Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.09.17BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA September 19, L97 7 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Councif was held on the above date in the City HalI Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Mayor A.C. "Bud" Harrison. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Alfred J. Palmer, Police Chief. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBE RS PRESENT :AMSTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI , MARTIN NONECOIJNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT : MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of Septenlce r 6, !977 were approved with correction of date of steering committee meetj-ng, P. 7 of draft minutes, from "September 18, 7977" to "September 17, 10?? ll BIDS CONSIDERATION OF: 1. HANDICAP RAMPS, DRIVEWAY ABANDONMENT AND FIRE STATION NO. f DRIVEWAY, ITEMS 1 AND 2. Memo of September 14, 1977 from Director of Publj-c Works stated that the low bidder, Valentine Company, wished to withdraw their bid because through error it did not include the amount for demolition and removal of existing concrete. In his opinion, no advantage woufd be gained by the City in holding this company to their bid, nor would there be any profit in rejecting all bids.Director of Public Works therefore recommended that Valentine Company be a]lowed to withdraw their bid, and that the contract be awarded to ceorge Bianchi Construction, second low bidder. Low bidder on Contract Items 3 through 10 was Anza Engineering Corporation . RESOLUTION NO. 80-77"AWARDING CONTRACT - HANDICAP RAMPS, DRIVEWAY ABANDONMENT AND FIRN STATION NO. 1 DRIVEWAY - JOB NO. 77-3, ITEMS 1 AND 2" (ceorge Bianchi Construction - $15,383.00) was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Martin, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote. RESOLUTION NO. 81-77''AWARDING CONTRACT, HANDICAP RAMPS, DRIVEWAY ABANDONMENT AND FIRE STATION NO. f DRIVEWAY - JOB NO. 77-3 ITEMS 3 THROUGH 10" (Anza Engineering Corporation - $8,606.00) was introduced by Councilman Mangini who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup. Motion carried unanimously on ro11 call vote . IIEARIN GS f. DRAFT ENVIRONI4ENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 41-E FOR BROADWAY/SOUTHERN PACIFTC GRADE SEPARATION PROJE CT Mayor Harrison requested report from Dj-rector of Public Works on this EIR, 453 Director of Publ-ic Works informed Council that this EIR hadits hearing before the Planning Commission and had been recommended by them for certification. The report has received wide circulation, and considerable public input had been receivedat the hearings. He categorized this as a decision making document 454 which adequately covers impacts and offers alternatives as: l-. No project; 2. Relocate existing station approximately 500r south of Broadway; 3. Elevate track at Broadway; 4. Depress track at Broadway. He stated the purpose of this hearing is to make a decision on whether or not the EIR is adequate and covers impacts sufficiently. In the near future a decision should be made on alternate desired. If this decision is for a grade separation project, the City must apply to the Public Utilities Commission for a priority, with application to them about the middle of February. In response to question from Mayor Harrison, he asked that Councj-I make a decis j-on by the first of the year so that staff would have adequate time to handle the application. Mayor Harrison questioned if, when the City had established itself on the priority fist, could the project be changed and maintain the same position. Director of Public Works affirmed the Citycould change lts mind up to the time it lets the contract.Appfication is for project priority and for funding. State crade Separation Fund pays 80?; the City pays 10?; and Southern Pacific pays 108. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Harrison stated that thefinal EIR presented contains the testimony of the people whoparticipated in various hearingTs, a petition, and minutes of all of the Planning Commission hearings on this EIR. He then opened the meeting to public connent. Mr. Frank Pagl j-aro, 1337 Drake, speaking of project effect onproperty values, stated that whife the area of noise pollution was covered in the report, it does not speak of effect of visualpollution on these values. Councilman Mangj-ni questioned if Council could require additional information after EIR was certified. Director of Public Works stated this coufd be done, or Councif could require additional information before certification. Councilman Manqrini sugqested the need for more informatj-on about si-gnalization and the totaltraffic impact of the King Building and other developments on Anza property. Mrs. Elizabeth Indergand, 1977 Garden Drive, protested the removal of trees in this area, with loss to property value; and notedthere is no mention of the capacity of Broadway to handletraffic, adding that faster traffic flow does not j-ncrease this capacity. There were no further comments from the audience, and the public hearing was declared cl-osed. Mayor Harrison cornmented that the action tonight would not to approve any one of the particul-ar proposals, but rather certify the EIR as having adequate information to use as reference in making a decision as to which proposal . be