Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2000.06.07BI]RLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STTIDY SESSION MINUTES June 7,2000 1. CALL TO ORDER A special 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 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Planning Commissioner Jerry Deal 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, SPINELLI, O'MAHONY NONE 4. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARI) City Planner Monroe noted the purpose of the meeting is to familiaizethe City Council with the proposed office project at 301 Airport and with the environmental impact report that was prepared for the project. This project is on a l6-acre site, zoned C-1. The original project submitted to the City was 636,000 gross square feet; an office project presented in five buildings. It had five zoning code and design guideline exceptions. The original project was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission in June, 1999. The project was resubmitted in October 1999 with 488,000 gross square feet of offrce in three buildings with four code or design guideline exceptions. In reviewing the project, the developer made more revisions; the "revised, revised project" is a 488,000 gross square foot project office in four buildings with no code or design guideline exceptions. The Planning Commission certified the final EIR for the project in December, 1999 and held a public hearing because there are conditions of unavoidable impact caused by the project. The Commissioner's determined on May 3 that they could not make the findings of overriding consideration or adopt a statement of overriding consideration. The Planning Commission's action was appealed to the Council by the developer. There is a public hearing on this project set for June 19'h. At that time, the Council will consider certification of the Final EIR and also consider the adoption of findings of overriding consideration and a statement of overriding consideration. Mayor O'Mahony recognized Daniel Levin, Glenborough Partners, who came forward to present the project. Mr. Levin submitted and reviewed a number of handouts. The first showed the specific area plan for the Bayfront showing the zoning and density of use permitted. The original project was .9 FAR, but it has been reduced to accommodate the traffic concerns that were raisesd by the City of San Mateo. This project conforms with the use the City has envisioned for this land. An aerial photograph was displayed that showed the various neighboring buildings, their heights and number of stories. June 7, 2000 150 Burlingame City Council Mr. Levin stated when the project was revised for the third time, it was their belief that the only acceptable project would be one that had no exceptions to any of the codes or the design guidelines. Trees will be planted on the site within the parking median that is 4' to 6'. A total of 1,500 trees will be planted in the parking area that will grow to approximately 30'. Trees planted elsewhere on the property would grow to 40' and 50'. Mr. Levin submitted two site plans. The darker one reflects another revision with a daycare center. There is one variance that would be requested to change the amount of compact parking from the requirement of 20Yo to 40%o. Mr. Levin stated Glenborough Partners is willing to build either project, one with no variances and a cash contribution for a daycare facility to be built elsewhere or the project with one variance for parking, including the compact spaces from20o/oto 40%o, but comes with a full built child care facility for approximately 100 children and donate it on a turnkey basis to a partnership of Poplar ReCare and Peninsula Family Services Agency, who would then operate it. There would be two caveats; between l0 to l5o/o of the spots would be reserved for children of Poplar ReCare families, children with disabilities. The second would be that tenants of the business park have first preference to have their children admitted at the same rates Poplar ReCare and Peninsula Family Services Agency set. Mr. Levin then distributed a summary of the benefits the developer believes the project will contribute to the City including a summary of revenue, infrastructure improvements and traffic reduction improvements. Regarding the shuttle bus service, the developer will purchase four new shuttle buses and agrees to pay a fair share of whatever it costs to operate the buses via a business improvement district or the City simply stating what their cost should be. Mr. Levin noted that the EIR was unanimously certified by the Planning Commission, so every impact of this project was examined along with the thresholds for significance. Regarding wind impacts, he noted this project has less impact than the threshold that was used in the EIR, which states there needs to be a 10% change in wind speed for that to be a significant impact. This project with four buildings is far less. Despite the fact that the wind was not found to be a significant effect, the buildings have been redesigned to address the wind. Mayor O'Mahony requested Mr. Levin submit the plans that include the day care center for the Council Meeting of June 19th. Since the plan would require a variance, noticing and plan checks would need to be completed; CP Monroe stated there may not be enough time determining the changes and notice the area by the 