Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.11.21I AdJournment - Regutar meettng adjo mtnutes, Item 5 - Councilman Amstr he had sent a Letter to Council fo meeting that he wtshed to appeal t the variance and speclal permit foHotel. Page 497 draft mi,nutes, It Councilman Martin, "He added that CALIFORNIA 2L, L977 d at 9:35 P.M. Page 497 draft ished added to the record thatstribution at the November 7, L977 lanntng Commission decision one 210 room addltion to the Sheraton- 4th paragraph referring to artance and spectal permit are Thea fund. Mr. J. Mlddaugh, [430 Chaptn Avenue, wtllank. Councilman Amstrupo!Jn. He asked thator thls servtce to the tence and other c l-t tzens BURLINGAME, Novembe r A regular meetlng of the Burltngame City Counctl was held on the abovedate ln the Clty HalL Counctl Chambers. The meeting was called toorder at 8:08 P.M. by llayor A.c. "Bud[ Harrtson. CALL TO ORDER PLEDCE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TITE FLAG: Led by Alfred Palmer, Pollce Chief. ROLL CALL COI,'NCIL ME}{BERS PRESEM : COI,'NCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:- MINUTES a The mtnutes of the regular meeting of November Za, L977, were approved and adopted after additlons and corrections: AIIISTRUP,. CROSBY, HARRISON, I,,ANGINI, MARTIN NONE urne upwrdt hePrthen5lfv scheduled for the meeting of November 21,them.t' Correction to tt. . . . . he would meeting at that tlme. r' Colrnc ilman I'tarttn wtthouE f acts, he would-/r,ffte agatnst them.r POLICE ACTION 0n behalf of the City Counctl , Mayor Harrlson expressed the appreciatlon and thanks of the City to the Burltngame Poltce Department and cooperattng agencies, tncludtng the San Carlos Poltce Department and the F.B.I. Counctlman Amstrup referred to hts let L977, he would vote agatnstvote to contlnue to a later added that obviously, recent ktdnap case tn Burltngame and lts swiftby the Burlingame Poltce Department. He asked almer comment on thts case for the beneflt of ence. s crtmet 8:30 A.M.by the entires and the erpetrators, lease of the r dated November 2L, L977 "BurLlngame Reward Fund. " He response to his reacttons andthe recent kldnapping andof the fund wtlI be to aid matton leading to felony arrest those of hts family and roany ctttzensother crimes in Burlingame. The purpothe Poltce Department tn obtaintng lnf te ofln to se or Mayor and e tha t Counc the iondP udi flff Poi1 arrtson notedective resolut Llce Chtef Fre , staff, and a PoLice Chtef Fred Palrner brlefly reported on actton on tht which began when a kldnapping occured near Hoover Schoot a on Friday, November L8, L977. Immedlate action was taken Burlingame Pollce Department, aided by netghbortng agencteF.B.I. Concentrated efforts culminated tn arrest of the pin whtc.h the Burlingame S.W.A.T. unit participated, and re kidnapped child at 10:45 P.M. that day. transnttted to Council on the subexplained he had tnsttgated this j f ect und and conviction of v{.otators. It will be used at the discretion ofPolice Chief Fred Palmer who will be admtnlstrator. In this way,citizens would be able to take posittve actlon against crlme here. orney had confirmed the Legality of suchof Northern Californla Savings and Loan,e the maintenance of thts fund tn this b e had started it wtth a donatton of hts aLlocate $2,000 to be put in thls fund fy. He also hoped that people in the aud Ln ln contributions. Clty Att IIulnage r s uperv 1sstated h CounciL c ommuntt would Jo 2 Councllman l'{anglnt stated he would favor the establishment of thisfund. lle also urged public recognitton ln form of resolutton forall agencies involved ln the solution of the kidnap case. Mayor Harrison commended Counc tkoan Amstrup for his acttonsmatter. He stated he had prevlously considered suggesttng $contingency fund money be reserved for thts use, but support $2,000 allocatton. Councilman Amstrup moved that $2r000 be allocated to the ttBurltngame Reward Fund." Second by Councllman Mangini, unantmous votce vote. ADJOURNMENT: Council meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. to meeting of Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame for purpose of consLdering EIR 43E and Addendum for Bayside Redevelopment ProJect. in thts 2,500 ed the K REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME November 21, 1977 CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 8:20 P.M. by Chairman Harrison. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI, MARTIN MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE HEARING 1. BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EIR 43-E JULY, 1977; AND ADDENDUM REPORT DATED OCTOBER 21, 1977. Chairman Harrison announced hearing on this subject and requested report from the City Planner. City Planner referenced his memo of November 1, 1977 transmitting Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-77 recommending the above documents, and a draft list of significant adverse environmental impacts and suggestions for their mitigation. EIR and Addendum had been transmitted to Council/Redevelopment Agency, for their consideration for certification. He stated that these documents present available information about the concept proposed, but cautioned the EIR is not a regulatory document. As long as the significant effects are identified and some mitigation measures taken to offset those effects, then the lead agency has properly utilized the EIR. Chairman Harrison declared the meeting open to public comment on EIR 43E and Addendum Report. Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston, addressed Council, stating she was not opposed to the EIR, but questioned some differences between the original EIR and the final. In the original EIR the park cost was not included and the total cost of the bond issue was to be $18,900,000. In the final EIR the park is included, the project has gained an acre in land and yet the cost of the bond issue is $1,700,000 less. She questioned the total cost shown for the Convention Center which has increased $2,000,000 but which does not include an explanation of the addition. She noted that the airport parking has a cost of $3,700,000, for about 12.7 acres. Dividing the cost by 13 results in about $229,000 per acre. Previously, an acre was supposed to be about $5.00 per SF, and she questioned the difference. She asked if the figure for airport parking were correct, and if it is part of the EIR, did not the City have to use it? At the request of the Chairman, for comment, the Project Manager stated that because there are some dollar figures in the EIR, they are by no means binding. The EIR is an impact document. He added that line costs must be further discussed. Mrs. Cusick commented that her only concern was that the City end up with a better park. Chairman Harrison noted that Planning Commission minutes with citizen comment and responses from various organizations indicate support if it were a better park. