HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.09.06437
BURLINGAIUE,
September
CALIFORNIA
6, L977
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame
above date in the City HaI1 Council
was called to order at 8:03 P.I{. by
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:
Led by Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT :
COUNCIL IIEMBERS ABSENT :
MINUTES
City Council was held on the
Chambers. The meeting
Mayor A.C. "Bud" Harrison.
AMSTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI, MARTIN
NONE.
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 15, L977 were approved
and adopted with addendum, Page 10 of draft minutes, to "Land
Use Traffic Study", steering committee members to include Ralph
Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Wayne Swan, City Planner; and
Thomas Moore, Traffic Engineer.
LIONS CLUB EXCHANGE STUDENT
Ivlayor Harrison noted Lions Club Student Exchange Program in which
MS. Janet Benson recently participated as exchange student to
Finland. Mayor Harrison had given her a letter of introduction
to the Mayor of Homina, Finland. Ms. Benson presented Council
with a book and letter from this Mayor.
BI DS CONSIDERATION OF:
1. HANDICAP RAMPS,DRIVEWAY ABANDONI{ENT FIRE STATION #1 DRIVEWAY
City Attorney requested consideration of thj-s bid be continued
to an adjourned meeting of September 7, L977 - Low bidder,
Valentine Company, had atlegedly made an arithmetical error.
Director of Public Works, havinq been on vacation, had not had
an opportunity to review this situation. Director of Public
Works reported error was approximately $3,600 in the cost of
demolition and removal of existing concreting.
2. I^IATER SYSTE}4 IMPROVEMENTS
City Attorney requested action on this bid also be postponed
to adjourned meeting.
Mayor Harrison continued these bid items to adjourned meeting
of September 7,1977.
HEARINGS
1. TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED ON BAYSWATER AVENUE FROM MYRTLE AVENUE TO HIGHLAND
AVENUE
Director of Publi c Works reviewed area of this proposed district
which is being formed at the initiation of Kohlenberg Ford. This
district covers only an area of approximately two blocks on
Bayswater Avenue from Highland Avenue to Myrtle Road. This
latter boundary of the district goes underneath the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks.
\<
438
Director of Public Works stated that Kohlenberg Eord has agreedto pay connection costs for adjoining property owners in thisdistrict as well as their own. Final- date for completion of
undergrounding is October 1, 7978. A11 property owners had beenproperly notified of hearinq, and he recommended approval of thedistrict.
Mayor Harrison opened the public hearing. Mr. James Putnam,
6185 Skyline, Hillsborough, identified himself as one of the
owners of Putnam Dodge on Bayswater at the boundary of the district.
He questioned if utility poles in front of his establishmentwould be involved and received assurance from the Director ofPublic Works that they would not. He questioned effect ofconstruction on an easement which he has in back of KohlenbergFord. He was j-nformed by Dj-rector of public Works that all
access would be kept open by Kohlenberg Ford at all times andat no cost of Putnam Dodge.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was declaredclosed.
Councilman Mangini questioned exact locationsof power poles in this district. Director ofdetailed this information.
and disposition
Public Works
councilman Martin referred to letter of August 15, 1977 fromFred Kohlenberg stating he would present letter confirming thatKohlenberg Ford would pay City's cost and also letters of endorsementfrom property owners in the proposed district, and noted thesecommunications had not been received.
Mr. Fred'Kohlenberg presented letters of endorsement and under-standing of cost payments from the following:
Marie T., Rose-Marie and carroll otBrien, 246 Hobart Avenue,san Mateo; Lorna and Kenneth Jones, p. o. Box 992, weavervirre,California; James E. Minto, 760 Chateau Drive, Hillsborough; andMarie r. Hinrichs, 2L62 carlmont Drive, Belmont. Also submittedwas letter dated August 23, L977 signed by Fred Kohrenbergconfirming that Kohrenberg Ford wourd pay for cj-ty's cost forundergrounding in this area, estimated at $3rOOO.O0. He alsodisplayed to Council a photographic montage indicating which polesare to be removed.
fn response to question from Mayor Harrison, Mr. Kohlenbergstated that property owners' letters specified that KohlenbergFord would pay for costs. Mr. Kohlenberg added he did not haveletter from Bullis Chevrolet, but that he had discussed the matterwith them and they had one service to underground. Directorof Public Works confirmed that Bu1lis Chevrolet had talked tohis office and they understood that this one pole must be under-grounded.
RESOLUTION NO. 76-77 "ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTTLTTY DISTRICTNO. 5 BAYSWATER AVENUE FROM MYRTLE ROAD TO HIGHLAND AVENUE'' was in-troduced by councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption, secondby Council-man Mangini, all aye ro11 cal1 vote.
Mayor Harrison questioned if they acquiesced.Public l{orks indicated they seemed satisfied.
2. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R-EPORT EIR. OP:
sToRY OFFICE BUILDfNG, 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY.
ASSOCIATES, DEVELOPERS.