to Counci lman Martin stated he thouqht there were some inadequaciesparticularly with reference to the future of S.P. traffic and what will happen with the Convention Center, He thought that the EIR should be modified and brought up to date with additionaf information at some later date. He did think that Councif should make their decision on a proposal as soon as possible, with apublic hearing for this puroose before January, 1978. Mayor Harrison concurred. RESOLUTION NO. 82-TT"CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR BROADWAY/SOUTHERN PACIFIC GRADE SEPARATION EIR - 41-E,. was introd.uced. by Councilman Martin who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby. Councilman Mangini questioned if the motion implied a decision to go to the P.U.c. and was informed it did not. Motion carrj-ed +Ct) on unanimous ro11 call vote. 2. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR CHARLES KING & ASSOCIATES PROJECT AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Mayor Harrison acknowledged letter (undated) from Charles King responding to Council concerns on his project as set forth in Council meetj-ng of September 6, 1977, along with site plan dated Septenrber 13, 1977. Site plan shows original proposal with rearparking spaces in area under BCDC jurisdiction. Mayor llarrisonindicated his dissatisfaction with this response in view ofCouncil's specification of project plans for an eight-story structure with no parking structure, and with other conditj-ons. He noted Mr. Kj-ng's concern that a reduction in gross building area wouldjeopardize the investment already made in the foundation excavation severaf years ago for a larger building. The Mayor requested corunent from the City Planner. City Planner reviewed project plans as presented Septemlcer 6, L977 with application for variance and special permit. He went on to say he had recently talked with the staff of BCDC aboutexisting parking. They assured him that it is non-conforming,but it may be used just as it is because since the Bay Plan was adopted in 1969 they have no abatement procedures. He added that, however, with the plan submitted a small- portion of that paved area would be removed to create the public pathway. Councilman Amstrup noted that this parking may be qrandfathered, but questioned if the grandfathering holds true if there is a chanqe in the parking. City Planner corunented this was dif ficul-t to answer since BCDC is working on a public access document which was not in existence in the past. Mayor Harrison, speaking of the 25 existing spaces, asked if these spaces would have to retain the same configuration or if they could be reorganized. rn the City Planner's opinion, they could be revise d. Mayor Harrison declared the meeting open to the public. Mr. Steve L. wintner, of the firm of censler & Associates,Architects, addressed the Council. He reviewed the history of theproject up to the present, stating it is essentially the sameproject that was approved by Council tn 1974 at the time it wasa sixteen story building. The buil-dj-ng is similar, althoughmodified to respond to environmental impacts. He cited thepresent project as a visual improvement to the property, incorporating the type of parking used in todayrs society withits compact parking spaces. Other cities al-Iow as much as 409 compact spaces for similar projects. He pointed out the sizeof the structure has been modified and several changes were made during the process of Planning Coru[ission hearings allowinggreater view of and access to the Bay. Councilman Martin declared that Council had asked for certainconditions at the September 6, L977 meeting, and stated that as he understood Mr. Kingrs letter, the developer is sayj-ng "No" toaI1 of them. Mr. Wintner replied that Mr. Kingrs letter r,^/as not an unequivocal "No" but rather, a presentatj-on of facts as abasis for negotiation. Councilman Manginj- questioned if he could infer from the l-etterthat Mr. King is willing to contribute to water and sewer improvement services and signalization. Mr. Wintner stated itwould be necessary to know the financial impact. However, if the developer thought such assessments would be fair and equitablein comparison with all other property owners, there was thispossibility. Councilman Amstrup commented he felt no obligation to grant thisproject because money had been invested in its start in the past. Mayor Harrison commented he did not think the developer understood 456 the Councj-l-'s direction at the September 6 meeting to satisfy certain conditions before proceeding with the project. He reviewed these conditions: I story building, no parking structure, exclusion of the 28 appendage parking spaces, contribution to water and signalization, and joint driveway agreement. Mr. Wintner asked that Council respond to a suggestion for a means of creating lower 1eve1 of parking in the event that BCDC does not grant the right to use the tand under their jurisdiction' This wou1d be in consideration of reducing the building height from l0 stories to 8 stories. Councilman Martin asked what the pfans would be, considering thepresent ratio as correct. Mr. Wintner replied they would start out with a project that had the right number of spaces for the area of the buj-lding. The first floor would be used as open space under the building. He noted there are other such officestructures where