Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2000.04.17BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA April 17,2000 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by John Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, SPINELLI, COFFEY, O'MAHONY NONE Councilman Spinelli made two corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting held April3, 2000. The first on page 6, "Councilman Spinelli suggested this plan be considered when the Broadway Interchange Plan begin^s" to be corrected to read "Councilman Spinelli suggested that this plan and the Broadway Interchange Plan be considered together. The second correction on page 10, "Jerry Hill stated at the last Supervisor of Cities Meeting" to be corrected to read "Jerry Hill stated at the last Council of Cities Meeting". Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan; approved by voice vote, 5-0. CLOSED SESSION Mayor O'Mahony called on City Attomey Anderson to report on the Council's closed session held at 6:30 p.m. The City Manager and Representatives of IEDA met regarding the ongoing Police Officer negotiations and the expiration of their Memorandum of Understanding. The Council instructed both the City Manager and IEDA on how to proceed further with those negotiations. The Council discussed with the City Manager the process by which a new City Manager would be recruited and hired and directed him in that regard. The Council also directed the City Attomey regarding negotiations on the claim of Vicki Solheim for vehicle damage and personal injury that occurred in 1999. PUBLIC HEARING _ NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO5a) April 17,2000 110 Burlingame City Council CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON ROLLINS ROAD BETWEEN TOYON DRIVE AND ROSE COURT EXTENDED EAST TO ROLLINS ROAD. AND SECOND REA OF AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN OVERLAY ZONE ON ROLLINS ROAD BETWEEN TOYON DRIVE AND BLOOMFIELD ROAD TO BETTER IMPLEMENT THE GENERAL 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION City Planner Monroe noted that at the Council meeting of April 3, 2000, a public hearing was held to change the General Plan Amendment on the properties fronting Rollins Road between Toyon Drive and Rose Court extending east from "shopping and commercial" to "medium high density residential" and to adopt an overlay zone which would implement the proposed General Plan Amendment. Following the meeting, there was a question raised by a property owner about the adequacy of the noticing for that particular item. State law does not explicitly require a mailed notice for City Council hearings on these items, but since a question was raised, it seemed appropriate to give additional mail notice directly to the applicant and affected property owners and offer both another opportunity to comment. The issues before the City Council were the same as at the meeting of April 3,2000; the General Plan Amendment applies to the properties on Rollins Road between Toyon Drive and Rose Court that are currently designated shopping and service commercial. The proposal is to change to medium high-density residential. The zoning of this area is R-3, which is the implementing zoning for the medium high density residential. This change would make the land use consistent with the zoning on this site. The state planning law requires consistency between the General Plan Land Use Designations and zoning. The Planning Commission studied this area carefully and determined it to be a transition area between the commercial areas on Broadway and the multiple family residential areas on Rollins Road. It is also a transition area between the freeway and Rollins Road and the single-family residential neighborhood that begins at Linden. Following the study, the Planning Commission recommended to Council that the General Plan Land Use Designation for these properties fronting Rollins Road be changed to medium high density residential because of the transition nature of the site. It was also recommended that the best transition would be accomplished by insuring that the new development occurred at the lower end of the land use designation density. In the General Plan, the medium high-density land use has a designation for the number of units in the area between 2l and 50 per acre. To make an appropriate transition, the development should be on the lower end; felt that the two-story apartment complexes that exist in this area should be extended through the whole area. Council Comments: Vice Mayor Galligan inquired why the inconsistency existed in this area. CP Monroe stated the General Land Plan Use Designation was adopted in 1969 before the state required consistency between the zoning and the General Plan. At that time, the commercial zone went from Toyon down to the Linden frontage and across Rose Court to Rollins Road. In 1975, state law changed and required consistency between the General Plan overlay and zoning. At that time, the City Council adopted a resolution amending the General Plan that stated anywhere in the City where therc was a commercial or a high density residential designation that was zoned R-l or R-2 the area be changed to a land use designation that reflected the zoning. In 1984, a general consistency update was done for the General Plan, however, this area was not dealt with at that time because it was believed it could be developed as a mixed-use (residential/commercial) development. