Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1979.09.04+% 4e0 BURLINGA.ME , Septembe r CALIFORN IA 4, 1979 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame above date in the City HaII Council to order at 8:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG City Council was held on the Chambers. Meeting was called COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT : MINUTES The minutes of the study meeting of August I meeting of August 20, 1979 were approved and AMSTRUP , BARTON , CROSBY , MANGINI ,MARTIN NONE and the regular adopted . HEARINGS GREGORY H. AND LYNDA H. GOMES, 1920 DEVEREUX DRIVE, APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE TO EXTEND EXISTING GARAGE Mayor Amstruptheir appeal . announced that Mr. and Mrs. Gomes had withdrawn This item, No. 2 on the agenda, was cancelled. 1. ANNCO PROPERTIES APPEAIING DENIAL OF PLANNING COIO'IISSION SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE PROJECT, 360 PRIMROSE ROAD city Planner reviewed his memos of August 6, L979 and September 4, 1979 which detailed the progress of this special permit for height over 35', Iot coverage over 758, deficiency in parking spaces, and three encroachments into the public right of way. After Planning Commission ilenial of Jul-y 9, 1979, appeal before Council was scheduled thj-s date. In the interim, amended set of plans had been f il-ed reducing total gross floor area by 257 sF and eliminating 1' encroachment of three bay windows and 1' overhang of mansard roof. The amended project is a three story office building with 24,876 SF and 23 basement parking spaces. Property owners have offered to "buy back" parking credits for t4 onsite parking spaces for a refease value of $31 ,547.83. Vlith this "buy back" of parking credj-ts, project has onsite parking obligation of 33 spaces, 23 are provided, resulting in a deficiency of ten spaces. Planner stated a payment of $33,800 is aflowed as alternative to these spaces under terms of Planning Commission Resolution 3-76. City Planner recommended four conditions for this special permit if Council approved. Mayor Amstrup opened hearing to the f1oor. Attorney David C. Carr, 148 E1m Avenue, Burlingame, representing Annco Pioperties, addressed Councif on their behalf. He noted the tendeicy of the Planning Commj-ssion to ileny special permits when they involved parking credits, and their general approval of the design of the pioject. He stated Mr. Rivera, architect, was present to clarify design improvementsi and noted planter en- Lroachments for easier maintenance are in the same type of area as the crocker Bank has their planting area. He stated the property owners are willing to make the 'rbuy back" of $31,547'83 as a conaition for issuance of the building permit, with the stipulation that this be after construction financing is recorded. He compareil the Annco provision of 23 parking spaces to a recent project approved by the Council where no credit was taken and no p.rf,ing piovided. tte pointed out the property owner should not fe pe.rillzed for the fact that the City of Burlingame ,has -a -pa.Ling problem. He added that payment into City funds of $65'000 would be useful toward solving it- Led by Charles F. schwalm, City Manager. ROLL CALL +tr% +1t Council discussed when these payments should be made, with the decision that they could be contingent on the buildingpermit si-nce lender would not let them start until loan was recorded. Annette Giomi, 1600 Forest View Avenue, spoke against the height because it would destroy the "Carmel" atmosphere of downtown Burlingame. She also objected to the parking de-ficiency. There r4rere no further colunents, anil the public hearing declared closed. was Councilman Manginl stated he had mixed emotions about heightin d.owntown Burlingame, but thought it unfair that projects be denied because of City problems over which they have no control. Parking is a problem which has to begsplved by the City. He noted the possibility of two 15,000/builclings instead of thisproject. He asked architect, however, why the building had to be so high. Architect Davj-d John Rivera, 1920 Hillside, Burlingame, replied that the depth of underground parking was limited because of 6'-'7 1 below grade water tab1e. Therefore, the project ended as a three story building; and a parapet on the roof is required by code. Councilwoman