the ground floor area is nothing more than a 1obby. Councj-lman crosby was concerned that the City would get into the same situation as the Fox Mal1 - where non-Ieasabfe space would enter into parking formul-a. Mr. Wintner stated the first floor could be used for parking if necessary. In response to question from the Mayor, he estimated it would accorunodate 23 cars. Councilman Amstrup disapproved of the concept of the vacant lower floor because he could not envision a building where such space would not be developed for a number of years. Sooner or 1ater, the City would have to deal with a request for its use. Councilman Martin considered the vacant lower fl-oor an interesting theory, but pointed out that Mr. Kingrs letter gives the cost of the foundation as the reason for more f l-oor area. He questioned how they would then be able, financially, to build space \"/hich they would not use. Mr. wintner replied that by not building the retail and banking space on the first floor, parking requirement would be reduced by 41 spaces. When the building is 60 - 758 occupied they could find out what the actual parking ratio is in proportion to the building area. That ratio could then be investigated for compliance. He had used this concept on projects in San Francisco. He stated Mr. King would be willing to provide valet parking which would al1ow the--use of tandem parking on si-te in certain aieas. This could make,/EBe deficiency in pu.liitg, if BCDC disapproves the use of their jurisdiction. Mayor Harrison pointed out there j-s already a variance application for 202 compact. Councilman Mangini asked how the statement in Mr. Kj-ngrs letter, "Any floor area reduction would seriously jeopardize our financial ability to proceed with the project. " could be equivocated Mayor Harrison reminded Mr. Wintner of the Council directive for no parking structure. Mr. Wintner replied that he and the developer did not see the parking structure as desirable, but the means to an end if BCDC disapproved. He wished to propose a method of reduction in parking without the construction of a parking structure. He suggested the project not be made dependent upon the vehicle as a means of transportation. (I.e.,consider mass transportation, ) He stated they woul-d be willing to develop a building whichrin essencerwould reduce the number of cars by nondevelopment of a certain amount of area in the buj-1ding. The developer would then not take two stories off the top, but rather, woul-d not develop the first floor of the building. Twenty- three cars would be acconmodated on site without development of first floor space. At a later date, if development of this floor becomes necessary, a more accurate ratio for parking in thisproject might have been developed. He commented he found it hard to rel-ate to the present parking ratio of one space for every 300 SF of building area. 457 with the foss of one floor of development. Mr. Wintner replied the reduction would be of only the commercial retail space, the bank use. The Councilman then asked ho$/ the City could control- any future request for deve lopment of this floor. City Attorney stated the developer must come back to the Council for permission to develop. Mr. wintner stated the developer would be amenable to any clevice the City might impose. Councilman Martin asked if the office space would return a higher per square foot return than the commercial space on the first floor. Mr, Wintner said this was so. Counci-lman Martin commented the original ptan contemplated an "asphalt jung1e. " With tandem parking, it wou]d not be possible to see the asphalt. Council-man Amstrup thought it unusual to take area off the bottom of a building and not off the top. Mr. Robert Brown, realtor, addressed the Council. Speaking as manager of industrial property, he said he had checked one of his office buildings having a 24,466 SF area and found that 44.82 of cars were of the compact variety. He did not think that was an unrealistic ratio and considered the 208 ratio moderate. Regarding the special permit, he thought a bulk limitation much more appropriate than a height l-imj-tation. He would prefer to see a ten-story building with space around it than an eight story building with bulk. He urged Council approval of special permit and variance. Mr. David Keyston addressed Council to the point of their concern that construction not erect a barrier between Bayshore Highway and the Bay. He considered this project a prime example of effort in the opposite direction, noting that the structure covers only 7g of the site. The FAR is reasonable and well below the City established ratio of 1.4. He considered that a percentage of parking for compact cars is a concept that wj-1I be permanent. He considered that City-e stablj-she d parking ratios have been higher than many surrounding cities. He noted the applicant hail paid cash into the City as a consideration for gaining his last permit and he thought this should be taken into consideration. Mr, wintner noted that one of the reasons the developer is willing to pay the cost for the l-inear park is to a1low public access to the shorel-ine. He referred Cor.rncil to EIR, Visual Section, which refers to City study of high rise building by a consultant. He stated the study found that the area of the Kingsite was one of ti,/o that was suitable for highrise development. He added the