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that the area is rundown; wondered if there was any incentive for the developers or owners to upgrade these properties. CP Monroe stated one of the problems the Planning Commission has been trying to deal with is how to go from a high density residential to a single-family land use. In this case, Burlingame City Council 111 April 17, 2000 bonuses were included for lot combination by allowing an extra uni! felt a larger building would provide better protection and transition than the development of multiple family uses on a 5,000 SF lot. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. James Wagstaffe, Attorney, came forward on behalf of W.J. Britton and Company and presented a timeline to Council and staff. Mr. Wagstaffe feels the confusion is causing the property to be rezoned into lower density; this area is a gateway to Burlingame and is not very attractive; one block south there are several buildings three stories tall; north on Rollins Road there are the Northpark Apartments that are also three stories tall. Mr. Wagstaffe stated the project is "affordable, attractive" housing; recommended the ordinance not be adopted. Councilman Coffey asked Mr. Wagstaffe what the cost would be to build 11 units versus 8 units. Mr. Wagstaffe stated that according to the Architect, building eight units on this site is economically infeasible if the project is to remain "affordable housing". City Attorney Anderson made clear for the record that there is no affordable housing requirement in Burlingame and the applicant has not proposed such as defined by state law. Ron Perner, Architect for the applicant, came forward to state he did not feel a change was necessary to the General Plan; R-3 use is permitted in a C-l zone. The ordinance has a section that allows both commercial on the lower floor and residential on the upper floor. He cited that under C-l zoning, R-3 is a permitted use. In regard to consistency, the state law requires the City to be consistent; feels it is more consistent now than if made into an overlay district; believes this same conditions exist in other locations in Burlingame. In CP Monroe's staff report dated January 31,2000, it is written "the C-l zone allows as conditional uses all the uses of R- 1 , 2, 3 and 4 districts, therefore, a multiple family use where a conditional use permit could be found to be consistent". Mr. Perner stated this memo reflects that an R-3 use is consistent within a C-l General Plan area. In the staff report dated March 13,2000, it reads'oencourage courtyards although not required, can't really provide on a 5,500 square foot lot". Asked what kind of ordinance is being proposed that has no model or reality to it; states the courtyard theory has been washed out in the past ten years; it is an old design, wants to provide for handicapped with short corridors and units that are accessible by everyone. Mr. Hagnau,gl2Toyon Road, feels Rollins Road is very run down and needs to be cleaned up; does not support overlay zone. Mike Harv ey , 920 Linden, noted that the project being discussed has already been declined by the Planning Commission on its own merits. Spoke in favor of the negative declaration and amendment to the General Plan; feels two story buildings are consistent with the area and that the three story condominiums do not fit in and would impact the existing single family neighborhood; agree the area in question is a good spot for development. Feels the amendment to the General Plan would encourage developers to develop the property. Mr. Duanis, 932 Linden, supports the amendment of the General Plan to reduce the density of the proposed area. Feels this will encourage developers to come up with quality developments. At this time, Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. CA Anderson noted that on the time line Mr. Wagstaffe provided, it was incorrectly indicated that the City action on April 3,2OOO, adopting the ordinance to amend the General Plan had been invalidated because of inadequate noticing. The noticing was not inadequate as it complied with state law. The City gave the applicant the courtesy of providing additional notice and an additional hearing. The action taken on April 3 is still in effect. The zoning code has been changed and the General Plan amendment has been made. Stated this was an additional hearing for the Council to reconsider the ordinance and direct staff to make any changes in what has already been done. April 17,2000 1L2 Burlingame City Council Councilman Spinelli noted this was the third time discussing this issue; when looking at the transition and other propenies with four or five units built on a 5,000 SF that look very nice, can't understand why eight units can't be built on 10,000 SF and come up with a good development that is cost effective. Need to look at the well being of the neighbors; whole idea is consistency and the transition from R-3 to R-1. He moved to reaffirm the Resolution on the General Plan passed on April 3'd. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney. Councilman Coffey requested clarification that the north side of Toyon is zoned R-I. CP Monroe believed the properties that come down Toyon on the north side of the street is R-l; two properties on the corner are non-conforming multi-families uses, which existed before the zoning. CP Monroe confirmed that there are a few three story buildings on Rollins Road that abut single-family dwellings. Vice Mayor Galligan stated he is very sensitive to homeowners who purchased homes on Linden at a time when they abutted two story buildings. Councilman Coffey requested clarification from CP Monroe about the statement the applicant made that the area in question is a C-l within which the R-3, R-2, R-l was allowed. CP Monroe stated this was not correct, that the statement confused the General Plan Land Use Designation and the zoning. The General Plan Land Use Designation is "shopping and service commercial", which