Barton disapproved of project because of height, 1ot coverage, congestion at this corner, and parking. Councilman Martin had questions for architect and staff, re- ceiving commitment from architect that stairs could be pu11ed back, statement from City Attorney that the "buy out" of the 14 spaces is subject to approval of Council, and response from City Pfanner that with the coverage of the second floor at 848, in effect the overage of lot coverage is 98. Mayor Amstrup liked the appearance of the project, but thought it would complicate the parking situation. He supported Councifwoman Bartonrs views. Councilwoman Barton moved the special permit be denied and the Planning Commission decision upheld. Councilman l4angini broached the possibility of redesign. Attorney Carr explored aspects of height, coverage, and parking, concluding the only thing they could do was make an interior court, which would cut doh/n the parking two spaces. He noted another project in City which had had a deficiency of 34 spaces and paid $3,500; whereas this project provides 2/3 ot the parking and is payi-ng for the rest in full. Councilman Martin did not think a good design was produced to cooperate with City parking problem. He said he would have to agree with the motion, although the height does not bother him. Both Attorney carr and Architect Rivera detailed specific in- stances of efforts to comply with Cityts suggestions, both staff and Planning Commission. Councj-lman Crosby stated he did not have a problem with the height and thought the project a good one. He agreed the developer should not be penalized for a City problem - otherprojects had not had to provide deficient parking in lieu of He considered the Council was on the horns of a dilemma with parking. cash. City Attorney Carr emphasized that money was the solut.ion to theparking problem, and the City should use the money in the parking fund to provide parking. This $65,000 contribution, for exa.mp1e, could be used to buy a parkj-ng 1ot. The developer should not be asked to buy a l-ot with a house, tear it down, and buil-d a parking Iot. It is up to the City to solve the problem. -ffi +xt Mayor Amstrup declared convened . recess at 9:10, after which meeting re- 3. APPEAL OF PAOLA R. BRUNI F'OR SERGIO G. BRUNI FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DEN]AL OF VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT STORAGE BUILDING AT2329 RAY DRIVE City Planner explainea storage building 8'property line. Varia5' side yard. Except 308 of lot but this sslope toward creek in storage needs because Commission had denied apartment, and questi amended applicat j-on r d this variance involves the construction of6" wide, 30r 1ong, and 8'8" along the sidence is requested because it wil,l not have theion is made for accessory buildings in rear hed will not be so si.tuated because of steepback. This shed will be constructed to meetthere is onl-y a one car garage. Planning because of concern about possible mother-in-Iawon of alternate soluti,ons. Citv Planner notedequests variance for 4' from pr6pertr',/rdletz . by the they EIR. variance. fn response to guestions from Council, he stated therehad been no objection from neighbors] all neighbors within 300' hadreceived notifications clearly stating what type of variance wasrequested. He read. a representative notice. Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing. Mr. Sergio Bruni answered guestions from Council, stating buildingheight of 8 | 6 " r/,ias necessary because studding today is 92,' ; hedid think roof could be lowered; the fence between him and hisneighbor is higher than 6' . He agreed with Council suggestion thatceiling height be lowered to 7', below legal requirement for habitablestructures, to a]Iay fears of future rental and al1ow for easierabatement. There were no audience comments, favorabl-e or unfavorable,and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Mangini moved approval of the 12" side yard variance wi.tha 7' ceiling height limit on the bui.lding, second by CouncilmanCrosby, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote. 4 a PROPOSED HOLfDAY INN PROJECT, 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 52-P At the inception of this hearj-ng Councilman Martin left the dais and did not participate in the discussion because of possible con-flict of interest. City Planner