9th for the meeting on the 19th. Councilman Spinelli wondered if the shuttle service would run at a later hour so employees can meet late- night trains. Mr. Levin confirmed that they would like to run the shuttle service to accommodate the employees working late, but felt it was the City's decision. The shuttle service is the existing Free-Bee service that is currently operated by the City, but will be run in the near future by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance. One of the reasons the developer would like to purchase four buses is to make it a more frequent service. He reiterated that the developer is willing to pay their fair share, but the service will serve everyone on the Bayfront. Vice Mayor Galligan asked what would happen after the life of these four shuttles, possibly in three to five years; how would new shuttles be purchased. Mr. Levin stated they envisioned purchasing the four shuttle buses and tuming them over to the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance. As part of the operating cost, an amount has should be built-in as a reserve fund so when new buses need to be purchased, there will be funds available. Burlingame City Council 151 June 7, 2000 Councilman Coffey asked Mr. Levin if the shuttles will be able to stop at facilities such as baseball and soccer fields so they can be used by children. In conjunction, if there were to be a need for separate routes, would the developer be willing provide more buses for additional services. Mr. Levin again stated the developer would be willing to participate in the ongoing cost on a fair share basis with everyone who is involved. Even if the service doesn't directly benefit the Bayfront, the developer would still be willing to participate and purchase one or two additional shuttles. Vice Mayor Galligan noted it seemed the developer wanted to submit their project without any variances. He noted most of the commercial buildings in this area are taller than the four buildings proposed. Mr. Levin stated seeking the variance seemed like it would be too diff,rcult. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that in the middle of the four buildings is a landscape courtyard, with the buildings surrounded by a sea of parking. Asked if it would be possible to create more of a park-like setting by having three buildings and moving the four stories to the other three buildings; would that take care of the compact problem as far as parking is concerned and allow more area to create a park-like setting in the middle of the project. Mr. Levin noted that originally they submitted a three building configuration and also studied a two building project; felt that either two or three buildings would be better in every respect regarding the site plan, views for the people in the building, etc. The realities of what they confronted in the planning process were such that this seemed very difficult. Noted they would be happy to look at changing the number of buildings to be able to create a more park-like setting. Vice Mayor Galligan wondered if the building closest to the area where the windsurfers would be affected were removed, would there be less turbulence because of that building not being there. Mr. Levin referred to the report written by Dr. White for the four buildings proposed that "the test results demonstrate the four buildings will have virtually no impact on the windsurfing conditions at Coyote Point. While small changes will result from.the presence of the buildings, I believe these changes are so slight that most windsurfers would not perceive them". Vice Mayor Galligan asked Mr. Levin if they did revised the project to be only two buildings, how tall would they be with the same square footage. Mr. Levin stated they would probably go back to a larger footprint and each would consist of seven stories. A seven-story building would not very different than what is already in the area and could potentially make it possible to add to amenities on site as far as landscaping, a more park-like setting, etc. and would also eliminate the compact parking variance. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that this site developed as a drive-in theatre has added a lot of recreational opportunity to the benefit of the community. The Planning Commission discussed that there needed to be a tie-in between this project and the community. Should this community benefit be tied into the project to expand the community facilities at the current Lions Hall site on Burlingame Avenue; not sure what the potential cost would be to build a senior/teen/community center. Vice Mayor Galligan asked City Auorney Anderson if it was appropriate to ask this developer for some type of financial contribution to the potential community center that may be built. CA Anderson stated it was possible for Mr. Levin to offer to contribute to the community center, but the City is not in the situation where we can require a contribution. The developer is working under the EIR where his project has identified items that require overriding sonsiderations to balance the impacts created. Councilman Coffey asked CA Anderson if the requirement Vice Mayor Galligan was referring to required a nexus. Is the community service of the drive-in theatre and the community service of a teen center enough of June 7, 2000 152 Burlingame City Council a nexus. CA Anderson stated it depended