is what we are changing from. The zoning is R-3, which doesn't allow commercial uses. Mayor O'Mahony called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the General Plan Amendment by Resolution; motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Ordinance to create an overlay zone on Rollins Road between Toyon Drive and Bloomfield Road to better implement the General Plan Land Use Designation; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligary approved by voice vote, 5-0. sbl)APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A NEGATIYE DECLARATION AND _ RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3.STORY, 11 DWELLING UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITH PARTIAL BELOW.GRADE PARIflNG AT 949-965 ROLLINS ROAD ZONED R-3 (JOHN BRITTON, W.J. BRITTON AND CO., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, RONALD PERNER, ARCHITECT) sb2)TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES _ RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 9, MAP OF BURLINGAME GARDENS,949-965 ROLLINS ROAD, pM 99-01 CP Monroe stated Mr. Britton, Applicant/Property Owner, is requesting approval of a Negative Declaration approving a residential condominium permit so that the two lots at 949-965 Rollins Road can be merged and developed with an 11 unit, 3 story residential condominium project, including l8 off street parking spaces below grade. The property is zoned R-3 and the General Plan Designation is now medium high density residential. Prior to any action on the project, Council acted on the General Plan map. The Ordinance for the overlay zone is not in effect for 30 days from the action on the ordinance, which allows this application to come forward. The l1 units are divided between four one-hedroom units on the first and second floors, and three one-bedroom units on the third floor. The site presently is occupied by a plumbing contractor's office and storage yard, and the second parcel is occupied by a three unit residential apartment building. To develop the project, the structures on these two lots would be demolished and the two lots combined into a single 10,500 SF lot. Burlingame City Council 113 April 17, 2000 Council Comments: Councilman Coffey noted that if the property slopes downward toward the rear, then the homes on Linden would be greatly affected. Mayor O'Mahony asked CA Anderson why this was on the agenda when it does not correspond to the new General Plan amendment or Negative Declaration. CA Anderson stated it does fit the General Plan Amendment as this plan is an R-3 project and would fit within that context. It does not fit within the overlay zone, however, the applicant has a right to appeal because the overlay zone has not gone into effect yet. He reminded the Council that the Planning Commission turned down this project based on the condominium permit and design issues as well as issues relating to their concerns about the density. That decision was reached before the Planning Commission recommended the overlay zone ordinance to the Council. While looking at a rendition of the proposed building, Vice Mayor Galligan asked CP Monroe what the right side of the building consisted of. She stated she believed it was a blank wall, but behind the projection of the building there are balconies inset into the side rear of that wall. Councilman Coffey believed architectural changes had been made since the November 4 submission. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. James Wagstaffe, Attorney, came forward to represent the applicant. He stated the reason there are no windows on the blank wall was because it was a request from the Planning Commission. States his client has been working closely with the Planning Commission to make the project feasible; doesn't feel it is fair not to let this project go forward when there is reliance based on the representation. CA Anderson stressed that the overlay zone had nothing to do with the Planning Commission's denial of this project. Ron Perner, Architect for the applicant, came forward and stated no changes had been made to the plans. He wanted to clariff the elevation of the back of the site that abut the properties on Linden to the front of the site, Rollins Road; the elevation rises to the back and gets two feet higher in the back which means the building is 2 feet lower than the front of the building. He noted this was misstated in some documents he reviewed; pointed out there are l8 parking spaces but there is the possibility of two more tandem parking spots in the back. Mr. Pemer feels he has done everything he could to make the building as attractive as he could and make it a transition; he's included side setbacks that are larger than required and incorporated as much landscaping as possible, as well as self-watering planters on the balconies. Stated the units are small but each one meets disabled accessible requirements. Explained he wanted the elevation that faced 7-ll to be broken up into as many elements as possible. Mr. Perner confirmed for Mayor O'Mahony that he did not know there was an inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning. CA Anderson stated the General Plan map is a public record and anyone is welcome to view it at any time; the City initiated the General Plan amendment, not the applicant. CP Monroe confirmed that Mr. Perner was made aware of the inconsistency when the initial study was done after the applicant made an official submittal to the Planning Department. Councilman Coffey asked if the rules had been changed for the applicant. CA Anderson noted that this project is possible due to the adoption of the General Plan Amendment. Prior to the April 3 action, the applicant was apparently not aware