reviewed progress of this final EIR, acceptedPlanning Commission at their meeting of August 13 at which approved Resolution 5-79 recorunending City Council certify In the following lengthy Council discussion they explored witharchitect and attorney the location of the rampl rellacement ofstreet tree, minimum vehicle clearance underground, and otheraspects. Councilman Martin asked if developer would be willing to re-design- Attorney replied they could try, although he did notknow what could be done. He mentioned that consiruction of tvrostory l-5,000 SF buildlng; would eliminate the problem, but addedthat the developer would make an attempt at a new design. CityAttorney confirmed that upholding the planning Commission deniilof this design would not prevent their coming to Council with adifferent design. Councifwoman Barton's motion to uphold ptanning Commission denialwas restated, and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS : AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY,MARTIN NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: MANGINI RECESS 42+il3 He cal-led Council attention to Exhibit A of Council resolutioncertifying this EIR. Exhibit lists irnpacts, their mitigations, and findings. City Planner answered specific Council questions such as processfor documentation of support slab strength, maximum public accessto shore line and BCDC hearlngs, the application of mitigation measures to the final pIan. He pointed out, however, that theintent of the EIR is to constitute a factual- base on which the Council can review the project. Approval of the EIR does not implyapproval of the project, and the CounciL is merely certifying thatthe EIR is adequate. Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing on EfR 52-P. There were no audience comments I and the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 68-79 II RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE HOLIDAY INN PROJECT - EIR - 52P" was introduced by Councilman Crosby who movedits adoption, second by Councilman Mangini, carrie<l on followingroll call vote: AYES: COUIICfL MEMBERS:AMS TRUP , BARTON , CROSBY, MANGINI NONENAYES : COUNCIL MEMBERS : ABSTAIN: COUNCTL I'{EMBERS: MARTIN b HEARINGS ON APPEAL OF CLAUDIA HANSON, F'ROIU PLANNING COIOIISSION APPROVALS OF RATIO SPECIAI PERMITS 1414 PALOMA AVENUE HEIGIIT AND FLOOR AREA City Planner Yost, speaking to the permit for maximum height of 16117rr, noted that there is no actual heiqht limit in the C-4 zone,just a requirement that special permit is required for all structures over 50r in height. Exhibit A of Resolution 68-79 lists two alter- natives for this height - accept or require it be reduced. Findingsfor acceptance - building will not obscure shorelj-ne views from City'sresidential areas. hiaterfront Element of General Plan encourages land- mark structures and height variety. Findings against - rrisuaL character of the shoreline will be dominated and highrise character would be inconsistent. He noted the tvro alternatives are not nec- essarily inconsistent in that by definition landmarks do tend to dominate other buildings. However, this is preferable to uniformmonotony. He stated the special permit to approve height was approved by the Planning Commission 5 - 1 with seven conditions. Speaking to the question of bulk - maxj-mum FAR of 1.93 - he noted itis under zoning ordi-nance limit of 2.0 for EAR; lot coverage is only 288, and there is substantial open space around the hotel. Planning Commission had approved special permit for this FAR 5-1. Mr. John A. Raiser, President of Raiser Architectural croup, developer of this project, addressed Council. nighlights of his presentation: At this point ltayor Amstrup told audience and staff of his concern with the Gann initiative and the possibility that it wou]d inhibit con:nercial growth. He had been able to meet Mr. Gann and question him personally about the intent of this rnitiative which limits covernment expenditures. Mayor Amstrup had specified the City would need to pay for additional police, fire, and other services for new commercial buildings. Mr. Gann had assured him it was not the purpose of the initiative to limit growth and that he would confirm this in writing. Mayor Amstrup then read in fu1l letter from James Kennedy, Director, Taxation Department, Californj-a Chamber of commerce, which stated that " . . .the proponents of Prop. 4 do not $rant to see that measure interpreted in a manner which willpreclude a government from spending tax proceeds necessary to pay for services for economic expansion," and inferred that any such effects could be corrected by an amendment to the measure. 