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Amstrup questioned statement, page 8 of addendum, Community Services and Facilities, "The proposed hotel addition would result in decreased demands for water supply and sewage disposal . . ." He stated he did not understand, since if you have 210 more rooms, you will have to have 11 more services. Chairman Harrison thought this was in comparison with the whole project, stating he was concerned with demands required to fully service the entire Convention Center project. City Planner agreed, stating that this statement is for Alternate the 210 room addition only. Mr. Martin suggested that the wording is wrong since, if this EIR will apply to both the Convention Center and the 210 room addition, this statement will apply to both projects. Mr. Crosby noted rest of paragraph which states, ". . .when compared with the demands required to fully service the proposed Convention Center complex; there should be no unusual problems in providing any of these community services." City Planner commented this is the portion of EIR prepared by HKS to fit the application for.the hotel addition. City Attorney agreed this section applies to the 210 room addition. Mr. Martin stated Page 5, Addendum, shows Alternative one: Stage 1 210 room addition only; Alternative one, Stage 2, Addition of the Convention Center; and Alternative Two: realignment of Airport Boulevard. He suggested that if they are outlined in that manner, then they should be discussed in that order. Mr. Mangini asked about the possibility of 330 rooms in this addition. Project Manager stated that when and if that is contemplated, another EIR would be required. Regarding alternatives, City Planner explained that pages 100 through 109 of the draft EIR are now replaced by Pages 5 through 19 of the addendum. Chairman Harrison stated he had studied the draft EIR and the addendum step by step with the idea that this was not a legally binding document but an attempt to address all problems as an informational type of document. City Planner agreed with this concept, adding that copies of the EIR and addendum which were sent to State Clearing House were bound as a composite EIR, one section after the other. Mr. Mangini considered the EIR met the needs for its purpose but questioned if the findings of fact necessary would come from the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission. Project Manager stated a resolution had been prepared for adoption by the Redevelopment Agency which incorporated findings of fact as required by CEQUA. He suggested the Redevelopment Agency review them. Chairman Harrison, again noting that the EIR is not a legally binding, document, questioned what control the Agency would have after adoption and certification of the EIR and findings. What would make the suggestions for mitigation binding? Project Manager again referred members to resolution with attachment of adverse impacts and suggestions for mitigation and stated that if the City were not to pursue the mitigation measures there could be a legal attack made on the fulfillment of the resolution. Some of the impacts are not in the City's power to pursue and must be referred to other agencies. Chairman Harrison asked if this meant the City is obligated to police it. Project Manager agreed. Mr. Martin said he had a problem with two parts of the EIR: Traffic and air pollution. The EIR outlines what will happen if the Convention Center and addition are built. It does not address traffic effects or air pollution with the development of the entire Anza area. Since the Anza area preceeds the proposed development, the traffic impact should start with a discussion of that area. For this reason he did not consider the EIR adequate. Chairman Harrison considered this a Catch 22 situation, noting that Mr. Drachman had been instructed to cease work on his traffic study of the whole area until the City had taken some action on the Convention Center. Mr. Martin disagreed. He considered that HKS could make some assumptions and address themselves to this problem - there was enough information available. Mr. Mangini questioned what the exact charge to the consultant was for this EIR. If it was for the entire Anza properties then he considered Mr. Martin's viewpoint correct. City Planner stated that Mr. Martin had identified a good point, noting there are 6 - 7 EIR's to process from Millbrae to the Anza limits. They all have impact on each other. Unless there is a master EIR, there is no one document that will take all properties into account. The purpose of CEQUA is to address one project. It is not really the consultant's charge to speculate on the surrounding areas. Mr. Crosby noted that letter of September 21, 1977 from Bay Area Pollution Control District points out the same concern as Mr. Martins: "Development of the Anza property will result in additional traffic being generated. A subsequent EIR should evaluate the cumulative traffic -related air quality impacts associated with the development of the vacated property, the currently proposed project, and related projects." Mr. Crosby commented that City Planner's letter in reply of October 21, 1977 states that "The comments concerning other land uses on Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust territory and the traffic related air quality impacts associated with development will all be handled at a later stage with a Master EIR." and "The Master Environmental Impact Report to be prepared by the consultant will consider future land use, additional traffic that might be generated and their related air quality impacts." He questioned if what the City Planner is saying is that the City has a report for this one project but there is a Master report coming up that can be utilized. City Planner agreed. Mr. Crosby asked what, then, was the problem. City Planner replied that Mr. Martin is asking questions about the adequacies of this document because it does not go into detail of impacts when the Anza property is developed. Mr. Crosby asked if this was to be covered by the Master EIR. City Planner stated it was. Mr. Mangini asked if it was the charge of this EIR to give total impacts and Chairman Harrison questioned if the City Planner had not said that CEQUA states it is to be this one project. City Planner replied that the request for proposal for the EIR had required the consultant to consider the project and the impacts it might have on the surrounding areas. Mr. Martin asserted that Airport Boulevard does have an effect, and so does the C-4 zoning. The report should have been written including the impact of the traffic when the C-4 zoning is developed. Development of C-4 zoning to its fullest will have some impact. For this reason he felt the report was inadequate. The report merely adds the Convention Center to what is there now. Chairman Harrison reviewed that the City has set up a special permit process while it went ahead with the Blayney and Drachman reports, then action was held up on these reports until some decision was made on the Convention Center. At this point in time, if the Agency certifies this EIR, it is going to have an overall EIR from Blayney to study and the City still maintains control over any of the forthcoming projects. He could understand Mr. Martin's reasoning, but the City had held up the Drachman and the Blayney report and he did not see this EIR as being incompatible. Mr. Martin emphasized that the Drachman report has no bearing at this time. The EIR has not addressed itself to what the traffic or air pollution will be when the C-4 land has been developed. The Project Manager stated that it is not legally required to go as far as Mr. Martin wished on the EIR. Mr. Martin replied he was stating his own opinion as to whether or not the EIR is adequate. He thought it was inadequate. Mr. Amstrup pointed out that if the Agency is merely certifying that T the EIR is adequate, it is not binding anyhow, so that could be done and the Agency could consider other areas of the project. Project Manager emphasized that the "not binding" statement referred to Mrs. Cusick's comment about the figures. The agency is bound to the elements in the resolution. He stated he wished it made clear that the City is bound to attempt the mitigations, such as signalization of the intersection. The City as a public agency must install the signalization. For benefit of the audience, Chairman Harrison read Exhibit A of the resolution which lists 10 adverse impacts and suggestions for their mitigation, and Exhibit B which specifies jurisdiction responsible for these mitigations. Project Manager amplified on these items. Mr. Martin referred to letter of September 21, 1977 from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission which, among other comments on the EIR, states "The EIR does not make clear how this project qualifies as a redevelopment project under state law. . . . If redevelopment projects are only appropriate in "blighted" areas, the EIR should clearly establish that the area is blighted." He then noted City Planner's response to this agency, his letter of October 21, 1977, part of which refers to this item, "Project area is characterized by open space that can be remedied