Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1982.05.05366 BURLINGAME, CALTFORNIA May 5, L982 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Burlingame City Council was above date in the City HaI1 Council Chambers. Mayor Barton called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. held on the Gloria H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Alfred J. Palmer, Chief of Police. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: NONE REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON MARRIOTT HOTEL PROJECT Mayor Barton stated the purpose of this meeting was to hold a public hearing and take action on three special permits and two variances,including findings of fact, for the Marriott Hotel Project. City Pl-anner reviewed her staff report of 4/29/82 regarding the background, major issues and actions taken by other agencies con- cerning the proposed project. The applj-cant initiated discussion in January 1981, council certified the EIR on April 5, 1982, and the Planning Commission approved thethree special permits and two variances on April 12, 1982. The project would place three 727 foot towers of hotel rooms on the southern half of the Iong, narrow 9.3 acre site. The torver in the middle of the site would be 2,930 feet from the edge of Runway 19. Phase I would include a 14r000 square foot ballroom, meeting rooms and other convention center facilities. Phases II and III of theproject each include a 300 room tower of hotel rooms and support parking at grade and underqround. Three special permits are needed for (1) height, (2) floor area ratio, and (3) lot coverage. Variances are needed for the required parking and for the standard to compact car parking space ratio. A major issue has been the height of the project. The FAA determined there was no hazard to air traffic. Mr. Jerry Luce of the Federal Aviation Administration joined city staff and answered questions from the council regarding the FAA determ.ination. 1 Ialhat does the FAA determination mean? Mr. Luce proposed criteria replied that after FAA applied exj-sting criteria to the project it found the project did not exceed any established and there was no hazard to air navigation. 2. Why does the FAA make determinations? The Administrator of FAA was authorized in in the review process and under Federal Air Offices have been delegated this authority. 1958 to involve Regulations the himself Regional 3. Will the construction of the Marriott Hotel project have any effect on the number of airplanes now using Runway 19 for takeoff? What about the Plaza International Hotel in Millbrae? Both the proposed buildings do not exceed any criteria established in FAR 77. There was another criteria weighed in making determinations and that was Terminal Instrument Procedures or TERPS which deals primarily with departures. In FAArs view, neither building constitutes i hazard- to air navj-gation and will not impact the number of operations at SFO. 367 4. Why does the FAA measure from the middle of the runway? When FAA applies TERPS to turning aircraft, it applies the 40-1slope beginning at 50 feet above the runway. FAA measures fromthe building to the closest point on the runway, draws a directline and applies the 40-1 sLope. FAA then makes a j udgment as towhether or not the proposed building exceed.s the imaginary surface. 5. According to FAA regulations how high should a plane be at theend of the runway? In FAR, there is an assumption of a minimum of 35 feet over the endof the runway. When FAA applies the 40-f slope in a straight outdeparture it applies the 40-1 beginning at 35 feet consistentty.With the turning process, there is an assumption that the turn wouldnot begj-n prior to 50 feet. 6. What does the obstacles penetration map mean? The map depicts the airport, the surrounding area and terrain to anelevation of 150 feet and shows the obstacles, structures, terrain,trees or anything that penetrates the imaginary surface. Neitherthe Marriott or the Plaza International \"/ould be depicted on this map. Mayor Barton commented that one of the issues has been that FAA says obstacles have to be straight off the runway and the argument on theother side is that FAA doesn't take into consideration the obstacleon the turn. Mr. Luce said thiscriteria, the 40-1of both hotels. true. It is the application ofthat has signifj-cantly modi fied is not s lope , the the TERPS he ight 7. Will flight rules change as a result of the location of the two hotels? Regulat ions violation ofMr. He1ms is say an appeal is not permissable where there is no the criteria. The determination has beenpersonally involved. appealLed and Mayor Barton reminded the audience that minutes to speak after which members of limited to 5 minutes each, applicant would have 15 audience could speak the the Mayor Barton opened the public hearing to speakers in favor of the proj ect . Ed Hope, Director of HoteL Development, Marriott Corporation, repre- sented. the Marriott project. He explained that nearly three years have elapsed since the beginning of plans for the hotel. Duringthat time Marriott met with various conununi-ty groups in order to develop a project compatible wj-th this area. Marriott strongly feelsthe project represents a consensus of these qroups. There are stiLl some serious issues, one of whj-ch is safety. Marriottis proud of its safety record and it went to FAA to determine the safeheight for the hotel. Marriott el- j-minated an office building on thesite and moved the hotel 1000 feet further from the runway and loweredthe height from 153 to 127 feet. Mr. Hope illustrated the economic benefits for the city, includingthe annual revenues estimated to be over $2 million, the one-time assessments for building, and the estimated cost of EIR mitiqation measures. Another aspect is the jobs the hotel will create, estimated to be 1,200 employees. In FAA| s view, no. 8. What does an appeaL of an FAA determination mean? 9. Under what circumstances will the city be notified? When a petition is filed and the review is not granted, only thepetitioner is notified. If a review is granted, all interestedparties will be notified. 