Director of
PROPOSED TEN
CHARLES KING &
2A. VARIANCE AND SPECIAI PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR CHARLES KING &
ASSOCfATES PROJECT AT 1350 BAYSHORE HTGHWAY
At the request of Mayor Harrison, City planner
actions on this project which started six years
reviewed past
ago as a
439
sixteen story office building. In November, 1972 EIR 4P was
executed for this project and subsequently approved by Council
on February 20, 1973 by Resofution No. J-4-73. Construction of
the project was initiated but terminated in February of 1974 with
only excavation completed. In early 1977 application was submitted
for a seven story buifding with 168,000 SF floor area. This
was studied by the Planning Commission. Project was changed to
ten story office building with 144,000 SF floor area. On
July 25, 1977 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-77,
EIR-40P \./as recommended to the City Counci] for approval. This
project required a special permit for exceeding 50' in heigrht
and a variance from parking requlations which would al1ow 208 of
required parking to be compact spaces. Special permit and
variance were approved at Planning Commissj-on meetinq of
July 25 , t977. AIso approved was a special pennit for a financial
institution at this address. City Planner noted Council action as
being certification of this EIR, and for informational purposes
he read findings of fact on the project incorporated in Planning
Commission Resolution 5-77.
City Planner stated project sponsors, design consultants and
staff were available for questions.
Councifman llangini guestloned whether or not BCDC approved of
this project. City Planner referred to the 1973 project'
revised lo remove deve lopment from within 100' of the shoreline.
At that time BCDC had ruled the project was not within their
jurisdiction. This present project also is not within their
j urisdiction.
Councilman Mangini
conrmon driveway for
this s t111 must be
toward a solution.
Mayor Harrison opened
no comments from the
declared closed.
questj-oned if Airport Marina had agreed to a
ingress and egress. City Planner replied
negotiated but the hotel is willing to work
the pubtic hearing on EIR 40P. There were
audience, and the public hearing was
Councifman Mangini referred to EIR addendum with reference
data on compact cars and questioned if there were methods which
would avoid abuse of this type of parking. City Planner replied
that design of access aisle making both sides available for
compacts is helpful , as is proper identification and striping'
It is also helptul to have all compact spaces close to the building
and economical to have them in one location. rn this building
they extend from the rear of the building back toward the shoreline.
Councilman Amstrup questioned if the Planning Commission had made
a determination on ttre $S,OOO contribution totrard signalization
on the previous project. City Planner replieal this is not within
the preiogative of the Co**i.sion, but confirmed this $5,000 had
been paid and Councj-1 may wish to specify addj-tional conditions.
Mayor Harrison remarked he had checked with enqrineering staff on
a similar signal installation on Murchison Drive and the cost
was about $31,000.
Councilman Amstrup commented this should be considered as more
than a ten story building since it is ten stories wj-th a penthouse '
He noted this project contemplates obtaining approval from BCDC
for parking on a portion of their jurisdiction. In the event
BCDC does not give this approvat, alternate plans are proposed
which involve parking structures. He emphasized council di-sapproval
of parking structures. He also noted that 25' al-ong the shoreline
is reserved for a linear park and proposed parking extends into
this.
Mayor Harrison questioned City Pl-anner as to present status of
parking along slioreline. City Planner reported this area is
presenily being used for overflow parking for the adjoining
building. While it would be non-conforming, the project sponsor
440
claims it is an existing area that coul-d be utilized' He agreed
with Councilman Amstrup that some of the parking woul"d have to be
moved to provide for the path along the shoreline.
Mayor Harrj-son questioned what type of parking structure i,/ou1d
be necessary if BCDC ditl not approve the rear parking. City
Planner cited alternate plan on EIR Page 73 $rith one story
unroofed deck in back of building with up and down access ramps.
Councilman Mangini guestioned why noise insulation was not addressed
in the EIR. City Planner stated the EIR is not the type of
document which can require architectural J-mprovements. He referred
quest j-on to consultants.
Mr. Del Davis, whose company prepared the EIR, referenced EIR
Page 45, 1st paragraph which describes type of glass used inexterior walIs and states, "A specific analysis by an acousticalengineer would assess the noise reduction factor for these typesof g1ass. Further mitigation could be offered by the introductionof double glazing. The economic feasibifity of this alternativehas not been examined as part of this EIR. "
Councilman Martin commented that the rationale for approving abuilding over the 50' height lj-mit would be so that more parking
would be avaj.l-able and open space would not be impeded. Henoted that with this project parking is available, but if aparking structure of even one story is necessary, it will hindervisual access to the Bay as well as a ten story building. Healso commented that landscaping did not seem adequate and questioned
$/hy some mitigation measures had not been demanded in exchangefor the variance. City Ptanner reported that landscaping doesmeet the 15? requirement, and. reviewed changes in project planswhich resulted in less lot coverage and improved parking.
Councilman Amstrup questioned if non-conforming parking spaceson Alternate +1 were counted even with the deck, and what theparking situation would be j_f BCDC denied the developer theiruse. City Pfanner replied they were included in parking count,and if they were reduced the parking would still be adequate.
In response to questions from Mayor Harrj_son, City planner statedparking woufd still be adequate with allowance for bike path,and he could not state BCDCTs reaction to the non-conformingspaces without further checking.
City Attorney commented he thought BCDC would not deal with thenon-conforming spaces.
Councilman Martin questioned if the 25 spaces shown under BCDC wouldbe used even if the parking structure were buj_It. City planner
confirmed. The Councilman questioned if this meant a parkingstructure would be built in any event. City planner referred toproposed original plan in which, if BCDC gives approval, 75? of
BCDC jurisdiction could be used for parking and no structurewould be necessary.
Councilman Martin disliked the projection of the 25 spaces withthe parking structure, and the immense expanse of parking with theoriginal pIan.
In response to question from Mayorthat when the original project wasthat if the height was reduced thebe larger.
Harrison, City Planner confirmed
consi-dered it was realizedbulk of the building would
Councilman Mangini noted he had asked several months ago that
BCDC attitude toward this project be determined, and he woulddefinitely like to ascertaj-n their opinion.