4,4e 4)+ This project meets requirements of adequate landscaping, is oriented to provide maximum visual corridors with maximum open space and provides for maximum access to the shoreline. The narrow side of the building faces the shoreline and the Airport Boulevard frontage. The entire 100 foot shoreline band, except 8 public spaces, is tandscaped. Parked cars are concealed by berms, which al-so vary appearance along Airport Boulevard. Building is higher than adjoining, but conforms to Blayney's comments about desirability of avoiding the "tombstone effect. " There is landscaping over underground parking. There are many amenities, costs for which must be spread over a sufficient number of rooms to be economically feasible. Income from hotel tax could mean 9500-600,000 to Burlingame. Hotels have own security forces. Traffic generated by hotel use is less than generated by office or restaurant use. Project is economically advantageous and physically attractive to City. Mr. Raiser then showed slides presenting varied aspects of the proj ect . Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing on this appeal. Proponents of project and corments follow: cary Hourcaillieu, 512 Bayswater - Credit to the City. Tom Nolan, Executive Director, Concerned. Citizens Coal-ition, 2l2l S. EI Camino, San Mateo - Coalition endorses this as a quality project good for a healthy economy and fu1l employment. Ted Kruttschnitt, president, California lnnkeepers - Quality project good for hotel competition in the area as well as employment and revenues. Cathy Colmer, 137 Stanley - well planneil project and will bring more business to City. Robert Gilmore, business manager of Buililing and Construction Trades- of San Mateo County - One of best projects any place and will pro- vide 500-600 permanent jobs in addition to construction jobs. Tom Hunter, business manager of Plumbers Union - any other city on the Peninsula would be happy to have a hotel l-ike this. Harry Graham, 1324 Paloma - urged approval as Burlingame resj-dent, president of Burlingame Business and Professional Association, and Traffic, Safety, Parking Commission chairman. John Steen, executive dj-rector of Convention Bureau - Since media coverage of this project four ca1ls have been received from large hotel chains regarding location here. David Keyston, Anza Liguidating Trust - Biggest building in Burlingame but is being proposed by #1 hotel operator in the wor1d, is good project from many standpoints including City revenues; and wilJ- pay own development fee for road system. Charlotte Johnson, former Burlingame Mayor and Councilwoman - one of the finest things that can happen to Burlingame. Opponents of project: Claudia Hanson, 1414 Paloma - object to height and bulk which will set precedent for wa11 of 15-20 story buildings along future Bayfront. Ardith Erickson, 221- Arundel - Burlingame d.oes not need the money from these high rises and height limits should be set. Dolores Huajardo, 14OO Columbus - Oppose traffic generated, r.rater and sewage problems, and height precedent. Ed Arnold, 213 Anita Road - gasoline trj-ses may prectude big return from this hotel, and more jobs will not necessarily be good for smalf businesses. Joseph Ashe, 1480 Alvarado - Project not goodi public has not been informed about it, shoutd be put on ballot. Note: after this comment Mayor Amstrup reviewed notification processes for meetings and media publicity for the many Planning Commission and Council meetings over the last few years of Bayfront studies. Annette Giomi, 1600 Forest View - City does not need projects like this for income; residents would rather pay more taxes and keep developers out. Thomas Kimbrel1, 800 Alpine - There has been much publicity in newspapers antl if people are too apathetic to reatl or vote they should not complain. otto +2s /+f,5 Rieman, 2705 Summit - Community must regulate conunercial buil-dings so that growth is not too rapid. Ed Hanson, 1440 Pal-oma - There should be regulations on height of these commercial buildings. Marie Texiera, 1601 cranada - Go on record. as