on the application that is before you. At this time, the only thing they have is an Environmental Impact Report, which icientifies certain significant impacts and gives a number of mitigation measures that reduce the significant impacts. What is before Council does not offer any nexus between the EIR and that contribution directly, so it is not something the Council could impose as < a condition. CA Anderson noted that from Mr. Levin's presentations before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicant has tried to identifu things that they believe will contribute to the community as a balance to this project. Councilman Coffey asked if the Council could ask if the applicant would be acceptable to a condition of a contribution, which CA Anderson said was allowable. Councilman Coffey asked CP Monroe if the developer looks at different building configurations, number of buildings, etc. would it require all new blueprints and would that affect the June 19n meeting. CP Monroe stated the blueprints probably would not be too much of a problem to recheck, however, any change to the plan has to be reviewed under the EIR that has been prepared and a determination that it fits within the EIR's scope . If a use is added, such as a daycare center that is accessed off another property, it has to be evaluated. At this point, it would not be known what additional information would be needed and the noticing would need to be done by June 9fr for the project to be included on the June 19ft agenda. Councilman Coffey asked if the noticing couldn't be done until June 11ft, could a special meeting be scheduled, which she confirmed could be done. Mayor O'Mahony referred to Item D on page l2 of the staff report; asked if Mr. Levin would have the developer broaden the definition of use from bikeways to Airport Blvd. roadway improvements and increase the amount of funds to $400,000 to do roadway improvements on Airport Blvd. DPW Bagdon noted that there was a need to have the section of Airport Blvd. widened in the local area and that deposit could go toward that purpose. Vice Mayor Galligan stated that at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Levin asked for a condition to be removed in reference to the City of San Mateo having the right to be able to stop or have control over building the next phase if this project was phased as far as the building of it. He wanted to know if that issue had been resolved with the City of San Mateo. Mr. Levin stated he did not believe the issue was resolved but felt it would be more appropriate for the Mayor of San Mateo, who was present, to speak on behalf of her Council. Mayor O'Mahony then recognizedMarty Abel from Environmental Science Associates. ESA has been the City's environmental consultant for the preparation of the EIR for this project. The EIR is now five different publications and has evolved with the project. The latest volume addresses the revised, revised project and does not yet address the addition of the childcare center. Mr. Abel wanted to present to the Council a brief history and major conclusions of the EIR. The Califomia Environmental Quality Act requires an EIR for any project that could have a significant effect on the environment. As soon as the application for this project was filed, it was clear this was such a project and an EIR was appropriate. The EIR has four main parts to describe the project, to fully disclose what the project is to identift the environmental setting and to identiff and analyze the impacts of the project in that setting. Those can be either the impacts of the project as an individual project by itself or the project in consideration of other projects. A key to the EIR is to look at the mitigation measures and alternatives that could mitigate the significant adverse affects of the project. The emphasis in the EIR is always on the physical changes to the environment so social and economic impacts are typically not addressed and were not addressed in this EtrR. The main topics addressed are iand use, traffic, air quality, noise, visual affects, geology, hydrology including drainage, affects on utility systems, and affects on public services. In this case, cultural resources such as the loss of the drive-in were looked at in the original draft EIR. With the comments on the original draft EIR, an additional area of impact needed Burlingame City Council 153 June 7, 2000 to be addressed, which was the affects on wind as a recreation resource. This prompted the re-circulation of the EIR to address the project's affects on windsurfing and recreation resource of the Bay as well as some additional traffic concerns raised by the City of San Mateo and the residents of North San Mateo about the traffic impacts in San Mateo. The bottom line is that all the impacts identified, with the exception of four, are mitigable by the 65 conditions of approval. There are four surviving significant and unavoidable impacts of the project as described in the current EIR. The project would increase traffrc volumes at the intersection of Poplar and US 101 Southbound ramps and Amphlett Road in San Mateo. Although the EIR identifies a measure and a backup measure that would mitigate the impact, because it is outside the authority of the City of Burlingame to actually implement the improvements, the EIR must conclude that it is significant and unavoidable. The second is the increase