In the Council dj-scussion following, it i"/as agreed that BCDC
44L
had stated they had no jurisdiction over the original plan in
1973 which was not in their 100'; that BCDC woufd have jurisdiction
over the present proposed plan but not over Alternate #1 , and that
this project had not been presented to them yet because City
approval must be gained first.
Counci lman Martin questioned if the 15* landscaping depends upon
the 25' strip to be given for the bike path. City Planner
confirmeil.
RECESS
After a short recess at 9:00, meetj-ng reconvened.
RESOLUTION NO. 76-77 NCERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
CHARLES KING AI{ D ASSOCIATES PROPOSED OFEICE CENTER AT 1350 BAYSHORE
HIGHWAY - EIR 4OP" was introduced by Councilman Crosby who moved
its adoption. Second by Councilman Mangini, all aye roll call
vote .
At request of Mayor Harrison, City Planner again reviewed.
parti6ulars of variance, special permit, and permit for financial
institution. In response to Council question, he stated that
while the financial institution was aPproveil by the Planning
Commission, it was their specification that aIf other retail
uses must come in for permit.
Mayor Harrison oPened public hearing. There \'/as no audience
reiponse and the Public hearing was declared closed.
Councilman 7\mstrup stated he could not see
give a variance fot 202 compact spaces when
inow how many parking spaces are involved.
Councilman Mangini questioned if Mr. Heller had not implied
that parking i; the BCDC area was "grandfathered in" and could
not be interfered with. Mr. I{ef ler stated this was correct
and had been brought up in every scheme for this development
including Lg72-73. He stated the developers had no reason to
believe ihat they woul-d not have that parkj-ng and that BCDC
would not be able to exempt. He added that there are many
structures that are grandfathered in by BCDC throughout the
area.
Counci lman Mangini suggested that Council approval of the parking
variance could be conditioned on determination of BCDC jurisdiction.
Mayor Harrison questioned Mr. Hel-ler if, presuminq. the parking
wai grandfathered in and if there was no problem with BCDC,
wouli the plan shown on EIR Page 7 be the choice of the developer'
Mr. Hell-er explained the paving that does exist that would be
grandfathered in is only ihe 25 spaces shown on the Alternate #1
witt tte parking structure. Proposed plan (Page 7) shows present
open space which could be used for parking with BCDC approval
wj-th the exceptj-on of the 25' fot the bike path.
Mayor Harrison asked City Planner what was wrong with the seven
story project proposed in Apri1. City Planner replied that even
though- compact pait<ing was dj-scussed at that time, variance
woul-6 have- been- requiied for even more parking spaces. Planning
Commission disapproved this concept and suggested alternate be
prepared. ttre trtiyor questioned if part of landscaping being in
ttre ZS' strip was also considered in this p1an. Cj-ty Planner
con fi rmed .
councilman Mangini questioned if basement parking was inadvisable
because of the water table. city Planner stated it was.
Counci lman Martin suggested that if the building were reduced to
eight stories it would not be necessary to have parking structure
or the 25 appendage spaces. City Planner agreed. The Councilman
how the Council could
it is impossible to
442
then noted that if signal-ization is required, there is no stipulationthat the developer should pay for it. He requested report fromthe Dj-rector of Public Works on the effect of this project ontraffic capacity. Director of Public Works reported that EIR
statement of 60? capacity of Bayshore Boulevard was figured onthrough stream without any turning movements, which involve aconsiderable amount of traffic activity. It was his opinion, asreported to the Planning Commission, that the addition of trafficmaking turns into or out of this site would probably impact
Bayshore Boulevard to a great extent. He recommended the use ofa signal somewhere between Broadway and Mahler Road to make abreak in traffic. On Mayor Harrj_son's question as to one oppositethe Airport Marina driveway, he stated that would be a reasonablepoint if the project driveway and Airport Marina driveway couldbe combined.
Councilman Martin stated utility capacity was not clear in theEIR and requested staff report. Director of public Works statedarea east of freeway needs additional water support in order toprovide safety for highrise. fn the event of i major fire watersupply wou1d not be adequate. Sanitary sewer is aL or nearcapacj-ty during peak loads. It would approach capacity with thisproject, and he r"/ouId question any othei deve lopmlnt ii the area.He went on to say that a study is to be made of water,sewer,and storm drain needs for the entire City. Results will betaken into consj-deration for a 5 year capital improvement plan.The r4rater study has already been accompl-ished and indicate-s aneed for $500,000 worth of improvements east of the freeway.
Council discussion foflowed to the point of ho$, much parkingwould be needed for a 50, building and possibility of a buiiaingof this height "wa1l-ing off,, the Bay.
Councj-1man Mangini noted statement in EIR with relation tosewage that ". . . the most serious problem is the generallypoor condition of the Iines.,, and questioned this because oi therelatively new area. Director of public Works explained thereare a couple of bad spots along the Bayshore itighway, one of theoldest in the area, and they are being repaired.
Mayor Harrison asked developer what his reaction would be toi"rard.an eight story building by which parking couLd be satisfiedwithout a.parking structure and without the 25 spaces. CharlesKing, project developer, indicated he was opposed to this conceptfor various reasons and that probably ttre eniire project wourd haveto be redesigned from the beginning.
councilman Martin suggested hearing be continued to next councilmeeting so that Mr. King coufd work on this concept. Mr. Kingrequested review of specifics desired.
Mayor Harrison stated Council would like plan incorporating:
1. Eight story structure2. No parking structure3. Exclusion of 25 parking spaces in SE corner of site4. Consideration of water and signal.ization5. Resolution of joint driveway consideration with Airport Marina
The Mayor questioned Mr. King if he would need more time thanthe septerber J-9 meeting. Mr. King indicated he could accomplishby that meeting.
