infeasible. Alternative without three lots 3 apartment houses with 25 units exit on El Camino. no egress or ingress onparking. No objections type of project reclassification of each. Entrance and 7. 34' setback on Sanchez 15' requested; apartment building across Sanchez has only 8\' setback. If apartment house put on that 1ot, 7-8' setback along Sanchez would be permitted. Other proponents speaking were: Mrs. Carl Hax, 1514 Forest View; Mrs. Arnold Johnson, 1506 Forest View; Patricia Anderson, 1500 Forest View. Ir4ain points: Condo will be an asset to the neighbor- hood; great improvement over previous plans i 20' setback from Forest View is appreciated; if apartments result, there will be transient people and traffic problems. Opponents speaking: Richard G. Randolph, attorney for residentsr group, gave his opinion that the applicant is asking to change the General PIan by a subterfuge. He announced that various citizens opposing project would speak to different aspects of the project. He introduced Terry Giomi, 1600 Forest View, who proposed: eliminate 1509 Sanchez from the project, do not rezone the three parcels facing El Camino unless building line is established at least 15' from 1509propertyr dfly rezoning to be conditional upon plans for specific condo project. Rich Varni, 1-617 Sanchez Avenue, illustrated the effects of pre- cedent-setting consolidation of the R-1 Iot with the project. He disptayed map of Burlingame showing all City locations of R-I lots adjacent to R-3 on E1 Camino rea1, Rollins Road, Peninsula Avenue. Nannette Giomi, 1600 Forest View, opposed including 1509 Sanchez, and opposed lack of buffer zone between R-I and R-3. She proposed 15' wide setback between 1509 and the project buj-Iding. L ryE're .fv\EP|TIr 326 ,Janny Ercolini , because one R-l bui Iding. 1000 Balboa Avenue, opposed the 15' setback on Sanchez Iot would not protect the neighborhood from a ta1l to the of the Attorney Randolph summed up neighborhood opinion by stating that basically the naighborhood did not object to the reclassi- fication of the three lots, assuming that adequate protection in the way of setbacks can be given to the R-l area remaining to the west. Further opponents of the project who spoke were: Marty Knight, 23 Dwight; Wm. Koenig, 1517 Sanchez; J. B. E11iott, 1536 Carol Avenue; Jame s Hamrock, 852 Fairfield; Mrs. Donafd Cory, 800 Maple; Cofleen Urquardt, 749 Paloma; r:nitlentified renter, 123 Anita Road. Speaking in favor: Paul Markoff, 724 Lexj-ngton. Polonsky stressed the value of owner-occupied large the impossibility of buifding such a project the corner Iot is taken up by large setbacks. the R-l Iot is not to be rezoned and is still City, adding that the apartments across the extend farther west. ; f t he ez Mr. Randolph addressed Council-, emphasizing the objection 7' sj-de yard between the project building and the 1ot line 1509 Sanchez. He thought the project could be resolved to satisfaction of both the neighborhood and the developer. In rebuttal, Mr condo units, an when too much o He repeated thain control of t street on Sanch Councifman Crosby proj ec t. AS also Councifman Martin considered 34' setback on in view of setbacks of nearby properties. on Sanchez and sideyard of 7' accortling to building and 1509 property line, in view of and 20' on ForesL View. RECES S After a short recess at, 10:15 P.M. the meeting reconvened. Mayor Amstrup declared the Public hearing closed, and Council oiscussed the project. All Cor:ncil members agreed that 1509 Sanchez should not be included in the project but should be kept as a single family dwe11ing. They agreed to the reclass ification of the fots in question; but there was considerable discussion on setbacks and conditioning of the project. Councifman Mangini thought some of the demands on the developer were excessive, particularly on setbacks on corner lot. He suggested setbacks an area of compromise . thought compromises could be reached on this Sanchez unrealistic He suggested 15r setback code between the proPosed 20' setback of EI Camino Councilin oman Barton disagreed with 7' sideyard, partj-cu1arIy if there is a compromise on the 34' setback on sanchez. She thought 15' sideyard should be established as more of a buffer zone. Mayor Amstrup agreed with the concept of a buffer zone of at least 15r between the project and 1509. Sanchez. Mr. Polonsky told Councit his cl-ient would accept the exclusion of 1509 from the