of traffic volumes at southbound l0l ramps at Broadway, exiting 101 southbound onto Broadway in the morning peak hour. It is likely that the auxiliary lanes being studied by Cal Trans would mitigate that affect, however, the City of Burlingame would have no authority to construction auxiliary lanes on Highway 101. Again, it is concluded that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The third traffic impact is to the contribution to cumulative traffic increases on segments on US 101. The original project would have impacted three of those segments to a significant level. The revised, revised project would have significant affects on two of the freeway segments. Those impacts are potentially mitigable by the addition of the auxiliary lanes being studied, because they are outside the control of Burlingame, the conclusion is that those would be significant and unavoidable. The only non-traffic significant affect is the cumulative affect on air quality in the Bay Area. The analysis of the air quality effect is related to the mobile source emissions from the vehicles that would be generated by the project. It would be diffrcult for any project of this size to have anything other than a significant affect based on Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards. Councilman Coffey asked if ESA was totally independent of the City and the developer; CP Monroe stated this was correct; the developer deposits with the City the amount of money necessary to prepare an EIR. The City then selects the contractor, administers the contract and supervisor the work done. Vice Mayor Galligan asked how much traffic Humboldt could carry, what is it currently carrying, and what would the addition be as far as this project is concerned. Mr. Abel stated the numbers are roughly 7,300 trips per day now on Humboldt and that the project would contribute between 600-700 additional trips on this street. Those trips were not only subjected to the conventional level of service analysis which addresses typical intersection impacts; but were also evaluated by what is known as a T.I.R.E. analysis, an acronym for "traffic incursion in residential environments", which is intended to measure the affect of the added trips on the quality of residential life on a street. The added trips were found to be below the T.I.R.E. index threshold. If the mitigation at Amphlett were implemented to divert the peak hour trips to prohibit the left turn and through movements, there would be another 600 trips on Humboldt from the diversion; the T.I.R.E. analysis also showed that the impact still would be less than significant. Councilman Coffey asked if the proposal were to change to a two or three building project, how long would it take to get wind tunnel tests done. The consultant stated it would usually take a couple weeks to perform the tests and complete the analysis so all the information is available to make the evaluation against the standards of significance that were proposed. It would be difficult to complete them in less than two weeks. June 7, 2000 154 Burlingame City Council It would also depend on the availability of the wind tunnel. Mayor O'Mahony then noted there were several groups present who wished to present their issues with the project. She would ask each of them to limit their presentations to five minutes. She then recognized Stan Vistica of the Planning Commission. He noted he was making a presentation at the request of the Planning Commission and spoke on their behalf. The Commission felt it was important for them to speak with a single voice, explain the process they went through and how they came to their unanimous decision. The Planning Commission believes the community is giving up a lot if this project is approved in its current, proposed state; believes there are several things that can be done to make the project a better project for Burlingame. Feels the quality of life the community is giving up if the project is built out weighs what it would get back in return. Burlingame will get in return a disputed amount of money. The unmitigable negative impacts on resident's lives, the Planning Commission's unanimous consensus was no. Feels residents will be affected because of the substantial increases in traffic, freeway interchanges that currently function at less than acceptable levels will become impacted by an additional l5o/o of traffic. Neighborhood streets in adjacent communities will experience more traffic from autos seeking altemative routes because regular arterial routes are congested. The EIR states there are significant unmitigable negative environmental impacts caused by the traffic from this project. The impact from this project and the new BART station in Millbrae will render the Burlingame/Rollins Road/l01 intersection unnavigable during peak traffic hours. The City is giving up a part of its access to the Bay as well. The Bay is a natural resource that provides a tremendous open space. As the region becomes more densely populated, the community's available open space becomes a critical part of maintaining environmental quality. More buildings between Burlingame and the edge of the Bay means less connection to the main recreational open space; believe that it is within the financial means of this project to enhance the environment in Burlingame. The project site is an ideal property for development. The property is regular