Councilman Martin moved this hearing1977, second by Councilman Mangini,
RE CESS
be continued to September 19,carried unanimously.
After short recess at 10:05, meeting reconvened.
443
3. TO CONSIDER EXTENSION OF URGENCY INTERIM ORDTNANCE
''REQUIRING SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROJECTS NORTH AND EAST
FREEWAY AND WfTHIN THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA..'
NO. 110 7
OF BAYSHORE
Mayor Harrison, after introducing this hearing, read in fuI1
letter of August 29, L977 from Commercial Credit Industrial Corporation,
l-409 Rollins Road, requesting "moratorium" be lifted, and if not,
that this business have special permission to erect a 760 SF
one story addition to their of fj-ce buitding at this address.
Cj-ty Planner then reviewed situation which 1ed to the adoption
of this urgency ordinance whj-ch will expire on this date unless
extended, He noted that ordinance provides that Pfanning Commission
shafl conduct a study in the area covered by the ordinance, and
reported study had been commenced August )', 1977 with the agreement
executed with land use consultant and traffic consultant.
However, studj-es are not complete by the expiration date of this
ordinance, and he noted letter of August ll , L977 from Planning
Commission Chairman Thomas Taylor recommending that ordinance
be extended until such study is complete.
Mayor t{arrison reported on steering committee meetings and
proposed joint meeting of committee, Planning Commission, and-councit o; septembe r i+11 1977 pointing toward final counci-1
action on the studies on october L7 ' 1977. He then read in fuII
letter from David Keyston, Anza Pacific Trust, dated August 8t !977,
requesting that this ordinance not be extendeal , in return for
which he riould agree to bring preliminary plans for every project
proposed in the Anza property in to the Council in adequate
liml so that if any plans are objectionable the Council could
then reinstitute the emergency ordinance. He specified five
projects contemplated, requested they be exempted, as well as
trotels, motels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation
facilities and conforming offices up to 50,000 SF.
Mayor Harrison announced pubtic hearing on extension of this
ordinance.
David Keyston add.ressed Council-, requesting deletion of-Regency
Deve lopment from project list, since they wish to. redesign. He
recommended that if ordinance is extended it be l-i-mited to
office buildings which are the main density threat.
He reviewed control Anza will allow the Cj-ty in any event, and the
fact that Anza owns over 908 of fand in M-1 and C-4. He suggested
avoiding costly EIRs by using Council review of negative
declaraiions, ind stated he had delivered to staff preliminary
plans for Kee Joons. He introduced Tracy Flov/ers, developer of
Jilly's West.
Mr. Flowers reviewed compl-iance of this project, which will
include high class restaurant, a disco, and weekly programs for
senior citizens and teenagers.
Mr. Keyston added that he had made a request for exemption of
Avi-s REnt-A-Car from which organization he had receive'l a
commitment for the bike path pending its extension on either
s.ide of their proPertY.
Mr. Richard Lavenstein, broker for industrial property in the
M-1 zone, urged Council to confine the ordinance to problems
which form its basis - which problems exclude the M-l- zone' He
pointed out existence of this ordinance discourages development
of such uses as warehouses, for which he had clients, and whj-ch
do not contribute to density as do office buildings.
Mr. Gary Godby, Executive Director, Coalition of Concerned
Citizeni, told Council his organization had gone on record as
opposing this ordinance. He pointed out that passage of every
.ontt, =e"s an increase in construction costs with resul-tant effect
on developers and ultimate consumers.
444
Mr. Thomas Taylor, Chairman of the Planning Commission addressedthe Council to the point that, in his opinion, the Pfanning Commiss j-on
had no objection to the modification of the ordinance. However,the Planning Commission feels that this area of the City shouldbe an integral part of the City and should be developed recognj-zingthe needs of the entire community. On thj-s basis, they urqethat the ord.inance be extended with such modifications as mavbe appropriate.
Mr. Frank Pagliaro, attorney, resident of Burlingame, wanted theordinance extended, warning that when this area is fj_na1lydeveloped there will be no more developable land in the CityTherefore the uses shoutd be consi.dered carefulty.
Ms. Claudia Hansen, 1414 Paloma, wanted ordinance extendedbecause of concern with traffic and other impacts.
Mayor Harrison asked if EIRs would sti11 be needed after Bfaneyand Drachman reports are completed, or if reports would containsufficient information. City planner stated EIRS would not beneeded after a master EIR is presented. He added it was Council'sdecision to require EIRS, but in his opinion it is not necessary.The Mayor then asked j-f Councj.l extended the ordinance six monthsand did away with EIRs on aI1 projects except office buildj_ngs ofa certa.in magnitude, would it alleviate part of the concernsof the devel-opers of the prooosed uses, with comptete informationavailable at the end of six months. city prannei affirmed it wourd.The Mayor then questioned what effect thL exemption of Keyston'sthree restaurants would have on the two report-. City pllnner
reminded Cor:ncil that permitting a large number of pr6jects tobe allowed without access does not solve the probleir. He notedthat a recommendation in the Blaney report is that a four-laneroad be constructed in the Anza area. He suggested Councilhad to solve that probtem.
Mr. Keyston, speaking to that statement, told Council his engineerwould have available on September 7, tg77 an alternate for thealignment of Airport Boulevard within Anza property in accordancewith EIR Plan 2, and plan for 4-1ane road ii-r a-ccor-dance withPlan 3. He added his three projects are all on State 1ands,which lands cannot be used for resi-dential , office or warehouseuses, and neither they nor the Avis modification would addsubstantially to traffic.