developer plans to make a contribution for improvementsin the area and has already made a $5,000 contribution to$/ardsignal-ization, which was made five months after abandonment of the 16 story project. He noted projection of $40-45,000 cost ofsignalization, and based on a ratio of benefit to the project and to Airport Marina, proposed a joint contribution of $15,000or $7,500 separately. Of this, Mr. King has already paid $5,000 and would be willing to add $2,500. Councilman Amstrup questioned why the contribution had beenfigured at l/3 of the total, Mr. Wintner stated that hrhether ornot the King project is bui1t, the area is definitely in need ofsignalization which woufd benefit all of the property owners on Bayshore. He thought one-third contribution for the tv,/o sites would be a fair share. He pointed out that a ten-story building would come under Building Code Section 1807 which requires asprinklered building. Under #1807 the building would have anelectrically operated pump which is capable of handling a secondary source of water to be stored on site in the event of disaster. The secondary source of water will all-ow at l-east 20 minutes of use to fight fires. The buildinq would be essentially self-sufficient, and would become an ISO rated building which will reduce insurance rates because of its safety. In any case, Mr.King is willing to contribute to a fair and equitable assessmentfor water improvements if necessary. As to the sewer, there is need for review of the situation, since i,t affects the entirearea. However, the developer would be willing to make a fair share contribution. With regard to the joj-nt driveway, Mr. King had made every effort to negotiate, without much success. Ho\,/ever, Airport Marina has agreed to discuss with the City thebenefits of that driveway. They are not amenabl-e to changingtheir driveway at the present. Mr. Wintner pointed out thatover the past five years Mr. King has contributed $112,000 intaxes, and the project will contribute about $11,500 a year tothe City. Mayor Harrison questioned I4r. Wintner as to what the devefoperplanned if Councif did not approve this special permit. Mr.Wintner suggested that the developer might have to build asmafler building, but it was not economically feasible to buiLd one much sma11er. Or, he might have to forego plans to developthe property at the present. Councifman Mangini questioned the source of the 20,000 gallonsof water to be stored on the property. Mr. Wintner stated it would be trucked in by a private supplier. The Councilman then asked if the developer would want the parkj-ng structure if BCDC disapproved this application. Mr. Wintner reptied this structure was not considered desirable, but added that its location behindthe profile of the ten-story building would not be visuallyobjectionabfe. However, it would not be the first alternative. Councilman Amstrup noted the height of the building supposedly contrj-buted to the open space around it. However, the conceptof the parkj-ng structure destroys open space. Mr. Wintner pointedout that the parking structure woufd be a slab supported bycolumns, is totally open, and woul-d allow views through and beyond.It woufd also ai-low a certain amount of covered parking underneath. Counci lman Martin questioned the height of the suggested berms al-ong the Bayshore Highway frontage to screen the parking lot.Mr. Wintner indicated they would be 3 feet high with planting ontop. The Councilman thought this would not hel-p much in screening. He asked if it were not true that the City must approve thisproject before application is made to BCDC. Mr. Wintner wasuncertain, but had the idea that BCDC urould hear the matter upon certification of the EIR. Councilman Martin questioned whatthe developerrs attitude would be if the Counci1 imposed acondition that there be no parking in the 100' BCDC strip. Mr.Wintner considered that would be reverse condemnation since thedeveloper would be deprived of parking on his own property. Inconnection wj-th parking, he suggested the probable greater useof mass transportation in the fut.ure. The Coun ci l-man stated there were many problems with mass transportation, and individual vehiclesmight be around for a long time. Mr. Wintner suggested thecurrent trend is to try to reduce the dependence on the vehicle. He and Councilman Martin then discussed the visual impact of theparking structure as viewed from different angles. CouncilmanMartin commented that by action of the Council this project had been exempted from the requirements of the urgency interimordinance, and asked for confirmation from the City Attorney thatCor:ncil could set any conditions it wished, noting that conditionsare not a right of the applicant. City Attorney confirmed. Mr. M. Arthur Gensler, project architect, addressed the Councif. He clarified the developer's tax contrj-bution as developed inthe EIR. Mr. Gensler reviewed developer's efforts since theoriginal 16-story project, resulting now in a building about halfthat size. He stated his organization had made a survey of parking issues over the United States, and is concerned that an unrealisticratio may lead to a situation such as exists in San Mateo'sBorel Square v/here a large parking structure is barely used. He went on to comment that Burlingame is about the only city in the Bay area that is not using a compact ratio. He noted the