agreeing with all viewpoints in ooposition. There were no further corunents and public hearing was declared closed. RECES S A short recess was d.eclared at 11:30 P.M. after which meetingreconvened. Council questj-oned staff at length on various aspects and controls proposed for this project. Some staff statementswere: This project, if approved by the City must go back to BCDCfor approval before building permit is issued. Plans are nowpreliminary and their concerns will be addressed as detail isdeveloped. Area is zoned C-4, and permitted uses include restaur-ants, hotels, and motels. If the project were to lower its heightit would necessarily become more bulky and obstruct view. Project would raise traffic to Levef "D" which is acceptable under the Drachman report. Earth l4etrics in their findings did not statethere was some height above which this should not go. This pro-ject wifl not cause sewage problems across the free\"ray because it drains directly to the sewage pIant. Councilman Crosby requested. and received confirmation that themajority of Planning Commissioners stated they had no concernswith height, bulk and parking, as evidenced by Planning Commission minutes. Councilman }.{angini stated he was satisfied that there are enoughcontrols every step of the way to protect the City in this project. He moved, in view of the controls, that the appeal be denied andthe Planning Commission decision be supported. Second by Council- man Crosby. Mayor Amstrup reviewed the long struggle of the City to Cevelop a plan for the Bayfront which culminated in the decision to havehotels in this area. He noted that hotel tax income had paid thousands of dol-lars worth of City biIls. Although he did notIike the height, he thought this hoteL woul-d be an adjunct to Burlingame. AYES :COUNCIL MEMBERS: AMSTRUP CROSBY I (reluctantly on height) BARTON I,,IANGINI NAYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MARTIN Mayor Amstrup requested that the Planning Commission immediatelystudy the possibility of zoning the Bayfront so that there willnot be a waII of tall buildings across the entire Bayfront. Healso invited candidates for next year's election to discuss thismatter with Council, CORRES PONDENCE ]-. BEL-MATEO ENTERPRISES I INC' ' DBA YELLOI,{ CAB CO., REQUEST]NG INCREASE IN TAXI FARES Letter of August 2l , 1979 from Bel-Mateo Enterprises,ordinance amendment to increase taxi fares because of Inc. requested operationa I Councilwoman Barton stated she did not like highrises, but notedthe contribution hotels made to City revenue. She, too, notedthe long efforts of the City to ilecide definitely what to put onthj-s land.. She suggested, however, that Council investigatepossibility of height limits. Motion carried on following ro11 call vote: +30 +)6 expense increase since last amendment two years ago. established by staff that Towne Taxi of Burlingame was agreement with thj-s request. It was in ORDINANCE NO. 1157 '' ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION D OF SECTION 6.36.I20 OF' THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND INCREASING THE RATES OF FARE FOR TRANSPORTATION IN TAXICABS,' was introduced by Councilman Crosby for first reading- 2. JOHN M. WARD REQUESTING APPEAL HEARING BEF'ORE THE CfTY COUNCIL ON PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 792 WII,I,BOROUGH ROAD. Mr. ward requested this 29, L979. Hearing was September 17, 1979. appeal hearing bY letter scheduled for the Council of August meeting of STAF'F MEMORANDA 1. CITY MANAGER: REORGANIZATION OF POSITIONS,FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Memo of August 29, ].979 from City Manager transmitted and recom- mended for-approval Einance Director's request of lugust.24, 1979 for replacem.ttt oe accountant Position and reclassification of payroll account clerk II to account clerk III. Councilman Martin moved Finance Director's request be approved, seconal by Councilman Crosby, carried by unanimous vote' 2. CITY MANAGER: RATE ANALYST FOR POSSIBLE SCAVENGER RATE ADJUSTMENT City }4anager's memo of August 29, ].979 approve the sharing of costs of hiring cilies in the county for the review of rate increase proposal as documented in of August 28, 1979. Councilman Mangini moved this cost-sharing be approved, . second Uy councitman 6rosby, carried on unanimous vote' Councilman trtirtin requested th;t