Councilman Crosby asked for review of ordinance modificatj_onsproposed by the City planner. City planner revj_ewed his memoof August l-1, 1977 suggesting exemptions of: I. Specialtyrestaurants less than 35' in height (on their own site - notincorporated in office building) , 2. Small office buildingsless than 35' in height with tess than 15,000 SF gross f1o6r area,3. Projects located southerly of Bayshore Ereeway in Mi1lsdateIndustriaf Park satisfying zoning regulations and requiring nomore than 50 parking spaces.
Councj-lman Crosby questioned what uses are permitted on Statelands. Mr. Keyston specified uses incl-uded hotels, motels,cornsnercial and. recreati-onal uses.
Councilman Mangini asked if there coufd be extension of theordinance and stil1 have exemptions that woulal protect the City.
Counci Iman Amstrup noted that ',Restaurant Row,, is consid.ered anadjr:nct to the City. He thought it would be j_n the City's bestj-nterests to have a few more good restaurants on the walerfrontand questioned if Council wished to wait six months and 1etdevelopers abandon their proj ects.
ques tion ing
ongoing studies
Council-man Mangini agreed with Councilman Amstrup,if the City actually needed the ordinance with tire
445
and the statement by City Planners that EIRS were not needed for
all projects.
City Attorney coNnented that aII projects could not be exempted
from ETRS since State guidelines must sti11 be rnet.
Councilman Martin stated he did not see the problem the developers
had with the ordj-nance since they could come in for exemptions
and special permits. City Attorney emphasized that the Council
had requested EIRS on aIf projects. The Councilman considered
that the only modification necessary was to eliminate the EIR
requirement for every project, and let developers come in for
special permits. City Attorney confirmed that Council could
remove the blanket requirement for EIRS. Then projects would go
to City Planner's decision as to whether or not they required an
EIR.
Councj-1man Amstrup commented that in public opinion this ordinance
constitutes a moratoriurn, and he had feared that it would hold up
most building until consultants I reports were received.
Councilman Crosby move d that the blanket EIR requirement,
as otherwj-se required by State 1aw, be removed, second by
Ams trup .
except
Counci lman
Councilman Martin questioned if there should be prior action on
the ordinance, noting that if this motion was passed and the
ordinance was not extended, all controls would be taken off.
Motion and second were withdrawn.
At the request of Councilman Martin, City Attorney
provisions of urgency ordinance, noting that it is
a requirement that special permits be applied for
Commission and City Council.
Mayor Harrison noted that
would by the fact of the
come to Council.
re viewedbasically
through Planning
the proposed exemptions already discussed
motion not be exempt but would have to
RE CES S
After short recess at 1l-:15 P.M.meeting reconvened.
Councilman Mangini moved that the urgency orilinance be extended
for six months with the modification that requests for special
permits that would not ord.inaril-y go through the Planning
Commission would come directly to the City Council. Second by
Councilman Crosby.
Motion carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
Cor:ncilman Crosby move d that blanket provision for EIRS for all
projects in this area be removed. Second by Councilman Amstrup,
carried unanimously.
City Attorney stated he would prepare formaf legislation extending
Urqency Interim ordinance No' 1107.
4
o
REVOCATION OF' AMUSEMENT PERMIT TWO OICLOCK A.M. TO SIX
' CLOCK A.M. LUCKY LADY, AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Mayor Harrison requested staff report-
city Attorney reviewed Council action at meeting of August 15,
1977 revoking tne above permit. He noted staff had thought they
had informed the operators of this meeting, but they did not
appear. Subsequent to that meeting he was contacted by counsel
tor f,ucky Lady to the effect it was not a proper hearing. The
operators did qet a temporary restraining order from Judge Lanam.
446
Mayor Harrison asked for update on the operation from PoficeChief. Police Chief reported that since March, 19'77 there have
been a total of approximately 14 incidentqreported which occurredafter 2:00 A.M. The concern to his department is the disproportionate
amount of service they require, and the violent acts that takeplace out there. Police manpower is based on the volume of activity,
and manpower is reduced after 3:00 A.M. The Police Departmenthas two alternatives for this location: either reallocate
manpower or beef up security forces. Since the Chief,s report onAugust L5t 1977 there was an incident on August 21 , 1977 wherethere was a large gathering of people at this establishment and aglass door was broken. Police Chief recommended that the afterhours permit for the 2:00 A.M. - 6:00 A.M. operation be revoked
due to the types of people and incidents that occur at this locatj_on.
Mayor Harrison questioned appfication of Council condition thatyoung people under 18 must leave at 9:30 p.M. pol_ice Chiefstated he did not believe this had been enforced, nor had therequirement that those leaving pay $2.00 to re-enter.