project but could not build an economically feasibl-e condo project with a side yard of more than 7t. Council and staff discussed the 15' sideyard and whether or not the condo project could be built with it as a condition. Various setback compromises ldere suggested, with a final agreement by the developer that he would agree to a 10' sideyard between condo project and 1509 Sanchez. Councilman Martin moved that a setback variance be granted of 15' for the project along Sanchez avenue, second by Councilman Crosby, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote- ORDINANCE NO. 1146 "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25.12.010 OF THE BURT1N GA]I.IE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAPS THEREIN INCORPOR- ATED BY RECI,ASSIFYING LOT 23 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 5 FROM FIRST RESIDENTIAI, (R-1) DISTRfCT TO THIRD RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICT." This ortlinance notes as conditions " . .. that preliminary plans of any building thereon sha1l require approval- by the City Cor:nci1, a ten (10) feet side- D6)-Oti I yard adjacent to the property line adjoining Lot 22, CLtyt s approval of a condominium project for this property, anil property owner's completion of guarantee of those improvements and con-ditions specified for the tentative parcef map joining LoLs 23,24 and a portion of tots I,2 and 3." Council-man Crosby introduced Ordinance I146 for first reading. Seconil by Councilman Mangini, carried on following roIJ- call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CROSBY, MANGINI , MARTIN NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: AMSTRUP (side yard should be 15') BARTON(best to have 15r side yard) Councilman Crosby moved approval of tentative parcel map com-bining tots, 1,2,3,23, and 24 subject to seven conditions specifiedin Assistant City Engineer's memo of February 1, 1979 to the Planning Department, Second by Councilman Mangini, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote. CORRESPONDENCE 1. APPEAL FROM AMCOE SIGN DECISION HOMESTEAD SAVINGS COMPANY RE S IGNAGE . PLANNING COMMISSION Letter of March 27, 1979 from Stephen c Savings appealed this decision, Appeal meeting of Aprif 16, 1979. Coulthard for Homestead was set for hearing at 2. HARVARD INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMTT TO AMERICAN RENT-A-CAR FOR STORAGE AND WASHING FACI LI TY Letter of March 27, 1979 from cary A. Martin, General Counsel ,Harvard Investment Company, Inc. appealed this speciaf permit. Hearing on appeal was set for meeting of April 16, 1979. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 11:20 P.M. Mayor Amstrup announced executive session for con- s j-deration of property acquisition. Council resumed regular meeting at 11:40 P.M. STAFF MEMORANDA 1. SOLID WASTE HANDLING AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Director of Public Worksr memo of March 14,1979 informed Council-that originaf program for pfant required that existing gravity sludge thickener be converted into an air flotation thickener. However, in conferring with plant operators and State Water Control Board on best method of handling both primary and secondary sludge, approvaf had been given to construct new air floatation thickener adjacent to present gravity thickener. This will require redesign, v,/hich State will not fund. Consultant has made a proposal of $23,665 for the redesign. Director of PubIic Works requested approval in order to implement more efficient operation. Money iscurrently in capital improvement funds, Councilman Crosby moved approvaf of redesign, Mangini, carried on unanimous vote of members Martin left meeting after executive session. ) second by Councilmanpresent. (Councilman Director of PubIic Works informed Council that Planning Commission had certified the EIR for wastewater Reclamation and he recommended hearj-ng be held at meeting of April J-5, L979. Mayor Amstrup so ordered . 