staff ascertain how much County Government is costin{ the cities in the disposal of garbage' recommend.ed that the CitY a rate anafyst with other Browning Ferris rndustrYrs Finance Director I s memo City Attorneyrs memo of August 28, L979 detailed his review of minttes and lapes of Februiry iliscussion of 7-Eleven Market' with the concl-usion that theie was no time limit set on the permit but the Council diCl retain the ability to review as it wished. Attorney David Carr represented the Southland Corporation' , or""t" of tf,. businessl and Attorney Harlan Veal represented nichard and Ho11y Moffatt, operators of the business' Mr' VeaI asked that there be no time limit set on the permit, allowing operatorstopursuetheirbusinesswithoutfearoftermination, aid noted that council always has the right to review this permit at any time should it become questionable' Councit agreed to this, after stipulating that both attorneys icknowletlie that the speciat permit ,was - issued jointly to the J."tirii"a'corporation ind to irichard and HoJ-1y Moffatt' and lir"t it can bL reviewed at any time by Council' Both Mr' Carr and Mr. Veal acknowled"ged. 3. CITY ATTORNEY - 7-11 STORE 4. CITY A TTORNEY: WALKWAY APPRAISAL,2727 MARTINEZ DRIVE. City Attorney's memo of August 29, l.97.9 attached appraisal iioir oo"afa 6. Gardner Ass6ciates adding a value of $500 to It. pr"p.tty for abando nent of walkway and establishment of ,,u* -dtuirr.g-e ""sement - Council agree'l to aban'lon this wal-k way on City. the condition owner pays $500 and appraisal fee to the RESOLUTION 69_79 - VACATING AND ABANDONING I{ALK BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 3 4, MILLS ESTATE NO. 11' was introduced by 1. PARCEL MAP, 1616 ROLLINS ROAD Councilman Mangini who moved. its approval , subject to.above conditions, second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously' Director of public Works noted approval of fj-na1 parcel map for thj-s property is needed. Councilman Martin moved this final pariel map be approved subject to payment of appraisal fee anh $500, second by councilman Mangini, carried on unanimous vote . By memo of August 29, L979 Director of approval of this parcel map eradicating ments of right-of-way are required' Mayor Amstrup announced joint meeting of at Stanford Linear AcceLerator CenLer to service, on Thursday, September 20, 1979. Senior Civil Engineer's memo of August 23, 1979 special encroachment permit at this address for one concrete block against an existing support recommended installation of railing. Peninsula city councils support the s. P. Passenger Publ i c a Iot recommended No improve- tr[orksline. 2. CLAIMS COAST ELECTRTC COMPANY, SAN MATEO CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR'S ASSN., INC. ELIZABETH GARNER, 129 LORTON AVENUE 3. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, City Attorney's memos of August 28, L919 and August 29, viewed these claims and recommended their denial . 1979 re- 4. RESOLUTION 70-79 'ACCEPTING REROOFING OF FIRE STATION NO. 3 JOB 912. Councilman Mangini moved the consent calendar be approved', second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Counc.if discussed letter of August 30, 1979 from Joseph D' Geller requesting Council aI1ow Mr. Lyerla to appear before them on entertainment permit. They decided that since hearing had already been he1d, Mr. Lyerla had not been present, and the permit had been denied, no further action should be taken. POLICE STATION COI\O{ITTEE Council discussed report of investigating. Council did destruction of the house on JOHN.S PLACE 348 LORTON AVENUE U.N. REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLE DGEI.4ENTS this committee on the sites they are not rule out the PossibilitY of Pal-m Avenue. At the request of Councilwoman Barton, City Manager said he would contact M;s. Juanita Garbuio, recently appoinled U.N. representative, as to procedure. There wa-s announcement of meeting of North County council and League of california cities conference on september 25. l4inutes: Library Board, 27; Police Station Study 21; Planningi Commission, August August 22, 1979. August Group, -_i'r.'5t!!r7r!Fi #i+ +e7 CONSENT CALENDAR 15 ].1 DRAKE AVENUE 4** 4eB ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 12:30 A.M, {:.,':1.:1't'*' "( ;/' I /- EVelyn E. HillCity Clerk .{ - i* ,!-rr ^Sl r{ r! , r. - -:-.. r- -,