Mr. John J. Pj-co, Attorney, 520 S. Ef Camino, San Mateo, appearedas counsel for operators ,fohnson and Rossi. He stated hj.s under-standing that the issue was the after-hours operation and not theteenage permit. At issue was the property rights of the operatorson which a judicial decision should be made. This counseladdressed his arguments toward the police Department incidentreports of August 4, 1977 and August 15, 197j. He stated thatduring the past nine months there had been a total of five dayswhen there was an after hours incident at the Lucky Lady. Hedetail-ed these five days: May l_5, 1977, no police response.Next incident was the confiscation of a pistol, no furlher policeaction. rncident after that was a request at the police st;tionfor investigation - no effect on police officer down time. Thetwo remaining days were July 16, 1977 when police responded twj_ceto a fight and August 13, 1977, another fight response. Thecounsel stated he could not respond to last incident notedtonight by Police Chief because this occurred. when the LuckyLady was closed. Mr. Pico contended that since the issue waspolice department down time, closure of this establishment is notjustj-fied on the basis of police response on only two occasj_ons -July 16, 1977 and August 13, 1977. He stated he had visited thepremises recently and the security had been doubled - two uniformedand tr,ro civilian guards - and the lighting in the parking 1ot hadbeen increased. He pointed out he could not promi;e thai therewil-1 never be another incident nor that the police Departmentwill never be caI1ed, but Ms. Johnson and Mr. Rossi hive beentrying very hard and the fact of two days, happenings in the pastnine months spoke to their efforts.
Mayor Harrison remarked that Mr. pico's address to the Councilas a judicial body was not well taken, since Council must maketheir decisj-on based on what is best for the peopl-e of Burlingame.
Councilman Crosby questioned the civilian security guards.Mr. Pico stated they were people who work at othei iimes atother establishments for the purpose of keeping ord.er.
Cor:ncilman Mangini corrnented Council had received reports ofabout 16 incidents, but Mr. pico stated there were only two.Mr. Pico again went over list of incidents individually, one ofwhich was a report from young people to the police Depirtmentthat someone tried to seII them hash at this place, a;d repeatedthere were only two days involving police response.
Police Chief addressed Council, stating that just because anofficer d.oes not respond to the location, it does not meanthat he does not later go out there. He cited 2-3 cases whereindividuals i,re re hospitalized from disturbances and then reported
City Attorney stated this is a properly noticed meeting and operators
and their counsel are present.
447
to the Police Department. He gounted a total of nine
arrests occurring at the establ-ishment.
City Attorney commented the issue needs to be defined as more
than the time of the Police Department: There is the issue
of danger to people. The incialents seem to be more frequent as
to violence. The people who were milling around the night the place
was closed had been drinking and hoping it was open.
Mr. Pico responded to this latter statement that there were two
ethnic groups on this evening who went out there for a fight
because it was closed and it was an open area of town. He did
not believe the Lucky Lady had a larger police response, pro-
portionately, than other establishments.
Mayor Harrison declared public hearing open.
Mrs. Diane Pickett, 730 Walnut Avenue, respondeal with praise
for the manner in which the teenage operation j-s run. As the
mother of a teenage daughter, she had been in the Lucky Lady
several times. She commented that teenagers do need a place to
go in this area, and she thought it was worthy of support.
There were no further comments, and the public hearing
was declared closed.
Councilman Mangini questioned how long they had been open
under the restraining order and was informed by staff that it was
the past two weekenils. Mr. Pico stated that the new security
patrol had been hired during this time'
Councilman Amstrup cornmented he appreciated the fact that
teenagers need a p:lae {:o go, but the City did not need an establish-
ment that had these incidents. A place open for these late hours
wil-1 attract a certain type of people.
Mayor Harrison concurred.
Councilman Mangini stated he had been a supporter of this place
from its incidence, but even though he thought teenagers should
have a place, it should not be at this cost to the Cj-ty, and
he could not supPort.
Councilman Crosby noted his and Councilman Martin's support of
teenage program, but he had changed his mind after the police
report, and he did not thj-nk this after hours operation should be
permitted so1ely to support the teenage operation.
Councilman Martin agreed, stating it was not a question of the
Police Department's time, but a question of people getting hurt.
City Attorney noted that any motion to revoke permit should
contain findings as to reasons for the decision.
Councj-lman Martj-n moved that the 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. permit
be revoked, but $rith continuation of the 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A'M.
operation for the youth, with conditions as j-mposed in original
permit. Reasons for revocation are too many police j-ncidents,
too costly to the City, danger to the public; in short, health
safety reasons. Second by Councilman Amstrup. Motion carried
following roll call vote:
AYES : COUNCILMEN: A.IvISTRUP, CROSBY,MANGINI, MARTIN
NAYES: COLINCILMEN: HARRISON (opposed to entire operation)
and
on
448
5. APPEAL OF
TO BURLTNGAME
TO FOX MALL.
JOSEPH
AVENUE
KARP FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RELATIVE
SPECIAL DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE
Council had received letter of August L5, 1977 from Joseph Karp,
one of the deve l-opers of this project, appealing Planning Commissiondecision relative to the Burlingame Avenue Special District Parking
Requirements which specified there was a net parking deficiencyof four spaces for each project, Mr. Karprs contention was that
amenities provided in the construction caused the overage of lot
coverage and he should not be penalized for such.
At request of Mayor Harrison, City Planner reviewed special permit
and parking determination for this project which consists of twoseparate buildings on two separate fots of 9,000 SF each. Aninterior court, 20' x 80', containing a stairway and elevator,is common to both buitdings. A ten foot exterior covered deckprovides access to second floor shops on both buildj-ngs.
Because of deck, stairway and elevator, each building has a lot
coverage of 8,030 SE, or 89.2E lot coverage. Lot coverage of 758is exempt from parking contribution. Both these projects have a
non-exempt floor area of f,280 SF, or 14.28 excess lot coverage,
and will therefore be subject to parking contribution. CityPlanner quoted findings of Planning Commission Resolution #3-76which recommends use of parking contribution formula, and whi_chfindings state, 'rThe amount of gross floor area . . . above thesereview lines would be used to determine parking deficiency measuredat one parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area.',He went on to state that a gross overage of 1,280 SF equals
300a parking deficiency of four parking spaces. planning Commissionhad recommended approval of this special permit subject to developersrpaying to the Parking District approximate ly $2,500 per parkingspace, i.e., $10,000.