compromisesthe developer is willing to make, such as valet parking, and the des j-re to be a part of the community with as fine a building aspossible. Mr. censler thought parking ratios requested wererealistj-c, and if the parking cannot be resolved with BCDC, theCity wilI be approached for other options. He expressed his 458 459 faith in and the pro j ect . the project, and deve)-oper to work urged that Council allow his with them on the building of organi zationa good Ms. Claudia Hansen, 1414 Pal-oma, spoke against the special permit for aesthetic reasons, stating such buil-dings spoil Burlingame as a residential community. There \^7e re no further colunents and the public hearing was declared close d. Councilman },lartin also hail no objection to 202 compact spaces, since reasonable conditions may be imposed on the variance, but preferred to maintain a bargaining position. Councilman Crosby questioned how much the first fl-oor elimination would reduce the parking. City Planner estimated 41 fewer parking spaces. The Councilman stated his understanding that the office space on the top floors woultl be more valuable than the commercial area on the first floor. Counci lman Mangj-ni had no objection to the parking ratio variance, but wanted confirmation from Mr. Gens]er that no parking structure would be necessary if City and BCDC approved and there were 41 fewer spaces necessary. Mr. Gensler stated this \^ias so. The Councilman pointed out that the developer should be committed to certain financial obligatj-ons. Mr. Gensler thought Mr. King would be amenable, Councilman Martin suggested to Mr. Gensler that the parking area could be improved by lowering it below street level. He did not approve of the landscaping which is practieally afl in the linear park. He said he would go along with the project if it were an 8 story so that a parking structure \^7as not needed and if the parking were lowered. He did not approve of the project as presented. He pointed out that it is the Council's prerogative to deny a special permit and variance, and suggested it was up to the developer to redesign. Mayor Harrison concurred, stating he would not support the special permit at this time. Councilman Crosby agreed with his colleagues, Gensler he did not feel the project was dead, fine addition to the City, and suggested the Mr. Keyston's method. of handling parking. but told Mr. that it could be aarchitect invest igate City Planner asked Council if there were of the Bay, would the building height be no parking within 1001 objectionable. Mayor Harrison replied the height would be objectionable because the mass of a ten story building would require more parking than an 8 story building. Councilman !4artin had no particular objection to the height butpreferred that the lower floor be occupied. Councj-l-man Mangini suggested postponement of the hearing, withthe concurrence of the applicant, so that further plans could be developed. City Attorney stated this could be done, but must be for only a brief period., since there has already been one postponement. Mr. Gensler said he would agree to a postponement, if he couldget information on what Council would agree to in this project. Mayor Harrison stated he was not in favor of the ten story building. Councilman Mangini had no objection to the ten stories, but wanted the developer to contribute on sewer, water and signalization. Councilman Amstrup had no objectj-on to the 20? compact parking ratio. IIis concern was the building height and the parking structure. 460 Councilman Amstrup did not favor the ten story building. Mr. censler suggested he possibly could work on subterraneanparking, but emphasized he was trying to get the 144,000 SFbuilding to generate enough revenue. fn response to question from Mayor Harrison, he said he could redesign in two weeks. Councifman Martin told Mr. censler he should investigate thesignalization ratio more cl-osely, that l/6 of the cost did not seem realistic. Mayor Harrison declared this hearing continued to the October 3, 1977 Council meeting. RE CESS There was a short re convened . recess at f0:05 P.M., after which the meeting DAVID H. KEYSTON FOR ANZA SHAREHOLDERS I LIQUIDATING TRUST: SUBMITTED BY CITY PLANNER: 1. SAKATA RESTAURANT ND- f3IP GALLOPING GENGHIS KHAN, NEGATIVE DECLARATION By memo of September L3, 7917 City Planner transmj-tted to CityCouncif Negative Declarations on this and the followinq twoprojects with appropriate documentation and site plans in conformation with procedure for study area permits. Councilman Amstrup noted that the calloping Genghis Khan contemplateda restaurant with a cocktail lounge. He questioned if there would be entertainment. City Planner reptied this project wouldbe very similar to other speciafty restaurants with eating,drinking and cabaret. Councilman Amstrup moved this second by Councilman Mangini, study area permit be approved, motion unanimously carried. 