by redevelopment. Blight exists as an economic disuse in the project area." Mr. Martin protested this definition of "blighted area." lie said the only reason it suffers from "economic disuse" is because of the action of the City Council in maintaining a dump there. Council wanted to maintain a dump there as long as possible. The "blight" could be remedied by many methods - the City could build a golf course for example. This definition of blight is possibly adequate legal grounds, but not adequate moral grounds. Because the City supports maintaining a dump, it is not an economically blighted area and it is a dis- service to the City Council to keep repeating this. He considered this statement of 'blight" an easy way to finance the project, and disliked the fact that they were trying to tie "blighted area" on the dump. RESOLUTION NO. RA -16 "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS" was introduced by Mr. Crosby who moved its adoption. Second by Mr. Mangini Mr. Martin stated he would vote "no" on the motion because the EIR is inadequate in the areas of traffic, air pollution and discussion of use of the redevelopment project. Mr. Amstrup stated he would cast an affirmative vote only for the purpose of expediting discussion on the next stage. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: MEMBERS: AMSTRUP, CROSBY, MANGINI, HARRISON NAYES: MEMBERS: MARTIN ADJOURNMENT Redevelopment Agency meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted f7/17 S�cretar� 7 Regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council reconvened at 9:30 P.M. with all members present. HEARINGS REPORT 1. BEN-SIMON PROPERTY, 911-915 EL CAMINO REAL: (A) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT/ 48P. (B) PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 TO R-3 Mayor Harrison requested report from City Planner. City Planner referenced his memo of October 31, 1977 which transmitted Draft Environmental Impact Report 48P, the Addendum thereto with responses to public and written comment, Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-77 Recommending Environmental Impact Report EIR-48P A Reclassification From R-1 to R-3, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-77 Recommending Adoption Of An Ordinance Reclassifying 911/915 E1 Camino Real from R-1 District to R-3 District. City Planner explained this reclassification was necessary because part of the owner's property at the rear is zoned R-1. He stated that Planning Commission had recommended the reclassification with these conditions: 1. The building height is not to exceed 28 feet 2. The 24" fir and the 36" eucalyptus on the southern property line remain 3. Side yards are to be a minimum of 8 feet 4. Additional landscaping to be provided to screen the properties on Forest View from impact of a long building. City Planner noted that Mr. Ben -Simon had offered to plant trees on the rear of the property line because the side of the property requires a driveway. The trees will be on neighboring property. Councilman Mangini questioned statement of Page 8 of EIR: "The Burlingame zoning code contains no provisions limiting the number of dwelling units per lot or per land area, but rather the limit is implied in other City regulations . . . " City Planner replied this was accurate except for the R-1 zone which has a minimum of 5,000 SF per lot for single family residential. In other zones limit is implied in regulations regarding parking, building height, setbacks, side and rear yards, lot coverage. Councilman Martin questioned maps on Pages 10 and 12 of EIR. Mr. Charles Eley of HKS, who drafted the EIR, explained these represented potential development of the site with and without the reclassification. He responded to the Councilman's questions on various details of the maps. Mayor Harrison opened meeting to public comment. Mrs. Lillian Judson, 1514 Forest View responded. She stated the R-1 portion of the lot is right back of her property. She objected to having a structure 8 from her property line whose windows would look down on neighboring properties, and urged consideration of an alternate plan (Exhibit #7, EIR Page 33) where the lot is not rezoned and the structure would be about 20' from her property instead of 8'. She asked if that 8' would be a driveway and was assured by the City Planner that it would be an open side yard with a possibility of more than 8' because the Planning Commission had recommended that a 36" eucalyptus tree and another tree in the side yard be saved. Mrs. Judson stated there was a large tree there but no eucalyptus. The following discussion centered around type of tree, since EIR specifically states "eucalyptus." E Mr. Ben -Simon commented he thought the planting of trees on the rear property line would sufficiently shield the neighborhood. In response to question as to how EIR could be approved with conditions if one of the conditions was inaccurate, City Attorney stated the word "eucalyptus" could be stricken and the word "tree" substituted. Mrs. Judson emphasized that neighbors who had signed a petition for the Planning Commission hearings had preferred plan on Exhibit 7 (no zoning change) because it gives more space. Mayor Harrison stated this is a hearing to take action on an EIR and a proposed reclassification. He questioned City Attorney if this implies Council specification of a certain plan. City Attorney replied that Council can, in approving the reclassification, condition it on a particular plan. Councilman Martin considered that the 36"tree looked like it was about 14' from the property line. He requested verification from the tentative map. Director of Public Works replied he did not have the tentative map in front of him, but verified the location of the tree was more than 8' from the property line. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Crosby questioned which plan the Council was considering. City Attorney replied the basic question is rezoning the property from R-1 to R-3; that apparently Council was interested in pursuing the Planning Commission conditions. Councilman Mangini questioned if the Council rezoned, could they stipulate what was to go on the lot. City Attorney replied conditions could be imposed. Councilman Martin remarked that if the recommendations of the Planning Commission are followed Mr. Ben -Simon could not build his proposed development mainly because of the 36" tree. He suggested that if Council approves reclassification with these conditions Mr. Ben -Simon must submit another plan. City Attorney remarked that if Council wished, staff could make certain that any drawing Mr. Ben -Simon presents complies with requirements. Councilman Martin suggested that Mr. Ben -Simon be told he must meet the conditions of the Planning Commission, and come in with a new plan. City Attorney suggested that any potential development be treated as a special permit which would then require a Planning Commission hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 93-77 "CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REZONING--O—F=-915 EL CAMINO REAL FROM R-1 TO R-3 - EIR 48-P" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption. Second by Councilman Crosby. Motion carried on unanimous roll call vote. Mayor Harrison announced hearing on proposed reclassification from R-1 to R-3 and opened hearing for public comments. Mrs. Judson again addressed Council. She stated she was not opposed to the rezoning if the structure were removed some from the neighboring property lines. Mayor Harrison commented it was possible this Council would direct resolution that would require a special permit for this W project and informed Mrs. Judson that in this event she would be notified. Mr. Ben -Simon addressed Council. He stated he was mistaken in bringing a proposal for design at the time of asking for rezoning, but originally it was not known to him that the rear of the property was in an R-1 Zone. The original subdivision was in 1915 and the zoning line followed this old subdivision and never was corrected to the new lot lines. It was his feeling that since every property on E1 Camino is R-3 it is his right to ask that his property be treated in the same manner. Because of the location the only reasonable project is an apartment building. He intends to build a good proJJ'ect and it is compliance with all codes. He noted that only 20' of Mrs. Judson's view would be obstructed, and her house is 60' away from the fence. As far as the 36" tree is concerned, if this is a condition, he would have to redesign the whole building. He did not think this was fair and noted that every building on El Camino is 8' from the property line. He added that the building was designed and plans submitted for approval before he found out the back portion was in R-1. Mayor Harrison reread the conditions of Planning Commission approval for Mr. Ben-Simon's information. Mr. Ben -Simon repeated that the condition regarding the tree was unfair because of the spread of the tree. Councilman Mangini questioned if that meant Mr. Ben -Simon wanted to take the tree out. Mr. Ben -Simon said he would want this. The 24" tree would not pose such a problem. Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston, referred to Exhibit 7, stating it showed that the same number of units could be built without rezoning and would keep the building farther away from the R-1 area. She saw no reason to rezone. Mayor Harrison stated that there is an overlap in terms of property lines. City Planner amplified that initially there was an application before the Planning Commission for the two lots to be combined into one parcel. The Planning Commission conditionally approved contingent upon its all being rezoned into R-3, so that there would not be two separate lots - one part R-3 and R-1 and one all R-3. Mr. Ben -Simon stated he did not want to own property which is in two zoning areas. He had the right to have his property in one district. The reason the same number of units could be built without rezoning is that the building would have to be one story higher. Councilman Martin referred to plot plan, Appendix B, and stated that if Mr. Ben -Simon moved his building over toward the north property line and put a driveway and parking area between the south property line and the building, the structures would be away from the R-1 property. After some discussion Mr. Ben -Simon said that could be done. Councilman Martin suggested Mr. Ben - Simon redo the plot plan and come back to Council. Councilman Mangini questioned if the Council approved this recommendation would it also include a definition of the tree and a review of the conditions set by the Planning Commission. City Planner considered it might be proper if Council was asking Mr. Ben -Simon to redesign that an alternate be brought back to Council and the rezoning then be handled. Director of Public Works noted that Councilman Martin's suggestion had been con- sidered at the Planning Commission, but the second floor of the building overhangs the first, so that the building comes out to only 8from the property line at any rate. City Planner commented that this is the best design for that lot. 10 Councilman Martin asked the applicant if he had these plans prepared before he discovered this was split zoned. Mr. Ben -Simon replied that when he bought this property it was supposed to be R-3. A year ago the zoning in the City was so that if there were a split zoned lot, the zoning was to go to the least restrictive zone. The Councilman asked if he could re -design the building to fit some of the qualifications that the Planning Commission and Council have. The applicant replied he could redesign, but he would rather get the rezoning and then cooperate with the best design. Councilman Martin stated he would prefer to see the plan before the Council gave the rezoning. -- Mayor Harrison questioned if the Councilman was suggesting a continuance until Mr. Ben -Simon brought back plans that met concerns of Council. The Councilman said he was. The Mayor questioned if Mr. Ben -Simon could have revised plans by December 5, 1977. Mr. Ben -Simon stated he could. Mayor Harrison continued this hearing to December 5, 1977. RECESS After a short recess at 10:30 P.M. the meeting reconvened. 2. R. R. MILLER, 1105 DUFFERIN AVENUE, APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. Council had received letter of October 31, 1977 from Mr. Miller appealing denial of the Planning Commission for this variance. City Planner memo of November 17, 1977 transmitted copies of October 26, 1977 Planning Commission minutes, variance application, applicant's statement plans, and diagrams of this requested variance which is for addition containing playroom and bedroom in the rear yard, an extension of the dwelling, which would extend to within 4' of the rear property line. City Planner showed proposed plans to Council, and stated the Planning Commission denied the variance because conditions for approval were not found to exist. Mayor Harrison reported that Mr. Miller had telephoned him several weeks ago, and the Mayor had Looked over his home and lot. Mr. Miller addressed Council, showing various photographs of the area, his home, and displaying site plan. He noted plan has the neighbors' approval, and there are no windows that would intrude on them. The Living space at present is 22% of the land area, the addition would be 7%, plus the garage at 5.8% and the front porch at .08%. Mr. Miller noted his reasons for wanting this addition, which are basically so that his children could have an extra bedroom. An addition located so that is would be the regulation 15' from the rear property line would of, necessity be detached from the house, and this is impractical for reasons of comfort. Councilman Mangini noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26 stated several members of the Commission felt alternatives should be considered and the applicant should discuss with City staff. He questioned if Mr. Miller had dis- cussed with staff. Mr. Miller replied that he thought Commission had in mind such alternatives as a second story or bringing the garage forward, and he thought his plan was the most efficient use of space that could be found without involving him in undue cost and difficulty. Mayor Harrison opened the meeting to public comment. There were no comments from the audience and the public hearing was declared closed. 11 Mayor Harrison stated he considered that Mr. Miller had set forth some very good points in his letter regarding the denial relative to his objectives and the efficient use of the building. His visit to Mr. Miller's home had impressed him with the need for this addition. Councilman Martin stated that he had attended the Planning Commission meeting on this variance and had been somewhat annoyed that the Commission thought there were alternatives. But now that he had seen the plans, he thought that an alternate plan was possible. Councilman Mangini stated he was inclined to agree there were other ways to effect the addition and suggested this be con- tinued until they are explored. He commented if this variance were denied Mr. Miller would be prevented from doing anything with it for a year. City Attorney commented it could be denied without prejudice, in which case Mr. Miller could come back within the year. Mayor Harrison presented actions of Council in this matter to be: Uphold the Planning Commission decision, deny without prejudice, or rescind Planning Commission decision. Councilman Amstrup stated he thought Council should suggest Mr. Miller definitely look at alternatives. Mr. Miller protested he had already considered alternatives such as moving the garage, or completely redesigning the entire half of the house, and so on, but they would not work. After further discussion as to Mr. Miller's possible alternatives and his further protests that he had checked thoroughly and nothing would work satisfactorily but his present plan, Councilman Martin moved that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld without prejudice, second by Councilman Mangini. Mayor Harrison stated he intended to vote against this motion because he thought Mr. Miller's plan was a good one. Councilman Crosby, addressing Mr. Miller, stated he would vote for the motion but noted it was without prejudice and he thought Mr. Miller could come up with a better plan. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP, CROSBY (qualified as above) MANGINI, MARTIN NAYES: COUNCILMEN: HARRISON 3. PROPOSED ADDITION TO SHERATON HOTEL: (A) PARKING VARIANCE (B) SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET City Planner's memo of November 15, 1977 set forth for Council consideration variance from parking regulations to permit addition of 210 rooms and Special Permit to construct a building more than 35 feet in height. Memo noted that the Planning Commission had by 5-2 vote approved the variance subject to the conditions that: 1. An irrevocable agreement for not Less than 100 off-site parking spaces be guaranteed and available on demand basis. 2. Agreement between City and applicant whereby applicant will provide signalization of the intersection at the entrance to the Sheraton Hotel. 3. Agreement between applicant and City for applicant to provide by easement sufficient lands so that the City may relocate Airport 12 Boulevard between the hotel and Bayside Park at a location to be determined by the City Engineer if Alternative Two is to be effected. Memo attached Planning Commission minutes of 10/26/77 on this action, and various background information such as variance application, special permit application, letters to and from staff and applicants, letter from D. K. Goodrich, Traffic Consultant. Planner's memo noted that the proposed 526 room hotel would have only 342 spaces, that 35% of the total or 184 rooms would have no parking spaces, resulting in a sizable variance. In addressing Council, City Planner first read code require- ments for granting a variance. He noted that Burlingame's hotel parking requirements are one parking space for each room with additional requirement of one parking space for each 200 SF gross floor area for cocktail lounge, coffee shop and restaurant. He had checked with other cities for parking on airport hotels and their requirements are compatible with Burlingame. He stated that Burlingame had prospects for other hotel additions and prospects for new hotels being built, and he asked for a good clearcut policy as to what is to be a future requirement for hotel parking. This would eliminate confusion and difficulty in the future with other hotels. He told Council they had a difficult decision and he did not think it should be made in anticipation of what might happen later. e.g., the Bayside Redevelopment Project. Mayor Harrison declared meeting open for public comment. He noted receipt of letter from Mr. Charles H. Voytaro, 1248 Capuchino Avenue, in opposition to the addition and the Convention Center. Mr. Cyrus McMillan, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Council. He noted that this variance was heard by the Planning Commission who voted 5-2 to grant. He described the property as unique - landlocked - one side by freeway, another side by City Land, and on the other side by the lagoon. Any variance cannot affect any adjoining neighbor. Also, this is an airport hotel and some 80% of their patrons come by way of taxi. If variance is not granted, they suffer loss of property right. This is a successful hotel, they have the land and they have the need to build additional rooms. This conforms to the re- quirement concerning the zoning ordinance because it is zoned for this use. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to other property owners because of its unique location. If there is a detriment, it would be suffered by the applicant himself. Mr. McMillan submitted that this meets the requirements for a variance. He noted the Planning Commission condition that an additional 100 spaces be made available, and stated the applicant is willing to accept that condition. This will provide adequate parking according to the Goodrich report. Mr. R. Gilmore, business manager of the Building Trades Council of San Mateo County , asked Council to approve the addition and the parking variance, as well as the Convention Center. He spoke of the creation of additional jobs for workers, revenue money brought into the community, etc. He noted that no matter what Burlingame does with this addition or the Convention Center, the business is here in the Bay area. If Burlingame does not get it, it will go somewhere. Councilman Martin commented on the fact that he was promoting the Sheraton which is non-union. Mr. Gilmore stated the Sheraton would probably be unionized in the next year. Mr. Harry Graham, 1224 Burlingame Avenue, questioned if the one car per room wasn't a holdover from the old days. He suggested it might be a good idea to look into updating requirement, that 13 possibly the actual need could be 1/2 car per room. He spoke in favor of granting the variance. Mr. John Raiser of the Raiser Construction Company identified himself as contractor for the proposed project. He emphasized that the matter of time was urgent, since construction costs might have to be raised. He stated he ran a union shop and assured Council that if and when the project becomes a reality it will be built properly and he would try to see that the City gets a good project. Mr. David Keyston, of Anza Shareholders Liquidating Trust, addressed Council. He felt very strongly that this is a very unique property, and stated for the record Anza had agreed to supply parking for Sheraton if there is an overflow. He thought there was a great anticipation in Burlingame to get more hotels and noted the extent of the hotel bed tax. He thought this was a good opportunity to add to it. He stated that Mr. Silverton made a statement this date that he would be willing to condition the variance that it would be withdrawn if he were not able to proceed with the Convention Center Project. He felt no one would be damaged by the granting of this variance, and there would be a substantial increment in hotel tax income. He requested Council approve the variance. Councilman Martin requested the statement about Silverton's condition be repeated. Mr. Keyston stated Silverton would con- dition the variance so that it would be revoked if he were to withdraw from the Convention Center project or not build it. Councilman Mangini questioned statement #3 in letter of September 27, 1977 to the Assistant City Planner "Anza Parking Corporation will offer such commitments as long as either its permit is extended by the City of Burlingame, or its location is moved as part of the Convention Center project." Mr. Keyston amplified that Anza is operating on annual permits for Anza parking lot on their property. As long as the Convention Center proceeds or as long as they are given permits to continue, they would make this space available. If either of these two things do not continue, Mr. Silverton has arranged to buy enough of Anza land to get the required parking. Councilman Amstrup questioned where the 100 space lot would be? What plot of land is being set apart? Mr. Keyston replied Silverton would buy the land at such time as Anza is no longer operating Anza Airport Parking. Mayor Harrison questioned if this would be stipulated somewhere. Councilman Amstrup questioned if that wouldn't all be part of the development if it went through. Then would not the redevelopment project end up providing parking: City Attorney questioned if the Convention Center does not go and Mr. Silverton has an option, then the City is tied into a lease for a 100 space parking lot? Mr. Keyston replied, yes. Councilman Martin stated he believed that Mr. Connolly stated the other night that this permit is a parking variance, and his use permit was completely severable from the Convention Center and had nothing to do with it. So that what he might do with the Convention Center parking is completely immaterial. It is a separate permit. Mr. Keyston agreed that was right. The Council- man stated that on investigation he had found