that the General Plan use was corlmercial. The General Plan Use Designation for the site was shopping service commercial, the zoning R-3. The applicant prepared his work on the basis of the zoning. When the applicant submitted the application and an initial study was done, it was pointed out that there was an inconsistency, which is when the change to the land use designation was initiated by the Planning Commission. In December, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's proposed project. April 17, 2000 Burlingame City Counciltt4 Vice Mayor Galligan reviewed the map of the property and said it appeared that the front of the property is lower than the back of the property and that the neighbors in the back are actually higher than the front of the property. CP Monroe noted that this is true depending on if you're talking about the existing property or the proposed property. The lot slopes 2' from rear to front now, but the proposed plan shows the building is 35' .^ from the grade at the back and its entrance is 2' to 6' below top at curb at the front so it appears to be four stories. The lot slopes toward Rollins Road down to the east. Mr. Perner stated he was never shown the General Plan until he had designed the project. Mayor O'Mahony explained to the applicant that it is their responsibility to know what the General Plan is in the City in which they want to build. Mr. Perner reviewed the timeline and stated he started this project in March, 1999;May 27 was when the application was submitted with drawings for review by City Staff. CC&R's were obtained as well as a tentative condominium map. Mr. Perner stated he found out about the General Plan in mid- October from a Planner. Councilman Coffey wanted to know if the slope continued up to Linden which would mean those homes are higher; Mr. Perner stated he could not answer that questions as he never walked the back yards. Mike Harvey,920 Linden, stated he has ccme before the Planning Commission and spoken against the project since November. From the beginning he stated the Planning Commission opposed the project based the look of the building. There are many blank walls and it is an unsightly project, not what we should be building in Burlingame. Feels the biggest obstacle to this building is the parking issue; this area is a high traffic area in the morning; noted the corner of Toyon and Rollins Road is already very dangerous, this project would make it worse. Mr. Harvey noted the two times the Planning Commission voted on this project, it was denied. Strongly supported Council to deny the project. There were no further comments from the floor. Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Council Comments; Vice Mayor Galligan felt from reading the Planning Commission's comments, the project looked like a box without much substance; his understanding was that the denial was more because of the design than it was for the height. If the homes on Linden are lower and or the same, then they would be affected by something over 30', but if the homes are two or three feet higher then currently, from their homes, this would be under the 30'; feels it is pretty level, that there isn't a sharp incline from Rollins to Carolan. If the issue is design, there are other three story structures such as Northpark Apartments which has underground and access to parking on the sides of buildings. If the homes were higher in the back, he felt he would have to deny the project with prejudice and request they resubmit plans with a better design. If they won't be able to get the project under 30' in the rear, he felt he would have to deny the project. Councilwoman Janney agreed that until more information was available regarding the houses on Linden, she also would deny the project without prejudice. Councilman Spinelli stated he agreed with the Planning Commission that there should be a two-story building at this site and that they denied the project because of the large size and not being very attractive; uncomfortable with the density and would vote to deny the project. Councilman Coffey stated his concern was trying to balance the neighbors on Linden's desire to have a two-story building with the developer who was following guidelines and acting in good faith. Feels to resolve this issue it would be necessary to get a survey of the elevations of Linden and the rear of the property. Another concern with this project and the Rollins Road area is the economic feasibility of developing the area. If constraints are put on the area, it will continue to be an eyesore. Planning Commission's feelings were well founded, but don't feel atany time the topography was taken into account; the location of this project at the northern most end of the overlay zone; would be in favor of denying Burlingame City Council 115 April 17, 2000 without prejudice and getting a rendering of the project which would allow Council to see whether it is a box or if it has any articulation as well as a measurement of the height of the land behind the single family homes. Ifwe ask the applicant to do this and it is proven that the height differential between the rear of the proposed property and the height of the homes on Linden is negligible, he would understand that there is no reason to come back with the project. Mayor O'Mahony feels the project should be rejected and made to be compatible with the overlay zone; feels there was ample warning for the applicant when the project was denied in December; there was a statement by the Planning Commission that they were going to correct the inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning, at which time the applicant and architect had plenty of opportunity to conform. Councilman Coffey