2. FLEURS DE ND-I32P MER, SPECIALTY RESTAURANT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION Counci Iman Martin questioned statement i-n City Pfannerr s memo, "Project will require ten employee parking spaces within reasonableproximity to satisfy parking space requirements of Sec.25.47.080(b) ."City Planner repl-ied C-4 regulations do permit l/Ll of parking spaces to be on adjacent lot. However, Mr. Keyston has presenteda revised parking layout providing 107 parking spaces on site.Mr. Keyston added he had asked KeeJoon to rent additj-onaf }and, sothat all parking will be onsite. On further guestion from CouncilmanMartin, City Planner af fj-rmed that the sentence, "Project willrequire etc.etc. . ." could be stricken from his report. Council-man Amstrup questioned the pedestrian walkway for thi-sproject, and Mr. Keyston detailed how public path coufd be providedall around the lagoon. In response to further question, he statedthis would be a seafood restaurant. City Attorney noted area on site plan for "future dining room" and questioned if parking would be taken into consideration atthe time of this addition. Mr. Keyston stated additional permit would be sought at this time. Councj- Iman Crosby moved this study area permit be approved, second by Councilman Mangini, unanimously carried. 3. AVIS AIRPORT SERVICE FACILITY ND-133P. REMODELING NEGATTVE DECLARATION City s ite Planner suggested to Council that improvements could be conditioned permit for these minor upon the contribution of STUDY AREA PERMITS 461 the shoreline bike path when adjacent property owners have install-ed their section of it. Councilman Martin moved that this study area permit be approved with the condition that a pedestrian access path be installed at the rear of the property when adjacent properties have installed such a path. Second by Counci lman Mangi-ni, carried unanimously. Mayor Harrison acknowledged memo of Septendce t 12, 1977 attaching special permit application, environmental assessment form, p1ans, and prospectus for this project. City Planner recommended that Council require preparation of an ErR on this complex project. Mayor Harrison also acknowledged letter of September 14, 1977 from David H. Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust appealing City Planner's ilecision. He noted this project falfs entj-rely within the existing City codes, is the type of use envisioned for State parcels at the tj-me the State Boundary Agreement was signed and the type of use projected in the presentation of the Anza Master PIan. He also noted that CEoA rules and regulatj-ons proviile that when a project is totally within the existing zoning it does not require an EIR. Mr. David Keyston, addressing Council, pointed out that this is not a complex project, since it is confined to two or three commercial uses. The restaurant is smaller than others on the hraterfront, the bar area is sma11er, the showroom comprises only about l/5 of the area of the Hyatt Music Theatre, and the total building is only about 7/2 the square footage of the Hyatt Music Theatre. He did not consider this is a precedent setting operation because a1I of the uses in this entertainment center are presently in operation in Burl-ingame. Architect and developer have agreed to have all parking beLow street level. He questioned the statement that this project would have a negative aesthetic va1ue, stating it will be a very attractive project. He noted this use has virtually no traffic during peak hours, since it is a nighttime operation. He did not believe that the project is an intense use of the land, pointing out that every scenario which was studied at the joint meeting of Council, Planning Corunission, and Steering Corunittee for land use study contemplated this typeof use along the Bay front. Commerce, recreation, restaurants and mote]s are the only uses permitted on State land. If this project does requj-re an EIR it will hold up State approval of the subl-ease, and that in turn will de J-ay the project, which would be a hardship to the developer. Councilman Mangini asked City Attorney if he agreed with Mr. Keystonrs contention that under City code this project does notrequire an EIR. City Attorney, noting this j udgment is up to the City Council, suggested EIR should be required if the project is determined to be controversial- or if it has some impact onthe environment. Councilman Crosby questioned what the dj-fference was between this project and the other two restaurants. City Planner replj-edthat his concern was not with the cocktail lounge and the modest disco, bu! rather, with the showroom which could seat not just the 500 people as projected, but, by removing the cocktaif tables, could seat up to 1,200. This coul-d l-ead to a large number ofpeople leaving the establishment at one time, with only a two lane road for egress. He noted the possibility of the Convention Center, which would add to the congest j-on. His second concern Mr. David Keyston stated that conditj-on was acceptable to him as wefl as to Avis. He stated the rear fence of Avis wiI] be moved back 10' when paths are installed on either side of Avis. Councilman Amstrup asked if any part of the remode leil structure would be visible from the highway. Mr. Keyston said it would be visible only if you looked through the screened portion in front of the parking structure and that no part of it would extend above the structure. 