that Mr. Keyston's permit had expired on August 3, 1977, so in effect he had no permit. Mr. Keyston stated that could be, and that Mr. Silverton has enough land right now for 100 spaces. That was a condition passed by the Planning Commission and accepted by the applicant. Mr. Barry Silverton addressed Council stating that if the Convention Center goes forward,some of the requirements laid down by the Planning Commission might not be necessary. Mr. Keyston was saying that if the Convention Center did not go, Silverton would purchase some Anza property to put the additional parking there. Also he noted he had been questioned as to why he did not wait until after the Convention Center decision. His primary reason was that he had a loan available now. He had already lost one loan and did not want to lose this one since interest rates are going up. Interest rates in the future might be too high. Also, he had heard that Council feared that if he was given this variance he might not proceed with the Convention Center. He stated that was false. He was willing to stipulate, and the City Attorney could draw up an agreement, that if for any reason the developer withdraws from the Convention Center project, he would forfeit the variance. He added that construction costs are expected to go up. Councilman Martin questioned if Silverton were given the variance tonight would he go ahead with the hotel addition immediately regardless of whether he got the Convention Center or not. Mr. Silverton stated he would go forward, but would not be able to proceed until the middle of December. Councilman Martin concluded that this application is then completely separate, in which case it must stand on its own merits with no help from the Convention Center. Mr. Silverton agreed. Mr. Joseph Kent, Director of Architecture for the Raiser Construction Company, justified the need for this variance by the fact that the one car per room was a carryover from the past and the requirement for rooms and for coffee shop and restaurants is added on. He stated this does not take into account that the main load on the restaurant is by occupants of the hotel. Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, 1716 Ralston addressed Council, stating she would prefer the variance could be continued until it is known if the Convention Center is going up or not. She noted it had been said that no private property would be involved - the park - which belongs to the entire population of Burlingame. There is presently a serious parking problem at the park. The 100 extra spaces might affect this parking. Also, a variance such as this would have a serious effect on the other hotels, and they will feel justified in coming in for a variance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Amstrup stated he had difficulty determining where the 100 spaces would be, but more important was the fact that other hotels in town had adequate parking and if this variance is granted, the Sheraton will fall below the minimum. He declared that if it is the desire of the Council that the criteria for parking be changed, it should be the same for all hotels, not just the Sheraton. He added that while the point was made that all guests would arrive by taxi, this was just a guess. Mayor Harrison said he agreed that the same parking requirements should apply to all hotels. Councilman Crosby approved of Mr. Graham's statement that the parking ordinance should be reviewed. He said he had often thought that one space per room was an archaic part of the code. He stated he was willing to accept the hired experts' opinions on the methods of transportation to hotels. On other hotels also applying for variance - he thought each should be determined on their own merits. Councilman Mangini questioned if the recent Airport Marina application reflected the requirements on parking. City Planner stated the Airport Marina had asked for a variance from those code requirements. The Councilman stated his feeling had been in the past that each case could be decided on its own merits. He agreed with Councilman Crosby that he would rely on expert advice and added he felt comfortable with the parking requirements. EK On the subject of expert opinions, Councilman Martin referred to the Goodrich report which proposed a ratio of .43 parking spaces per room for the hotel addition. He stated it had been extablished earlier that this application is to be entirely separate from the Convention Center. Therefore, in effect, this ratio would have to be applied to every hotel. He saw nothing in this report that this ratio should be the requirements for all the hotels in Burlingame. It has been proposed that this ratio should apply to all. He did not whether this ratio was right, and pointed out the reason for calling this variance up for review is that it would have to apply to all hotels. The Councilman then asked Mr. McMillan to elaborate on his version of why there would be a loss of property right. He stated the Sheraton is in the business of running a hotel. If they can't expand that hotel, there is a loss of property right. Councilman Martin quoted excerpt from study meeting minutes of November 9, 1977, which refer to Mr. Connolly, "He added that in a spirit of cooperation, while not waiving his client's legal rights, he would be willing to meet with council at its next meeting to move the matter along." He asked Mr. McMillan if that was still his position. Mr. McMillan stated he and the developer were there for that purpose. Councilman Martin received con- firmation from the City Attorney that an application for a variance must be signed by the property owner or his represent- ative. The Councilman stated he had checked the property report and the owner of record of this property is the San Francisco Airport Motel Company of Cleveland, a limited partnership. He had also checked the assessor's record which showed the same owner. He stated the application for variance was signed by Philip Wasserstrom and the special permit application by Joseph Kent. These are not the owners of record. Therefore, this is not a legal application. City Attorney stated he had researched this in Dun and Bradstreet which indicates that Mr. Wasserstrom is one of the partners of this Limited pertnership. Also, Mr. Kent is an architect for the developer. It has been common practice in the City to allow an architect to sign such an application. Councilman Martin contended that Attorneys Connolly and McMillan were basing their argument on the letter of the code, thereby challenging Council in this matter. Council could like- wise adhere to the letter of the code and challenge legality of their application. Mr. McMillan protested he had been involved in many variance hearings and he had never before had any Councilman raise that question on an application because it was signed by an architect. He had told Council that despite any legal objections they had, he and his client were present and ready to go forward with the application. Councilman Martin replied he had asked Mr. McMillan if he still stood on the grounds that he did not waive his legal rights. He was challenging Council. By the same token, Council could stand on its rights and challenge him. Mayor Harrison stated his interpretation of the remarks at the study session was that the attorneys were vaiving the right for - any legal recourse thereafter. Mr. McMillan replied that was why he and his client are here tonight - they wanted to go forward and not raise any legal objections. Councilman Martin questioned Mr. McMillan directly if he was waiving his legal rights. Mr. McMillan said he was. Mayor Harrison questioned i£ it would be possible to get from Goodrich comparisons that would apply to other hotels. City Planner replied that the Goodrich report was an ad hoc assignment. in Councilman Amstrup questioned if the Mayor meant he wanted to base the figures for all hotels on the Sheraton ratio. Mayor Harrison replied he suggested basing the figure on the Goodrich report, and if it were the consensus of Council, getting more