in its shape with street frontage on two sides. These two factors allow for an easy and flexible irrrangement of parking and building configuration. The property is located close to freeways, San Francisco Internationai Airport, and halfivay between Silicon Valley and San Francisco. The project is a very lucrative endeavor. Mr. Vistica stated he is currently involved with a project with an identical size site located in the same geographical area with at least three times the acquisition and entitlement costs, but that project is only proposing 290,000 square feet. Based on the previous mentioned comparison, he believes this project could be economically feasible if reduced in size. This would alleviate automobile congestion, require less parking and open up the site for additional site amenities. Feel the project should provide adaycare facility on site. This keeps people on site and out of their cars. Don't believe a contribution to a remote daycare center, when the City decides to build one, is an appropriate gesture. Stated he does not feel we will ever see a contribution to daycare if it's not required in the conditions of approval. Believe the project can be more connected to the City and in a less isolated set of buildings and in a sea of parking. There arc a few site conditions that can be used to make this connection. The proximity to Fisherman's Wharf is an obvious and potentiai connection with the community. The windsurfing community activity at the southeast corner of the site provides an excellent opportunity for connecting to the community at large. Also, the pedestrian bridge at the end of Beach Road is a connection to the community the project has addressed. The project should be something the community participates in through a mix of uses available on the site. The Planning Commission believes that the CCAG traffic mitigation measures express the right intention but iack genuine enforceability if penalties are not incorporated. Those conditions should be redrafted with explicit numeric thresholds and penalties if the requirements are not met. Early in this process during a publicly held study meetings, many of these concepts were embraced by the applicant, but much to the detriment of the project and the disappointment of the public, they disappeared. At this time, Mr. Vistica showed a number of slides that he and the Planning Commission felt illustrated Burlingame City Council 155 June 7, 2000 !i . planning concepts they believe could be incorporated into the project and would contribute to the value of Burlingame. Mayor O'Mahony asked if there was a representative for the City of San Mateo who wished to speak. Mayor Jan Epstein came forward representing the City of San Mateo. Given the project's location and the potential impacts for the City of San Mateo, it is of extreme interest their City Council. Ms. Epstein stated a number of letters from the City have been submitted to the Council already, but feels it is important to reiterate some concerns. The City of San Mateo is requesting that an alternative land use be examined, one which generates less traffic such as a hotel or residential use with less evening traffic. The emphasis of their concern is on vehicle trip reduction. As noted in the ElF.,43o of the project's traffic will impact the City of San Mateo. With an alternative land use, the City of San Mateo recognizes the size of the project would be reduced and while there are mitigation measures proposed for the project such as the turning movement restrictions at Southbound 101 ramps at Poplar and Amphlett, the, City is still concerned about the secondary impacts of the traffic as well as the extra vehicle trips and the truck traffic that would impact the streets adjacent to Amphlett. As noted in the Burlingame Planning Commission's findings, the proposed project has not been justified by an analysis showing how a reduction in size might make the project profitable while appropriately reducing impacts. This type of analysis would assist in determining a feasible project that respects the City of San Mateo's interests. Mayor Epstein stated if the City of Burlingame chooses to approve the project, the City of San Mateo would request additional mitigation be imposed as conditions of approval. This would include physical mitigation measures that would restrict the number of vehicles traveling through the City of San Mateo as well as payments of a proportional amount of the traffic impact fee the City of San Mateo would normally impose on this type of project in order to mitigate the cumulative impacts generated by new development. Additionally, the developer should also contribute the $50,000 to be used for the design and construction of traffic calming devices. Mayor Epstein noted the City of San Mateo requested the condition requiring the developer to negotiate with them for roadway improvements be retained in the event the project is approved. They funher requested that compliance with this condition be tied to issuance of the building permit for the first building instead of the second building because of project's projected traffrc impacts. In closing, Mayor Epstein stated the City of San Mateo continues to have serious reservations about this project and urge the Council to take into account their concems and take appropriate action. lvlayor O'Mahony asked if anyone from the North San Mateo Homeowners