made a motion to deny the project without prejudice and suggested the applicant review the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and also to provide the Council with the elevations of their building as well as the elevations of the properties directly behind and to the north and south of the rear of the property. He request the applicant provide Council with a rendering of how the architectural design was changed from the time it was presented to the Planning Commission to the time it is presented to Council. Seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan. CA Anderson noted that with the motion made by Councilman Coffey this project would return to Council rather than to the Planning Commission first as a denial without prejudice. Suggests there be a deadline set for the applicant to return to Council with the changes. The applicant agreed that 45 days would be a sufficient deadline to return to the Planning Department and file an application. At this time, the City Clerk called for a voice vote; motion passed 3-2 with Spinelli and O'Mahony dissenting. A motion was made by Councilman Coffey to deny the condominium map for 949-965 Rollins Road without prejudice. Seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan; motion passed by voice vote,3-2 with Spinelli and O'Mahony dissenting. 5c)APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A CONDITION USE PERMIT FOR 245 SF ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH,I24' EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED R.3 (PAUL POPE. PRESIDENT. APPLICANT; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH.PROPERTY OWNER: RONALD PERNER, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe reviewed her Staff Report dated April 17, 2000, whereby a conditional use permit was requested for a245 SF addition to the main church building to provide an entrance portico and disabled accessible restrooms. The main church building, built in the 1930's, is a classic representation of Spanish Colonial Revival Architecture. It has five on-site parking spaces and is non-conforming in parking. It was determined in this application that a parking variance would not be required because this addition is not affecting the fixed seating of the church, which is what determines parking. Design review is not required, however a conditional use permit is. There is a requirement in the criteria for a conditional use permit which notes that the Planning Commission or City Council may impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as it deems necessary to assure operation of the use and the manner compatible with the esthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. At the public hearing on March 27,the Commission denied the applicant's request. Commissioner's noted that they discussed some issues of design at study and between Commission study and action there were no April 17,2000 lt6 Burlingame City Council changes made except to the skylight; felt 100% compatibility with the existing structure would be critical and proposed the architect increase the amount of detail on the structure. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Ron Perner, Architect for the applicant, came forward to state he has been a member of Trinity Lutheran Church since 1962; feels the extensive landscaping at the church is the some of the finest on El Camino Real in Burlingame; the church has perfect design with circles and arches that need to be carried through. The roof has just been waterproofed, but the idea was to carry the exact same lines and copper gutter around the new addition at the same height. The proposed roof includes curvatures on the beams, which is the same as the rest of the church roof; feels this proposal is a perfect design. Mr. Perner felt to place a parapet wall or a gable would be in violation of the design of the church. The purpose of the addition is for disabled accessibility as well as requirements that need to be met. The part that comes out from the face of the wall is only 8'3" x 8'3". Feels a tile roof would clutter the look and take away from the design; wants it to blend with the rest of the church and preserve the character. Council Comments: Mayor O'Mahony stated that at the first meeting with the Planning Commission, two points were noted; the flat roof with the pyramid skylight did not seem to be in character with the existing building and that it needed to be tied better with the existing building. Also, that this church is one of the best examples of its style in Burlingame and nothing should be done that is not consistent with it. There is design precedent for a parapet with a tile cap, as well as a sloping shed roof, which is softer. Mr. Perner stated he believed there was no precedent for a parapet or gabled roof. Councilman Spinelli asked Mr. Perner if there was a flat roof anywhere else on the building. Mr. Perner stated that backside of the church off the alley has a flat roof, but it isn't a design feature. Councilman Spinelli felt the flat roof was not a design feature and is not consistent with the rest of the church. Mr. Pemer disagreed stating that only 8'3" x 8'3" projects outward from the wall; feels a roof that is going to stick up will be incompatible with the rest of the church. Paul Pope, President and Applicant for Trinity Lutheran Church, came forward to explain that this has been in the planning stages for three years and would like to get to a state of closure; noted the main reason for the addition is for wheelchair access; would like to finalize plans so they can proceed with obtaining funding from the congregation. Mr. Pope feels extensive landscaping will add tremendous benefits to the addition. Mayor O'Mahony