information from Drachman in the future to arrive at a satisfactory figure. Director of Public Works stated the Goodrich report is specifically applied to the Sheraton. It could not be related to other hotels, a separate survey must be conducted for each. The Drachman report would be a general overall traffic and parking survey. City Attorney referred to Planning Commission conditions and asked for Council direction as to who should draft the agree- ments. He stated he would prefer that the applicant draft, and specifically questioned what is meant by ". . .applicant to provide signalization Does this mean the applicant furnishes money? Councilman Martin noted the applicant is not the legal owner of record. Any agreement with applicant would not be legal. Councilman Crosby stated the applicant is putting up the money for signalization - staff would have to develop a cost. Mayor Harrison suggested the condition that the variance would be revoked if the developers withdrew from the Convention Center project. Councilman Mangini noted the Council could impose conditions in addition to the Planning Commission. He approved the four conditions suggested by the City Planner, memo of November 15, 1977. These were: 1. All on-site parking spaces shall be clearly marked; and spaces for handicapped and small cars noted as such. rr 2. A performance bond and lease agreement shall be provided to guarantee that there will always be not less than off-site parking spaces within reasonable proximity to the Sheraton Hotel. 3. The Sheraton Hotel shall provide adequate liability insurance coverage for all vehicles removed by employees or agents to off-site parking locations. 4. A 30 -month study of parking space usage shall be conducted from December 1, 1977 to May 31, 1979 . . ." City Attorney stated that Planning Commission's first condition is the same as City Planner's #2 identifying performance bond and lease agreement for 100 offsite parking spaces. #3 could be accomplished. #4 is up to the Council. Mayor Harrison reviewed these conditions with Mr. McMillan. Councilman Martin initiated discussion of how many spaces would be necessary if this addition met the code. A short recess was declared at 12:25 A.M. after which the meeting reconvened. �. Councilman Martin and the City Planner discussed at length the interpretations of the parking code and the number of parking spaces needed for the Sheraton for full compliance. Figures were developed of 382 spaces for the present hotel - one for each of the 316 guest rooms plus 66 for the food & beverage service area; plus 210 for the addition for a total of 592. The proposed building would cause a loss of 48 standard size parking spaces. 100 will be provided offsite, leaving a total shortage of 150 spaces according to the present code. 17 Councilman Martin declared this was a huge variance. Mr. McMillan claimed none of the other hotels complied to the extent of this total requirement. He would accept the condition of 394 to be parked on site. This would be possible by using compact spaces, tandem parking, etc. Councilman Martin noted that this would reduce the variance _ from 150 spaces to 100 spaces. Mc In response to questions from Council, Mr./Millan stated the 100 spaces will be provided by Anza, and if Anza is out of business Mr. Silverton will buy the land. The language of the Planning Commission was acceptable to the applicant. There will be an irrevocable agreement for not less than 100 offsite parking spaces, guaranteed and available. Councilman Mangini moved that parking variance be approved subject to the conditions: (1) an irrevocable agreement that not less than 100 off-site parking spaces be guaranteed and available on demand basis; (2) agreement between City and applicant whereby applicant will pay for signalization of the intersection at the entrance to the Sheraton Hotel; (3) agreement between applicant and City for applicant to provide an easement for sufficient lands so that the City may relocate Airport Boulevard; (4) all on-site parking spaces shall be clearly marked; and spaces for handicapped and small cars noted as such; (5) the Sheraton Hotel shall provide adequate liability insurance coverage for all vehicles removed by employees or agents to off-site parking locations. Contractual agreements must be approved Council and executed before developer can proceed. Second by Councilman Crosby. The City Attorney commented that the variance is given to the present owners of the hotel - San Francisco Airport Motel Company. Councilman Martin said he would abstain from voting because he considered this was not a legal application. Councilman Amstrup stated he was in favor of the additional rooms on the hotel, but considered rules and regulations on parking should be more definite. He would abstain. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: CROSBY,HARRISON,MANGINI NAYES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP,MARTIN City Planner questioned what the Council policy would be on hotels. Mayor Harrison replied it would be considered on the merits of each case. Council then centered discussion around the application for special permit for 210 room building addition more than 35 feet in height. Councilman Amstrup questioned if there were going to be meeting rooms included in this 210 room addition. Mr. McMillan emphasized that the 210 rooms were all to be sleeping rooms. After Council discussion and questioning of the architect about the height of the building, Councilman Crosby moved that special permit be approved per plans and specifications presented for construction of 210 room addition to the Sheraton, all 210 rooms to be sleeping rooms and entire structure to be not more than 69 feet in height. Second by Councilman Mangini. LIM Councilman Martin raised the question again of ownership of the hotel. He stated Council is approving a use permit, but the applicant is Mr. Silverton on the special permit application. After further discussion, Mr. McMillan pointed out that the hotel is still in the name of the limited partner- ship as indicated on the variance. Obviously it is only going to be built by the owners of the hotel, not by Mr. Silverton. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: CROSBY,MANGINI,HARRISON NAYES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP,MARTIN COMMUNICATIONS 1. REQUEST OF FREDERICK S. FRIEDMAN, STUART KIRK ASSOCIATES, SAN FRANCISCO, TO APPEAR BEFORE COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF OWNER OF ENCORE THEATRE PROPERTY Council received letter dated November 7, 1977 from Frederick S. Friedman, stuart-Kirk Associates, 55 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, representative of Mrs. Christine Dillon. Letter stated that Mrs. Dillon owns Encore Theater and its operation is prohibited by Ordinance 1058, passed at a time when Mrs. Dillon was unable to present her viewpoint before the Council. Mr. Friedman asked that he be allowed to make a presentation before Council, preferably on December 19, 1977. With no objection from Council, Mayor Harrison set date for Mr. Friedman's presentation at the December 19, 1977 Council meeting. (Councilman Martin excused from meeting at 1:10 A.M.) 2. REQUEST FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FILED BY MARC S. NEHAMKIN FOR PROPERTY AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Letter of November 3, 1977 from Marc S. Nehamkin, 1215 North Road, Belmont, stated he wished to open a restaurant called Diamond Jim's at 410 Airport Boulevard with entertainment of piano music (and sing -along) between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 1:00 A.M. seven days a week. Letter of November 9, 1977 from Police Chief, with attached report compiled by Services Division, indicated no objection to issuance of entertain- ment permit; and memo of November 14, 1977 from Fire Chief also indicated no objections. Councilman Crosby moved the entertainment permit be granted for a period of six months, to be reviewed at the end of that period. Second by Councilman Mangini, carried unanimously. STAFF MEMORANDA 1. CITY PLANNER FORWARDING EIR-46P - WESTATES PARK PROJECT, 1700-1880 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Memo of November 16, 1977 from City Planner transmitted this EIR. With Council concurrence, Mayor Harrison scheduled this item for hearing on December 5, 1977. 