368 David Keyston, Anza Sharehofders Liquidating Trusti Steve Kircher,President of the Chamber of Commerce; Norm Bron, 144 Chapin, JohnMineke, 1440 Drake; I4ike Prevot, 828 EI Camino; U.S. Simonds, 34 park Road; and Bob O'Connor, 103 Bayside, spoke in favor of the hotel. The speakers felt the hotel would provide a much needed conventioncenter for the area; there was no other place in the city for thisproject, the traffic issue has been resolved, that the shape and design of the site present a real hardship; that the parking re-quirements are too high for an airport oriented hotel; that the floorarea ratio was below the maximum allowed; the Iot coverage request was insignificant and that the height requested allowed protection ofthe view corridors at the north end of the site; the income received would help maintain the residential character of the city; and itwould not be a safety problem for the airport. Mayor Barton opened the public hearing to speakers in opposition. Representing the San Francisco International Airport Lou Turpen, D.ick Deeds, Wood Lockhart, Bruce Wharton Feener . and ALPA were and Arnold They were. not opposed to the hotel but to the heiqht of the hotel. They stated there would be an increase in noise over the city due toaircraft extending their takeoff straight out before turning in orderto pass the hotel. They feft city would have financial responsibilityif there were an accident. There could also be financial responsi-bility because of increase in noise. They illustrated the flight paths from runway 19 showing more flightsgoing further inland over the city. They illustrated that FAR 77 assumes straight out takeoff pattern. The TERPS imaqinary surfaceis 50 feet higher than FAR 77. TERPS was never intended to substitutefor FAR 77. Neither FAR nor TERPS take into account an engine failure.They contended that the FAR 77 imaginary surface should be shifted !oinclude the hotel s j-te since the situation at SFO is unique. Council discussed with the airport and ALPA representatives thesafety of runway f9. Council felt if the runvray was so dangerous itshould be closed. Councif stated it was pleased to see airport so concerned about noise. Council pointed out an alternative was forairport to purchase site and pay city an annual in lieu fee. Rj-chard Hart, Fox & Carskadon; Maurice carbe1l, 1741 Lake Street andafso noise consultant for the City of South San Francisco; Henry Hayes,retired Pan Am captaini Ronald Goerss, 205 Los P.ob1es, Delores Huajardo, 1400 Cofumbus; Robert Rienecke, 2633 Martinez; Gene Quint, 1116 Vancouveri Marti Knight, 23 Dwight, Charles Mink, 1451 Los Montesi Frank Pagliaro, 1337 Drakei Claudia Hanson, resident; Norma Arlen, 20OLHillside; Ardith Erickson, resident; Dorothy Cusick, resident; NanetteGiomi, 1600 Forest View; AIan Horn, 1325 Paloma; Ida Roybal-, 1551Bernal; Mike Lennon, 1728 Hamiltoni Robert T. Quick, 312 Lexington,retired airfine pi1ot, Richard Cotrel1, 1685 Hunt, were speakers in oppos ition . They expressed great concern about air safety and safety of residents;fear of increase in noise, with noise increasing 2 or 3 decibels; the FAR 77 and TERPS were just paper determinations and not realistic for unique situation at SFO; quality of life in Burlingame would be lower;Marriott should have to negotiate for a1l these variances and specialpermits; Burlingame is a residential community, it doesn't need big hotels; pilots should be listened to, they are the experts; the hotel barely passed the planning commission by a split vote, hotel may be hazard to emergency landing from other runwaysi the hotel might cause park Iand to be sofd at Bayside Park to improve roads at Bayshore and Anza due to the increase in traffic; auto traffic will increase and parking will, be more of a problemi there will be increased costs to improve sewers, roads, fire and police protection; why are guidefines for bayfront not being followed; this project exceeds three of the five review lines, which seems excessive; shoreline will have a Miami Beach look; the hotel will block views; this issue should be placed before San Mateo County airline pilots for a vote by secret ba1Iot; residents are frightened by planes flying overhead, this will increase with hotef; hotel shou]d be made to comply vrith 35 foot height limit; planes disturb buzzard.s which roost in trees near Mi1ls Estate area, these birds would cause an accident if they hit a plane; this con- troversial issue should be put to a vote of the peoole of Burlingame- I It 369 Mayor Barton closed the public hearing at 11:50 p.m Mayor Barton allowed Marriott representativesrebuttal . 10 minutes for Mr. Hope stated the market in this area is foraconvention centerhote1. If the hotef were scaled down, there woutd be grave doubtsabout the building. George Corey, attorney for land owner, declared the pattern of safety and noise are affected only 2 percent of the time as that runway isonly used that often. The economics are important to the city inthese times of decreasing money. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. to Wednesday, May 12, 1982, at8:00 p.m. in the City HaII Council Chambers, at which time councilwill consider the matter. { ,, /',t',' EvelyrY H. HiII City Cl-erk I