asked if they would consider adding any Spanish style roofing around the window and toward the eaves. Mr. Pope felt at this point putting a parapet on the addition would draw attention to the area and could not envision the concept. Ken Newman, 1401 Carmelita, spoke on behalf of Trinity Lutheran Church; he stated the members of the congregation do not want to do anything to change the looks of the architecture of the church and want to keep it simple and plain without any bulk; feels the addition is not noticeable and with some vegetation and screening, it would look even better. When the project began, there were four plans of operation; a shed roof, pitched roof, parapet roof and camouflage with vegetation. Stated Mr. Perner has been a member of the congregation for many years and feels the same about preserving the look of the church. There were no further comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Council Comments: Councilwoman Janney stated she supported the appeal in what seemed to be a difference of opinion on what looks good and what does not; feels every effort has been made to preserve the integrity of the church. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to support the appeal; Vice Mayor Galligan seconded the motion. Burlingame City Council tt7 April 17, 2000 Comment on the motion: Councilman Coffey asked that two additional conditions be added to the motion; one being that the skylight be flat, and secondly, that the southem orange tree shown on the plan be protected during construction. The motion also included the conditions of approval noted in the Staff Report. Mayor O'Mahony called for a roll call vote; motion failed 2-3 with Galligan, Spinelli, and O'Mahony dissenting. Vice Mayor Galligan commented that it sounded like the plan was to build the addition and then hide it with trees because it wouldn't match the rest of the church; feels if it is not going to look nice to begin with, then why hide it with trees. Possibly tile around the roof or windows or include a low pitch parapet. Councilwoman Janney concerned the Council are being "good taste" cops. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to deny the project without prejudice and ask the applicant to follow the guidelines given by the Planning Commission and by Council and resubmit plans at their earliest convenience. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. sd)ADD AN ADDITIONAL NOTICING FEE TO IMPLEMENT THE REVISIONS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS CP Monroe reviewed her Staff Report dated 4ll7l00 in which she notes on April 3,2000 the City Council adopted an ordinance changing the design review process used by the Planning Commission for single- family residential development. This change process involves an interactive study meeting, which requires a public notice. The request of the Staff Report is to add an additional $35.00 fee for the second required notice, which would bring the total noticing cost for design review to $70.00. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing; there were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to add an additional noticing fee to implement the revisions to the design review process; seconded by Councilman Spinelli, unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Roman,2839 Arguello Drive, came forward to discuss the lighting at the golf center; feels there is a problem with the lighting system and that the bright lights are destroying the Burlingame skyline at night; requested the lights be turned off until the problem is resolved; the 3,000 watt halogen bulbs installed do not have light guards or shields and due to design limitations, light guards cannot be installed. Adjustments have been made to the light projected onto the range, but does not believe this has had any affect on the light being emiued into the sky. STAFF RE,PORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7a)PRESENTATION OF THE RE,AUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE TRANSPORTATION 7) DRAFT EXPENDITURE PLAN Howard Goode, Deputy Executive Director of the County Transportation Authority came forward to discuss the currently proposed plan. Stated the TA is in the process of soliciting comments on an extension of the Measure A Sales Tax for Transportation. The existing Measure A was approved in 1988 and will run April 17,2000 118 Burlingame City Council through 2008. The issue of reauthorizing the measure would not being coming up for a few years, however, there has been legislature pending that called for a statewide vote in November. Based on that, the TA began a process of identifying projects and transportation programs for an extension of Measure A. This would cover a2}-year extension beyond the 2008 expiration date. There is some question whether the legislation will pass in November but the TA is continuing to try to zero in on what would be the components of a new measure plan. Council Comments: Mayor O'Mahony wanted assurance from Mr. Goode that if Council asked for the residents to vote for Measure A in November, that the Broadway Interchange would be at the top of the list. Mr. Goode confirmed that all the projects unfunded from the current Measure A list will be on the new list; feels items that are already a part of the original Measure A would probably be considered first if the Measure is reauthorized. Councilman Spinelli stated Broadway will be a relief valve for that area due to the construction of BART; it is inadequate to handle the development over the past 20 years; very important to Council to upgrade that interchange. Mr. Goode stated at the last TA meeting, a contract was awarded for the development of the design of the Broadway Interchange. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that Broadway was not a great location for grade separation, but at a reduced cost the platform could be moved 500' toward San Mateo, which would save approximately one hour of gate time; wanted to know when this work was scheduled to be performed. Mr. Goode stated that at the last TA meeting, initial funding was allocated for the design of this work to the Joint Powers Board that operates CalTrans. The plan is to begin this work in conjunction with the work needing to be done at the BART station, which will be completed in one to two years from this summer. This would also include the third rail from Millbrae to Burlingame. Mayor O'Mahony stated she was concerned about the proposed cut back in the extension proposal for the highway monies; transit is important to support, but there are people who cannot take public transportation due to locality of their job; wondered if there was a way to get more money to maintain highways. Mr. Goode stated there is no funding in the existing measure or in the proposal for highway maintenance money. The highway money is for improvements and expansion. If the TA were to seek to have more funding for highways, a reordering of the Measure A distribution would need to be done. If SCA3 does not pass in November, Mr. Goode did not believe the TA would put the proposal on a ballot measure. 7b)PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR STREET SWEEPING _ APPROVAL TO IMPLEMENT PHASE ONE Director of Public Works Bagdon referred to his Staff Memo of April 17,2000 regarding restricting parking in certain areas of Burlingame in order to enhance the street sweeping efforts. The street sweepers surveyed their routes to determine the worst locations to pick up leaves and debris due to niurow streets. It was determined that the hardest area to street sweep is from Broadway to Grove, and California to El Camino Real, which is shown on the map as Phase 1. The recommendation is to implement this program in five different phases to determine any enforcement problems and to see if sweeping has improved, as well as to evaluate citizen reaction. $13,000 would need to be budgeted in the Public Works operating budget for signs noting no parking from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. No one sareet would have a complete ban of parking at any one time. To make sure the residents would be well aware of the ordinance, it would be noticed in the newspaper as well as door hangers placed at each of the homes. Councilman Coffey was concerned about the 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. timeframe for street sweeping. DPW Bagdon noted that the area just south of Broadway is already restricted from parking from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for street sweeping. Generally the Burlingame City Council ttg April 17, 2000 street sweeping isn't done in that area until approximately 5:00 a.m., and as of yet, there have been no complaints. Councilman Coffey wondered if consideration had been made to change the time frame to a later hour when residents have left for work. Feels the objective is good, but the implementation of the plan needs consideration; possibly need to look at other alternatives. Mayor O'Mahony felt since it was a small area, this would be a good section to test and should be given a try. Vice Mayor Galligan noted this plan would also help to identifu cars that are abandoned or parked for long periods of time on the streets; noted that it is illegal to park cars on the street at night; this may alleviate the spillover parking due to the apartments on El Camino. Councilman Spinelli noted that drainage in this area is awful; leaves from El Camino get caught in the drains and causes problems; feels the parking restriction is a good idea. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to begin the process to implement Phase One of Parking Restrictions for Street Sweeping. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7c)CONSIDERA TION OF PARKING IN.LIEU FEE POLICY FOR BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA CA Anderson stated that at the Council meeting of April 3, various parking uses and problems in the Burlingame Avenue area were discussed and at that time, Council requested the City Attomey draft a parking in-lieu fee policy. This policy will shift the burden of providing parking to the applicant. The Council suggested that any applicant could choose whether they wanted to pay an in-lieu fee or provide on-site parking. The draft suggests to an applicant that if they choose not to provide parking but still request a parking variance, they would pay aparking in-lieu fee. The intent would be to outline what the amount of the in-lieu fee would be so they could weigh what the cost is to provide parking, provide parking offsite, or instead to pay the parking in-lieu fee. The Planning Commission and Council would be able to consider those requests on a case-by-case basis based on the hardship the applicant demonstrates. If the applicant proposes the in-lieu fee, the applicant pays that fee in advance rather than having to pay it off over a period of time. The applicant would be responsible for seeking the financing. There is a clause that indicates to the applicant that regardless of whether the City approves a parking in-lieu fee, it does not entitle them to a specific parking space or specific number of parking spaces at a particular location. The reason only sub areas A and B are suggested in the proposal is because staff only has cost numbers that are good for these areas at this time. CA Anderson explained to Council they needed to decide what proportion to expect the applicant to pay; what does