4. JILLY'S WEST 462 was that a condomj-nium is proposed in that vicinity. He did notthink this type of entertainment center woul-d be compatiblewith a residential use. Mr. Keyston noted that both Mr. Blayney and Mr. Drachman considered this project in their preliminary studies whichincluded the convention center. He considered Mr. Drachman hadindj-cated this establishment would probably not affect the roads beyond the project. Mr. Keyston announced the availability ofMr. Piero Patri, architect for Jillyrs West, for questioning. Councilman Martin r^/anted more information on the traffic impact . Councilman Mangini questioned if there would be stipulated showtimes, as with a motion picture theatre. Mr. Keyston repliedthere would be two or three shows an evening. People leavingthe show could then go to other areas, such as the bar. There would not be an egress of people all at one time as in a movie. He added that there are 2,100 parking spaces in the drive-intheatre and this has not yet caused a problem, nor has the HyattCinema. The Hyatt Cinema has offered rental- space for groupsfor years, and this too has not caused a problem. He repeatedthis is a commercj-al retail use and not a discretionary permit. Mayor Harrj,son questioned City Attorney if an EIR were requiredin this case, $/ould it be merely an informational document.City Attorney stated he agreed with the City Planner that this wasa discretj-onary project; that it should be categorized in "other uses", adding that he had never determined j-n this cj-tythat comrnercial- recreation encompassed theatres. Councilman Amstrup questioned developer Tracy Flowers on thetype of entertainment, asking if it would include anything liketopless - bottomless. Mr. flowers assured him that entertainment would be of the family type. Councilman Martin noted reference to Bimbors in the prospectusfeasibility report, and commented this \^7as not exactly familyentertai.nment. Mr. Flowers said the feasibility study simply compared possibifities, but the whole concept at Jil1y's West would be geared tor^rard the family and family entertainment. Mayor Harrison stated his major concern, that of the amount of and effect of traffic generated, had been satisfied with the comparison to the four drive-in theatres. He thought that the usesin State lands were similar to those already approved, and had no objection to the project. Councj-l-man Amstrup commented that the City is concerned about enhanci-ng this area by getting desirable projects. This onelooks like a first class operation and probab1y wj-l-L augmentrather than interfere with the Convention Center. He agreed thedrive-in theaters did not cause too much traffic trouble, and suggested that requiring an EIR for this project might be doinga disservice. Councilman Mangini commented his inclination was to go along with this viewpoint. City Attorney emphasized to Council that they were not making a determinatj-on tonight on either the entertainment or whetherthe project gets a permit. They were determining if an EIR was necessary. Counc.ilman Crosby moved that no EIR be required for this project. Second by Councilman Amstrup, carried on the following roll- call- vote : AMSTRUP , CROSBY ,MANGINI ,HARRISON MARTIN AYES: NAYES: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: 463 STAFF MEMORAN DA I. CITY MANAGER: SPACE RENEWAI OF LEASE FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT OFF']CE At onset, Councilman Martin stated he would take no part in d.iscussion or vote because of possible conffict of interest. City Manager's memo of September L5, 1977 informed Council thatthis lease of space in the Security Bank building would expireon November 30, L977. Owner has offered a new lease with anincrease based upon Cost of Living index, and rental is to beadjusted every six months accordingly. Rent for first six monthslperiod would be $575.00 per month, with options for renewafs andadjustments. City Manager recommended this be approved, in viewof survey made of prevailing rates. There was some discussion as to whether there were some uses i_nthe police station that coul-d be carried on in other tocations.Police Chief stated there was only one area, of less than 100 SF,which is used for parking meter work. Cor:ncilman Mangini moved this lease be approvedsix months, second by Councilman Crosby, motion Cor.rncilman Martin not participating. for a period ofcarried wi-th 2. B ROADWAY MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION HARVEST AND PUMPKIN FESTIVAL City Manager transmitted letter of September 9, 1977 from thisAssociation requesting permission to close Broad$ray Avenue totraffic from l-0:00 A.M. until 6:00 P,M., Sund.ay, October 30, 1977 for a Harvest and Pumpkin Festival. City Manager recommendedapproval. Council concurred with this recommendation. 3. CITY ATTORNEY: LAWSUIT OF EEMALE POLICE DEPARTMENT REGARDING SAFETY MEMBER STATUS DISPATCHERS. City Attorney's memo of September 15, 1977 informed Council oflawsuit filed several months ago in Los Angeles regarding thesafety member status of female police department dispatchers. A11 cities in the State which are members of the public EmployeesRetirement System were included in the suit. However, Burlingameshould be dismissed since our femaLe dispatchers were placed onsafety member status several years ago. City Attorneyrs memoattached letter of Septemlce r L3, l-977 from the firm of McDonough,Holland, Schwartz & Allen vrith an offer to represent the Cityin a group action in seeking a removal from this action. Feewas quoted at $75.00 with a maximum of $250.00. City Attorney recommended approval of this arrangement. There were no objections from Council-. City Attorney was directedto so proceed. 