2. SKYLINE DRIVE WIDENING AT HILLSIDE DRIVE Memo of March 28, 1979 from Senj-or Engineer detailed worl< involved 328 in this widening, with engineerrs estj-mate of $44,000 for construction and $6,000 for engineering, administration and inspection, Senior Engineer requested approval for bidding process. Councilman Mangini moved that project be approved second by Councilman Crosby, carried on unanimous members present. for bid, vote of 3. PURCHASE OF SCOTT AIR PACS, FIRE DEPART}'IENT City Manager's memo of March 29, L979 regarding exchange of land for parking purposes, attached drawings of land Sheraton is to receive ana tfr.t which the City is to receive in exchange I Lot- 4, Anza Airport Park Unit No. 7. City Manager detaifed conditions of agreeirent and requested direction to prepare incorporating these parcels. Council discussed, received assurance that City site was recom- mended by staff, and confirmed agreement should include these sites. 4. AGREEMENT WITH SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MOTEL 5. PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES,POLICE DEPARTMENT 6. WILSEY-HAM PROGRESS REPORT,SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS By memo of March 28, :-979 Police Chief requested four replacement vlhicles for present vehicl-es in poor condition and originally included in current budget but efiminated because of cutbacks' He asked that funds for these replacements, $25,930, be taken from the present altocation of $30,000 for Police Department computer. It has now been determined that an adequate computer system would cost $75 ' 000. councilwoman Barton moved that requested funding for repl-acement vehicles be approved, second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously by members Present. C ity Ham and Manager reported by memo of March 29, 1979 are r;ady to make a presentation to Councj-I suggested it be done at next study meeting. Mayor Amstrup, with consent of Council, announced be no epril itudy meeting because fo the April 24 meeting, and thal this presentatj-on would be heard regular meeting of April L6, L979. that Wilsey and on their progress there would renterslat the 7. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, BAYFRONT AREA ROADIdAY IMPROVEMENTS Memo of March 23 , 1979 from Director of Public Works gave rationafe for development fees for road improvements in this area, and attached tables showing these fees. city Attorney stated General PIan amendment is proposed for equitable applic- ation of fees. Assistant city Planner also explained development charges, David Keyston asked that Anza be relieved of mainten- arr"e "."=porrs ibil- it-ies in the street areas as a consequence of fees, bul Council delayed this untif after Airport Boulevard is finished. Council- agreed to listed development charges' Memo of March 20, 1979 from Fire Chief explained that recent Federa1 and OSHA regulations require change of air pacs from one type to another. Conversion of present air pacs would cost B:ZS per unit, while new units would cost $488 per unit at a totaf cost of $15,000. Fire Chief documented existing funding, and requested approval of new purchase. Councilman Mangini moved approval of purchase of nev/ equipment, second by coun-il-man Crosby, carried on unanimous vote of members present. 329 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CI{AMBER OF COMITIERCE OUARTERLY ALLOCATION, APRIL 1 JUNE 30, L979 Communication of March 29, 1979 from Burlingamerequested allocation in the amount of $4,250.00April 1, 1979 through June 30, 1979. 2. LIABILITY CLAIM, CLAYTON JOSEPH EAGLE chamberfor the of Commercequarter City Attorney's memo James R. Courshon ondenial. 3. LIABILITY CI,AII4, ALLAN AND HOFFMAN of March 28, 1979 attached claim from Attorneybehalf of Mr. Eagle. City Attorney recommend.ed City Attorney's memo 1979 from Gina AIIen mended deniaf. of March 28, 1979 attached and Stanley A11en Hoffman. claim dated l.tarch 2I ,City Attorney recom- 4. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, 119 9 B ROADWAY Memo of March 21 , 7979 from Director of public Worksapproval of this encroachment permit to use serviceto 1199 Broadway for exiting onto Broad.way. recommendedafley adj acent 5 CONDOMINIUM I,IAP, f 210 FLORIBUNDA Memo of March 29, 1979approval of this finalFforibunda. from Assistantparcel map for City Engineer recommended condominium at 1210 6. RESOLUTIOI{S RESOLUTION NO. 15-79 ,' RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1978 WASHIIJGTC)NPARK IMPROVEI4ENT JOB. NO. 8 01" RESOLUTION NO.f5-79 " RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BELLE VUE-LORTON INTERSECTI ON IMPROVEIIIENTS - JOB NO. 80 3 " RESOLUTION NO.f7-79 "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1977 -L97IIDEWALK PROGRAM - JOB 727" RESOLUTION NO. 18-79 I'RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OI AGREEMENT WITH BURLIXGAME AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGAIII ZATIONFOR USE OF BAYSIDE PARK CONCESSION STANDI' RESOLUTION NO. 2O-79 ''RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BUDGET PCLICIESAND PRO CEDURES '' Councilwoman Barton moved consent calendar be approved, second. byCouncilman Crosby, carried unanimously by membeii present. PROCLAMATIONS & COMMENDATIONS S Mayor l\mstrup announced commendation to Troop 156, Boy Scouts ofAmerica, proclaimed April 1-7, 1979 the "Week of the ioung Child',and the Week of April 2-8 as ',Health Fair Week" Mayor Amstrup asked that the next Recreation Department BuIletincontain information about the Burlingame Reward Fund. NEW BUSINESS SUMMER SCHOOL RESOLUTION NO. 19-79 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OEfficAJ,lE-HrLLSBoRoucH LfrrLE LEAGUE !'cR usEOF BAYSTDE PARK CONCESSION STANDI' City Attorney reported that the City is working with the Schoo1 ). 330 District in regard to running suntmer school through the Recreation Department. He noted no new employees would be hired. RESOLUTION 2L-79 "RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADIqINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEESI RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. '' City Manager read publicly as follows facts required to be stated regarding this resolutj-on of intention: For miscellaneous members, ,'The rate for your agency without this (these) optional benefit(s) would be 16.9OEA. f[us Lfre change in cost of the optional benefit(s) is 5.2162, (22.1814 16.9652, see attached actuarial report.) Apply these percentages to the most current payroll figures foT the next 12 months to coipute the do1lar amount. This percentage in- crease will apply to ltt memUer payrolls covered by this benefit (ifrese Uenefils)l until the year-2-OOO. These are the cost figures which can be made public at Lhe time the Resolution of Intention is adopted. Please note that the figures are subject to change in the fulure with any change in actuarial data. " (Annual estimated doIlar increase $93,494.) CIVIL DEFENSE For Safety members: ,,The rate for your agency without this (these) optional benefit(s) would be 26.L432. Thus the change in cost of the optional benefit(s) is 6.151? , (32.2942 26.L432, see attached actuarial report') Apply these percentages to the most current payroll figures for the next 12 months to coirpute the doIlar amount. This percentage in- crease will .pply to arr member payrolls covered by this benefit tlfr"=" Uenetils,j until the year-Z-OOO. These are the cost figures which can be made public at Lhe time the Resolution of Intention i; adopted. pl".=-e note that the figures are subject to change in the future with any change in actuarial data- " (Annual estimated dollar increase $96,207 ') City Attorney reported he would draft emergency ordinance on this matter, r.ql"=ting that it be consideied as the first brief item on Rent Coritrol meeting of April 24 , L979 ' RESOLUTION NO. 2t-79 was introduced by councj-lman crosby who second by Councilman Mangini' carried on unanimous roll call vote of members present' Councilman Mangini reported on Civil Defense and Disaster meeting it ,fri"f, action was taken on the new budget' YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT DAY City Manager received confirmation again host luncheon for these young ACKNOWLEDGMENTS from Council that the CitY wiII people. 1. Memo of March L9, LgTg from Fire chief on Eire Alarm system' 2. Letter of March 24, lg79 from Ed Arnold, 213 enita Road, re golf course and driving range' 3. Letter of March 20, LgTg from city clerk advising of expiration of term of itanning Commissioner Charles [ri' Mink on i-ji719. Ciry Manager advised he would conract. 4. Applications of candidates for Planning lommlssion' council agreed to consider applicants at z:go P.M. before the regular meeting of APriI 16, L979 ' 5. San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau February' L979 report. g, 33 r. 6. Letter of March 23, L979 from City of I'oster City re 48859. 7. Letter of March 22, 1979 from Congress of El-ected Officialsre second annual meeting to be held April 5 , 1979. 8. Letter of March 14, 1979 from Department of Alcoholic BeverageControl re new procedure on retail licensing. 9. Planning Commission minutes of l{arch 26, 1979. 10. Legislative bulletins, various dates. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:10 A.M. , / -r/z/ ttttffi;#ffi{lt/tL, t-' City Clerk ?