the Council want to attract into Burlingulme; Vice Mayor Galligan felt the applicant should pay lO0% of the in-lieu fee at least until the May 176 meeting when the parking issue is discussed and the direction for the downtown area can be set. CP Monroe stated if the fee were lower than the cost of the applicant providing parking on their own site, the applicant would choose to pay the fee and build more on their site. If the fee is set high, the number of small variances are going to end and applicants will figure out how to deal with their existing site. The cost will be borne by the tenant and will be a big cost factor. What the fee is set at will dictate the future of change in the downtown area. Noted that when the City had an in- lieu fee in the past, it was only used twice. Councilman Coffey asked why the obligation for the in-lieu fee would be on the tenant and not the property owner since the variance stays with the property. CA Anderson stated that the City is not concerned with where the money comes from, but would require payment be made in advance of issuing any building permits. It is up to the tenant, property owner, or the financing agency to come up with the money for the variance. CA Anderson does not want the City to be in a position to have to litigate over whether the person April 17,2000 L20 Burlingame City Council made their payment on the parking variance. This proposes that ground floor retail would still be continued to be exempt; any other use would need to provide parking spaces. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion for approval of the parking in-lieu fee policy for Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and for that fee to be $34,100 per parking space to be paid up front before issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney; unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. 8)CONSENT CALENDAR 8a)RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ADOPTION OF A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOAL OF TEN PERCENT It is recommended by Director of Public Works Bagdon to approve the RESOLUTION which establishes a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal of l0% for the period of May 1,2000 to April 30, 2001. 8b)APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE 2OOO SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM It is recommended by Director of Parks and Recreation Williams that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Burlingame School District for the operation of the 2000 Summer Enrichment Program. 8c)WARRANTS AND PAYROLL Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants #69100-69508, duly audited, in the amount of $1,402,578.33, excluding Library check numbers 69049-69099; Payroll checks 124888-126037 for March, 2000 in the amount of $1,820,760.17; and EFT's for the month of March in the amount of $364,447.97 . Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilman Spinelli, unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Galligan attended the School Liaison Meeting. North County Council of Cities, Progress Seminar, Burlingame Library Tea, Chamber luncheon, met with the high school regarding the potential of a new bond, and the opening of the new Soccer Field. Councilwoman Janney attended the SamTrans Board of Directors Meeting, Progress Seminar, North County Council of Cities, the Soccer Field opening, as well as working with the committee that is organizing the foundation created to support issues surrounding the new swimming pool. Councilman Spinelli attended the opening of the Soccer Field, the Library appreciation event, and the Airport Roundtable meeting. Councilman Coffee attended the School Liaison Meeting, North County Council of Cities, Progress Seminar, Burlingame Chamber Board meeting, and the opening of the new Soccer Field. Mayor O'Mahony attended the First Communion at St. Catherine's, Burlingame High School's performance of "Fame", Library Celebration of National Library Week and National Volunteers Week, spoke to the 3'd grade at OLA, CCAG, Bay One Meeting with DPW Bagdon, Mayor-A-Thon Day for Organ Transplants. Burlingame City Council 121 April 17, 2000 10. OLD BUSINESS CM Argyres attended the homeless shelter meeting held by Supervisor Hill; the County is currently in discussion with South San Francisco regarding a city-owned site on San Mateo Drive; it looks promising at this time, but they still have their list of other sites they've looked at but are focusing on the South San Francisco site. When costs are finalized, they will be coming back to the cities for funding. Vice Mayor Galligan asked about the idea raised regarding televising Planning Commission meetings; would like this topic agendized for a future Council meeting so the advantages and disadvantages could be discussed. Mayor O'Mahony concurred and suggested it be discussed by Council at alater date or possible in a study session. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Commission Minutes: Planning, April 10 Monthly Reports: Building, March 2000; Finance, March 31, 2000 Letter from John and Ellen Hunter, 810 Crossway Road, regarding homeless shelter in Burlingame. Letter from Sue and Terry Hall, 109 Pepper Avenue, regarding Storage USA Project Letter from Dawn Bogic regarding Storage USA Project Letter from Brad Yee, 123 Dwight Road, regarding Storage USA Project Letter from John Roman, 2839 Arguello Drive, regarding the lights at the Golf Range Letter from Mary-Helen and Kevin McMahon, regarding Storage USA Project ADJOURNMENT a. b. c. d. e. f. (}b. h. 13 Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meting at 10:50 p.m. Crr,,.rV Wurru; Ann T. Musso City Clerk April 17,2000 r22 Burlingame City Council