wished to speak. Steven Henneger, Home Association of North Central San Mateo, noted that citizens in San Mateo and Burlingame have voiced concerns about the impact on their lives from the building of this project. Those concerns include traffic, increasing noise and pollution and the overall affect on safety, quality of life, the desirability of their homes and consequently, property values. Mr. Henneger stated they were very encouraged when the Burlingame Planning Commission voted not to approve a statement of oveniding considerations. North Humboldt cuts through the Association's residential neighborhood and connects to various parts of the community. It is bordered by apartment buildings, single-family homes, condominiulns, a high school, and a playing field; the area has not seen a measurable increase in traffic in about 15 years. The analysis suggests over the course of the proposed project, daily traffic volume on north Humboldt will increase l7Yo, arr additional 645 cars by the project and if mitigation measures are followed as suggested at 10l/Poplar, that June 7, 2000 156 Burlingame City Council would divert an additional 600 cars onto Humboldt and through the residential neighborhood. Together that would be an additional 1,245 cars per day. Neither the developer nor the City of Burlingame has attempted to limit the additional traffic through the neighborhood, only offering to facilitate the flow of those cars through their lives. Mr. Henneger stated that it has been suggested since Humboldt is designated as an arterial, the neighborhood shouldn't even notice the additional1,245 cars per day. Whatever it's designation, this is truly a residential neighborhood and such an increase would have a dramatic affect on their lives. The developer has volunteered to adopt some of the transportation demand mitigation measures proposed by CCAG which are designed to reduce the number of car trips during peak hours. The Association applauds this effort but also questions its immediate affect. These models are designed to change travel habits over the long term and their success depends on many variables including which tenants move into the project, how willing employees are to encourage the measures, the location of the project relative to housing and changing long-engrained habits. In the meantime, this rapidly increasing traffic will quickly overwhelm the neighborhood; understands the cities can't be sealed off from one another; notes it's probably not the last project to take place in the Arza area in Burlingame, and to date, feels Burlingame has made no attempt to route more of the Anzatraffic north to the only nearby full service interchange at Broadway. Feels there should be a rational balance between necessary development and maintaining the integrity of the neighborhoods that make them desirable and livable. Mr. Henneger stated he doesn't feel the City should permit a corrmercial and taxable success in one city to drown a still livable neighborhood in another. Mayor O'Mahony asked if a representative of the San Francisco Board Sailing Association wished to speak. Peter Thorner, SFBSA, represents over 1,500 members who are active on safety and access issues. Mr. Thorner stated that regard to the EIR, the problem the windsurfers have had is that the criteria used to determine wind effects was the wrong criteria - they looked at average wind speeds. Buildings and obstructions create turbulence, wind that is gusting up and down. Explained that when windsurfing, you body's weight is hanging against the sail. If power is lost, you have to pull your weight above the board so that you don't fall into the water. When there are gusty winds, you fall in the water or get thrown over the handlebars. The association asked for turbulence to be examined and it was not added. The current wind tunnel tests show increases in turbulence, but because there isn't an established threshold to look in the EIR, it's not determined how to evaluate it. Mr. Thorner showed a number of overheads that mapped changes in turbulent areas at this site. He stated turbulence impacts typically exceed 25 to 50 times the height of the obstruction. Wanted to know if the wind tunnel tests describes what happens in the real world. He stated Coyote Point is an irreplaceable location for windsurfing; half the windsurfing days that occur on the Peninsula occur at Coyote Point. This project is very large, .69 FAR with .9 FAR allowable. The average of existing size projects in this area is .57 FAR. This is larger than average, we're going to suffer the traffic impacts, the wind impacts and incremental impacts from other projects. If anything, he feels the project should be on par with previous development, not bigger. Urged the Council to have faith in the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Galligan asked how high the two large movie screens along the road were and what type of turbulence those screens caused. Mr. Thomer said he believed they started at 30' and went up to 60' and noted that it's hard to quantify, but had been told from other windsurfers that they could feel the turbulence as far down as the main launching area at Coyote Point Park. Because the movie screens are at a 45 degree angle to the prevailing wind, they don't have the same kind of turbulence affect as a flat surface. Mr. Thorner stated that removal of the screens would get rid of