On question from Councilmancal-culations were that thespaces for each building.
Mangini, City Planner confirmed theproject was deficient four parking
Mr. Joseph Karp, I106 Juanita, addressedof this project. He showed rendering ofhistory and expense of project plans. Hehad been most cooperative and he1pful.
Council as co-developerthe project and reviewed
noted that city staff
Mr. Karp emphasized that the buildings themselves are under theprescribed limits for 1ot coverage. The overage of l-,290 SFis caused by the addition of such amenities as the 10' deck on thesecond floor to provide easy access, and the efevator and staircase in the central court.
Mr. Karp referred to Planning Commission Resolution 3-76referenced by City Planner in computing parking deficiency. Hestated he had obtained copy of this resolution with ExhibitsA and B. Exhj-bit A, Findings, incorporated in the resolution,was adopted by the Planning Commissi-on. The same resolutionstates the Planning Commission endcrses the concept of Exhibit Bas revised August 26, L976. He quoted second page of Exhibit Bwhich states, "The deficiency, d1 , can be calcufated by dividingthe non-exempt gross floor area by 300 square feet to obtain thenunber of parking spaces deficient. If the parcel area isIess than 10,000 SFr d, =ross floor area - 1.5 x 1ot area
00
Using this formula on his lot, which is less than I0,000 SF,produces: dI =(12,s00 + 1,?80) - (r3,500)
300
Mr. Karp commented that after the Planning Commission decisionand before his discovery of this formula, he couLd have decidedto eliminate the overhang on the front of the building and cutthe decks back, but he did not want to destroy the attractivenessof the building. He noted Council at some time will have to
make a decision regarding amenities versus gross area. He
419
Mr.
mo re
stated it appeared there was a deficiency of.93 spaces per site,
for a project total of 2 spaces.
I,layor Harrison questioned City Planner if formula on Page 2
of Exhibit B stamped "tentative'r \"7as the specific formula that
the City has now. City PLanner replied that those numbers werepreliminary to the drafting of Resolution +3-76. He believed
there was a mis interpretation of the I.5. Different size lotsfa1l into different categories. If the lot area is 10,000 SF,a FAR ratio of 1.5 would have a gross floor area of l-5,000 SF.If it were a 7,500 SE Iot, you could get 15,000 SF gross floor
area with a FAR of 2.0. ft is a matter of reviewj-ng whi-chIimitation applies, and not the FAR.
Councilman Martin asked to see calculatj-ons from Mr. Karp. Mr.
Karp obliged, presenting his calculations as above on a flashcard. He stated he hadn't had an opportunity to discuss withhis partner, but he would be willing to consider some contribution.
He woul-d acknowledge the .93 as one parking space; and althoughhe felt he was exempt, he would consider makj-ng a contributionfor one parking space for each building. He added he did notpropose this formula. City Planner commented he thought theCity was "creating a monster" in expecting the staff to recommendparking contributions. Staff j-s only recommending the number of
spaces deficient. But where there is a parking deficiency aparking contribution d.oes not mean anything unless parking spaceis provideil. The money is not going to provide parking.
Councilman Mangini requested confirmation that the size of thedeck figures in the non-exempt floor area. Mr. Karp confirmed
and stated that it definitely was an amenity since the Building
Code provides that a deck of only 44" is adequate. He addedthat Resolution 3-76 with attached Exhibits A and B he obtainedfrom City records. Counci lman Mangini commented that Exhibit Bdid not look like a final document.
Mayor Harrison questioned if Exhibit B was the accepted approvedformula. City Planner replied his formula was based upon Einding #3of Exhibit A. Exhibit A superseded Exhibit B. City Attorney
cornmented that the second paragraph of Resolution 3-76states that the Planning Cornmission endorses the concepts ofExhibit B.
Mayor Harrison asked for comment from a member of the Traffic, Safety,and Parking Commission who had worked on devetoping the formula.
Mr. Harry Graham, Traffic, Safety a Parking Commission, told
Cor:nci1 he had been on the cornmittee working on this formula.
The comnittee's concept at that time was that any structure inthe district would probably be 908 leasabIe. Floor space thatis not leased does not create any deficiencies. He suggestealthat the overage on this project was not leasable area, and hethought the Council should consider a formula based on leasablearea. Otherwise, commercial buiJ.dings might lose a Iot ofameni-ties.
Karp again reviewed developer's efforts to make the buildingsattractive.
Mayor Harrison questioned when Mr. Karp would have the contributionto the City. Mr. Karp replied that he would deposit a check tothe City, but commented that if there is no parking spaceavailable , it isnrt fair.
Councilman Martin requested. further clarification on Exhibit B.City Attorney stated he thought Exhibit B was end.orsed but thefindings were Exhibit A. City Planner expJ-ained the Councilpacket incorporated the resolution and Exhibit A. Exhibit B wasthe working paper revised. ft was the basic approach used, butthe formula is actually Finding #3 of the resolution.
450
Council and staff
After further/discussion as to whether Exhibit B was a fj-nal or
working paper, Mr. Harry Graham again addressed Council. He thought
no one had yet been hurt by the parking formula, and this case
seems to be a matter of misinte rpretation. He suggested Council
aIlo\"/ Mr. Karp his variance, accept his contri-bution, and work
toward a formula considering the amount of space that is non-
leasable.