4. PLANNING WORKSHOP ON IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT City Manager's memo of September 75, 1977 recommended attendanceby City Planner at one-day planning workshop September 22, tg77in Los AngeLes sponsored by the American Institute of planners. Councilman Martin suggested that both City planner and AssistantCity Planner be sent to this workshop. Council concurred. Mayor l{arr.ison directed that both planners may attend. 5. FINANCTNG SERVICE EXIENSIONS. City Manager by memo of September 15, 7977 transmitted reportof September 74, L977 from Director of public Works on the j-ssue of service extensions as the City develops in certain areas. With consent of Council, Mayor Harrison directed that thissubject would be considered at the October study meeting. 464 6. FINAL DRAFT OF SURFACE RUNOFI' MANAGEMENT PLAN With concurrence of would be considered Council, Mayor Harrison announced this subject at the October study meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FILED BY DOROTHY DIRR,ROBERT J. OUINN, NELSON HAYES By memos of Septembe r 6, 1977 and September 15, L977, in each case by investigation report from R. L. Kautz City Attorney recommended denial of these claims. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 83-77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE,, s uppo rted & company, Councilman Amstrup moved consent by Councilman Manginj- . calendar be approved, second Councilman Martin questioned the claim of Mrs. Dorothy Dirr, an elderly woman who had performecl some digging on her property in an attempt to fj-nd a sewer leak with no out of pocket expense. Director of Public Works explained that ordinarily out of pocket expense would have been paj-d in an instance such as this- co-uncilman Martin thought that not paying was somewhat reprehensible, especially since if she had hired a plumber, expense for him would tave been paid. Director of Pubfic works commented he had wrestled with the same problem, but had resolved it in vj-ew of no expense, regardless of age. Ci-ty Attorney co[unented if such a claim were paid, j-t would be opening a "Pand.orars box" for future di-fficulties. Motion carried with a no vote cast specifically on the Dorothy Dirr Claim by Councilman Martin. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE AS A USED CAR DEALER council had received letter of August 3l , L977 from Al-berto Zaffuto, 13790 Beaumont Avenue, saratoga, California applying for permit under the name of "Continental Auto Leasing" at 1037 California Drive. Mayor llarrison set the date of October I7, 1977 for hearing on this permit. RESOLUT IONS introduced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its ailoption, by Councilman Mangini. Motion carried on unanimous roll OF THE was se condcall vote . ORDINANCE 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1114 " ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 6.12.015 REGARDING RENTAL OF PREMISES TO AUCTTONEERS', WAS iNtTOdUCEd fOT fiTSt reading by Councilman Mangini . APPROVALS 1. WARRANTS 7478 THROUGH 7776, duly audited, in the amount of $4?9,186.83 were aPprove d for payment on mot ion of Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote. 2. PAYROLL August, 1977, Check 102 through 45'7 in the amount of of Councilman Mangini, second bY vote. OTH ER HOOVER SCHOOL TRAFFTC COUNT Nos. 7610 through 7994 and $385,914. 85 approved on motion Councilman AmstruP, atl aYe voice Councilman Mangini questioned rrhen this would be accomplishe'l' Director of Public Works stated it was ptanned for Thursday, September 22, ].917 . 465 SB 65 An Act to Amend 3570 and 3578 of the Election Code l4ayor Harrison announced Governor Brown had signed this bill which relates to the mailing of only one sample ballot to a household, where possible, with resulting savings in printing. He requested Cit.y Manager to communicate with the Board of Supervisors, giving the City's encouragement in implementation. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Harrison proclaimed the week of September "Soccer Week in Burlingame"; and October, 1977 Safety Month In Burlingame." 3. Reports: Fire and Police Departments'City Planner: Planning Commission meeting I8 , 1977 as "BicycleAS COMMENDATTONS Mayor Harrison noted commendations from the Chief of Police to Jack Van Etten, Kathleen Morahan, Richard We1ling, Christopher Lawson. ACKNOWLEDGTIENTS I. Letter of September 6, 1977 from Frank L. Derby petitioning for increase in water allotment. City Manager directed toascertain if this is a hardship case deserving of some reasonable increase. 2. Letter of September 2, 1977 from City Clerk advisingexpiration of terms of Beautj-fication Commissioners and Park and Recreation Commissioners. Mayor Harrison directed City Managerto ascertain if these people would be willing to serve anotherterm, and stating appointments would be considered the first meeting in November. Council-man Martin asked if future announcements could contain information on whether or not the first term waspartial or a fu1I term. month of August, 1977. September L2, 1977. 4. Minutes: Park & Planning Commission, September 8, L977. Commission, September l-3;Traffic, Safety & Parking, Recreation August 22; Councilmanat Council ADJOURN}IENT Amstrup suggested that ro11 call for voting purposes meetings no longer be in alphabetical order. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M Respectfully submitted l^:/ -\/ (, LEVel-yn City C.fuuil'/rn rr!.lw.lw