2. CITY ATTORNEY: SPECIAL COUNSEL - SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS City Attorney's memo of November 17, 1977 recommended that Council make an arrangement with Mr. Fred Caploe, Williams & Caploe, 917 Las Juntas Street, Martinez, California, to be special counsel for any possible litigation that might arise in the matter of the blast fence at the Airport. Memo attached letter ofNovember 15, 1977 from Mr. Caploe outlining his MEW 19 proposed services and fee; and recommendation of November 18, 1977 from City Attorney of Millbrae, who joins with Burlingame City Attorney in this recommendation. Councilman Mangini moved City Attorney's recommendation be approved, second by Councilman Crosby, unanimously carried, Councilman Martin absent. 3. CITY ATTORNEY: HAZARDOUS HEDGE, 1516 ADELINE DRIVE City Attorney's memo of November 9, 1977 informed Council that owner of this hedge had been contacted, and he refuses to reduce it to legal height. City Attorney asked that hearing be set on December 5, 1977 to determine whether or not this hedge is a public hazard and should be abated. With consent of Council, Mayor Harrison set hearing for December 5, 1977. 4. CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SLUDGE) Memo of November 17, 1977 from Director of Public Works regarding this project (C-06-1267-120 Job No. 77-11) stated that the City of South San Francisco as lead agency, has received the Grant Offers from E.P.A. and State WQCB for 75% and 12'h% of the cost for this project. Before South San Francisco executes the Grants, they must receive approval of both Burlingame and Millbrae. Millbrae, the Consultant and Director of Public Works reviewed the belt press and felt it should be substituted for the more expensive filter press. Director of Public Works recommended that City Council authorize South San Francisco to execute the grant offer as lead agency and authorize the request for change to use a belt press instead of the proposed filter press. By memo of November 17, 1977 City Manager concurred in this recommendation. Councilman Amstrup moved that Director of Public Works recommendations be approved, second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously, Councilman Martin absent. 5. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER City Manager's memo of November 18, 1977 on this subject stated that Arthur Blodgett did not desire to serve another term, James J. Hamrock is willing to serve another term, and Robert W. Johnson would inform at a later date. Memo attached Commission candidate information from Leonard S. Mosias, 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Mayor Harrison noted that, as before indicated, the Council would decide on the appointments December 5, 1977. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MAPS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION - 411 AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND 1864/1872 ROLLINS ROAD Memos of November 15, 1977 from Assistant City Engineer recommended approval of the following parcel maps: Tentative and Final Parcel Map 77-30, 411 Airport Boulevard - Resubdivision Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Anza A.P.#6; and Tentative and Final P.M. 77-24 a 1864/1872 Rollins Road. Both maps approved by Planning Commission without conditions. City Manager endorsed these recommendations. 2. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES. DENIAL RECOMMENDED By memos of November 8, 1977 and November 11, 1977 City Attorney transmitted response of City's insurance adjuster, R. L. Kautz & Company on the claims of David George, Judity Riley, and Janet Sulano. It was recommended all claims be denied. City Attorney concurred in this recommendation. Councilman Crosby moved Council approve consent calendar, second by Councilman Mangini, carried unanimously, Councilman Martin absent. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 94-77"RESOLUTION OPPOSING SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT LANDING RIGHTS AT SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT" was introduced by Councilman Crosby who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup,carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP,CROSBY,HARRISON NAYES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: MANGINI ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MARTIN 1. RESOLUTION NO. 95-77 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ADDENDUM TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - MILLBRAE AVENUE/BAYSHORE SIGNALIZATION - JOB NO. 76-21" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously on roll call vote of members present. ORDINANCES ORDINANCE NO. 1117 "REPEALING SECTION 17.04.160 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DISPENSING OF CLASS I FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup for first reading. NEW BUSINESS Election City Clerk's memo of November 21, 1977, subject - Candidate Statement of Qualifications - reminded Council that on December 1, 1975 they had made the decision to limit statements to 200 words, to require candidates to pay pro -rated costs of handling and printing statements and to disallow supplemental material to be sent by the candidate to each voter in addition to statement of qualifications and sample ballot. City Clerk questioned if the Council wished to continue this policy for the election next March. Councilman Crosby moved to continue with the above policy established December 1, 1975, second by Councilman Mangini, carried unanimously, Councilman Martin absent. NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS There was Council comment on declaration for Arc Automotive Service, 1244 Rollins Road, on the importance of easements for emergency vehicles. David Keyston informed Council of a forthcoming application for a skateboard park in Anza property. POLICE =j MW Councilman Mangini suggested it would be appropriate to have VW a resolution commending the Burlingame Police Department and cooperating agencies for their work in the recent kidnapping in Burlingame. With concurrence of Council, Mayor Harrison directed that City Manager prepare appropriate document. CONVENTION CENTER Mayor Harrison read into the record letter of November 15, 1977 from Joyce Golding, public relations director, San Mateo County Arts Council, disallowing either support or opposition to the proposed Convention Center. She stated her only direct connection with the Convention Center was in contact with Mr. Silverton regarding art work he has suggested for the completed structures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. City Manager: Bay Area Environmental Management Plan 2. Communication from Pauline Dorsett, Principal, Hoover School dated November 8, 1977 thanking the City for its aid in crossing guard problem. 3. Police and Fire Departments monthly reports, October. 4. Library Board agendas and minutes, Librarian's report 5. City Planner summary of Planning Commission meeting November 14, 1977 6. Treasurer's report, October, 1977 7. Minutes: Beautification Commission, November 3, Planning Commission, October 26, Traffic, Safety Parking Commission, November 10, Council study meeting notes, November 9, 1977 APPROVALS 1. WARRANT NOS. 7848 & 7849, 321 through 728, duly audited in the amount of $484,246.87 were approved for payment on motion of Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote of members present. 2. PAYROLL, October, 1977, Check Nos. 1135 through 1840, in the amount of $376,749.27 approved on motion of Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote of members present. ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 1:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, v %✓ �� e -e E elyn H Hill City Clerk