Mrs. Ruth Jacobs, Planning Commission member, commented that this
issue of non-leasable space is a precedent, and decision should
not be made quickly.
After further Council and staff discussi-on, Mr. Karp offered
to pay $2,500 right now regardless of whether parking became
available or noti or $5,000 if the City gets parking within the
next three years.
Mayo
goin
hew
COMMUNICATIONS
r Hargto
ould
rison commented on the possibility
update parking in the near future.
pay $5,000 for the two projects.
that
Mr.
the City was
Karp then stated
Cor:ncilman Mangini moved the City accept the $5,000 contribution
for this project, second by Councilman Crosby.
City Attorney stated it should be clarified for future purposes
that Exhibit B was a working document.
Councilman Mangj-ni questioned Mr. Karp if the $5,000 was a firm
contribution and not retractable. Mr. Karp stated this took
care of his parking contribution and it was unrestricted as to
use by the City.
Councilman Crosby questioned if City Planner still considered
there should be four parking spaces for each building. City
Planner confj-rmed, with explanation of why he consj-dered Mr.
Karprs method an ove rs imp Ii fication.
Mayor Harrison suggested that the Cor:ncil
parking in terms of non-leasable space.
this shoufd be investigated.
look toward considering
Counci lman Amstrup agreed
Mr. Martin Del Campo, architect, showed site plan and pointed
out efforts made to make building attractive, but which had
contributed to overage.
Motion carried on the following ro11 call- vote:
1. CITY MANAGE R TRANSMITTING
RECOMMENDATIONS: STOP SIGNS,
TRAFEIC, SAFETY, PARKING COMMISS ION
MAJILLA & CHULA VISTA A\,GNUE S
Letter of August L9, t977 from Chairman of thj-s Commission
recommended installation of stop signs to replace the yield signs
on Maj j-I1a Avenue at Chufa Vj-sta Avenue. By endorsement of
August 3!, l-977, City Manager afso recommended.
Council concurred that fegislation should be prepared.
2. CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC I.IORKS: TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP, 75]- CAIIFORNIA DR]VE, RE COMIVIEN DE D BY PLANNING COMMISSION
WITH CONDITIONS
!.{emo of August 29, 1977 from Director of Public Works informed
Council of Planning Commission approval with condj-tions and
recommended its approval . City Manager concurred, by endorsement
of August 31, L977.
Councilman Crosby moved this map be approved with these conditions,
AYES: COUNCILI,IEN: AMSTRUP,MANGINI,HARRISON
NAYES : COUNCILMEN: CROSBY,MARTIN
451
seconal by Council-man Mangj-ni, carried unanimously.
RESOLUTI ONS
1. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR CON-
STRUCTION, OWNERSI]TP, OPERATION AND USE OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Mayor Harrison stated this resolution would be considered at themeeting of September 1,9, 1977. (Adopted at special meeting
September 14, 1977.)
ORDINANCES
1. ORDINANCE NO. 1112 "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25.72.0I0
OF THE BURLINGA.I4E MI]NTCIPAL CODE AND THE ZONING MAPS THERETN
INCORPORATED BY RECLASSIFYING THE SOUTHWESTERLY 43.33 FEET OF
LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 1, AND THE ADJOINING PORTION OF SAN MATEO
AVENUE WITH THE NORTHEASTERIY 75 FEET OF LOTS 11 AND L2, BLOCK 2,
AND LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 2, DECOULON SI]BDIVISION, FROM THIRD
RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICT TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT"
rrras presented for consideration and hearing.
Mayor Harrison opened public hearing on this ordinance. There
were no co[unents from the audience and the public hearing wasdeclared closed.
On motion of Councilman Mangj-ni, second by Councilman Crosby,
Ordinance No.1112 passed its second reading and was adoptedon unanimous ro11 call vote.
Mayor Harrison proclaimed September Ll , 1977 Sister Cities InternationalDay't, Septembar 15 through October L5, 1977 as "Easter SealMembership Month" , and proclamation "Recognizing Unj-ted Way'sFaI1 Campaign. "
ACKNOWLE DGMENTS
Meeting adjourned at t:30 A. M. to meeting of Septembe r 7,1977.
Respectf u1ly submitted,
,' -,/ -'t / '
t ) r-1t,,^ , /r/. ,/L-L L,nv6lyh W F,itL'City Clerk
PROCLAMAT I ONS
1. Letter of August 17, 1977 from San Mateo County TransitDistrict regarding three public hearings scheduLed in San Mateoand Santa Clara Counties on September L3, 14, and 15, 1977regarding abandonment of S.P. Railroad's peninsula commute service.Ci-ty Manager was d.irected to arrange for City representation.
2. Letter of August 16, 1977 from State Senator Foran relativeto various bills which Cor:nci1 supports and opposes.
3. City P1anner report Planning Commission meeting, August 22, L977.4. Minutes: Beautj-fication Commission, August 4; Library Board,August 16; Librarianrs Report, August 16; Pl_anning Commissionminutes, August 8; Traffic, Safety, Parking Commission, August ll ,tgj7,5. Comnunications: Mrs. Norbert Doyle: A & D identificationsigns, August 24, 1977 .4. League of California Cities: Acknowledgment of check forheadquarters office building project.5. Broadway Burlingame Area Merchants Association commendationto staff of several departments, August 15, 1977.6. Putnam Dodge, Inc., co[unendation of park Department staff.
Mayor Harrison requested members let City Manager know j_f theyare attending League of California Citiei conference,
September 26,27,28, 1977.
ADJOURNMENT