this turbulence, and that the buildings being set back is an advantage. The disadvantage is that the main surface is more flat to the wind and also, the screens start at approximately 30' above the water. Burlingame City Council 157 June 7, 2000 Vice Mayor Galligan stated on certain days there are hundreds of windsurfers on the Bay, not just Coyote Point. Mr. Thorner noted that the capacity of Coyote Point Park is 300 windsurfers. At the location under the San Mateo Bridge in Foster City the capacity used to be 150 or more. The City has blocked offparking and restricted access to approximately 75 cars. Vice Mayor Galligan asked if there was any special insurance for the windsurfers in case of an accident. Mr. Thorner stated the only insurance he was aware of was race insurance, but wasn't familiar with any litigation where a municipality was sued by a windsurfer. There were no representatives from the Woodlake Association present to speak. Mayor O'Mahony stated the representatives f the groups had spoken, was there anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. She asked that they keep their.comments to three minutes. Hande Cordera, Los Altos, submitted a brochure for the building he works in which is located in San Jose. The building is approximately 120,000 square feet and that includes many facilities and amenities. Feels this size project is better than the project proposed at 301 Airport. Benita Zimmerman, resident on Devereaux Drive, stated given the situation that occurred with the Oracle buildings that created what is known as the'oOracle Mile", trying to figure out how creating 488,000 square feet of office space will not create a similar traffic nightmare; understands the shuttle service is a great idea but doesn't believe people will use it enough to elirninate the potential for another "Oracle Mile". George Hayes, resident of Foster City and member of "Save the Bay" and San Francisco Board Sailing Association, stated he does not feel this project is a model for sustainable development. The project is too large; the traffic caused by this project would be a very significant impact. Noted that the consultant states the impacts are significant and unavoidable; feels they are avoidable by building a smaller project. Noted Coyote Point Park is irreplaceable; key area for both beginners and advanced sailors. The Planning Commission has done a thorough and astute analysis and should be respected. There were no fuither comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public comment period and the study meeting on the proposed office project at 301 Airport Blvd. REVIEW OF PROPOSED 2OOO.2OO1 BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAM The City Manager began with an overview of the budget. The general fund budget is up 6.9%, enterprise funds are up 6.10 ,which includes water, sewer, golf and waste; financing and grants are down, capital projects are down 8.8o/o at $13.6. Total budget is $54.4 million, with a 2.2%oincrease. This coincides with direction the Council gave last year in terms of wanting a balanced budget. Each Council Member discussed the budget for the department they are responsible for reviewing. Vice Mayor Galligan presented a list comparing the contributions made to local community groups over the last seven years. Council discussed each group and agreed upon an amount to contribute during the 2000- 2001 budget year. COUNCIL COMMENTS: June 7, 2000 158 Burlingame City Council Vice Mayor Galligan stated he feels a better sound system is needed for Council Chambers that would include smaller microphones or lapel microphones. The current equipment is cumbersome and does not project well to those watching on TV. The rest of the Council concurred. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that it will be ten months before the next phase of the Broadway Streetscape begins; wondered if it was possible to do two back-to-back phases in two separate fiscal years, where one phase begins in March or April to be completed in June and the second phase begin in July during the next fiscal year. This would complete two blocks in a short period of time and only have one block to complete. There would be cost savings because of transferring of equipment; the engineering can be done for both blocks at the same time and it would fall under two years. Vice Mayor Galligan wondered if there were areas that should be addressed on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor O'Mahony suggested that the Broadway Merchant Association be presented with this idea since they are the voice of Broadway. City Manager stated from a budget standpoint, it would remain the same but DPW Bagdon would need direction regarding design. Council determined that ameeting with the BID would be the best way to move forward with this idea. Vice Mayor Galligan stated that he feels a stipend of $200.00 should be paid to each Planning Commissioner for the time and out-of-pocket expenses incurred for being on the Commission. Each Council Member agreed that this was definitely a worthwhile expense and well deserved for the amount of work the Planning Commissioners do. City Manager Argyres stated this would have to come back to Council for approval at a future Council meeting. Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m ?nuru1nl u-4-4i Ann Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 159 June 7, 2000