Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1973.01.15)t I Burlingame, California January 15, 1973 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame order on the above date at 8:10 p. presiding. City Council l^tas called to m., Mayor victor A. Mangini PLEDGE OF AILEGIANCE The City Planner led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag. ROLL CALL Pre sent i\bsent Counci lmen : Counci Imen : Ams trup-Cro sby-Cus ick -Mang ini -Mart in None MI NUTES 1. PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS ' PROJECT "PARK PLAZA TOWERS.'' Mayor Manfini Impact Report for the above project was continued from the meetingof December L8, 1972, to the present date; furthermore, because theproject is located within the Burlingame Avenue Area Off-Street Parking District, there are special rules applicable to issuance of building permj.ts; at the December 18 meeting, the Councilgranteci the applicant permission to reapply for the building permit. Mayor Mangini acknowledged receipt of the applicant's letter of January 4, L973, submitting modified plans for the project and,thereafter, accorded, the privilege of the floor to Mr. Harry Riskas,President, Pacific Western Contractors, Inc. Mr. Riskas stated that the plans were revised because there wereindications from the Council at the December meeting that the density was considered too high. Mr. Riskas advised that the number of units has been reduced from 50 lo 44, that on-site parking has been increased to a total of 90 spaces, or 2.05 spaces per apartmenti landscaped area remains the same except that surface guest parking has been increased from three spaces to eight, landscaping wilI screen the spaces from public view. Mr. Riskas pointed out thatthe subject property abuts land zoned R-4 where the maximumbuilding height is 75 feet, the proposed improvement is approxi-mately 66 feet and the school and church on the opposite side ofthe street are approximateLy 54 and 59 feet. In response to a question from Councilman Crosby, the City Engineer reported that the property is wholly within the boundaries of the parking district. Comments from the audience were invited. The following persons supported the project: Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria Road, considered the developmentattractive, $reI1-designed and of quality construction, the locationsuitable, within walking distance of the cityrs principal shopping area and convenient to EI Camino Real , a potential major transitcoridor; additionally, approval of the project wilt rid the The minutes of the meeting of January 2, L973, previously submitted to Council, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 378 neighborhood of ttilapidated, neglected buildings that appear to be beyond the stage of restoration. David H. Keyston, 1452 rloribunda Avenue, spoke to the integrity of the cityl s zoning ordinance, noting that the project complies with regutltions cuirently in effectt parking will be provided in excess 5f current and proposed ordinances; if there was no building moratorium in the parking district, this c-1 property couLd be built waII to wa11, out to the sidewalk, with one-story commercial buildings, sans parking, and generate more traffic and more trips than the proposal; if the Council feels there are deficiencies j.n the zoning ordinance, the ordinance should be amended; a "traffic moratorium" ihould not be used to stoP a development that conforms to zoning requirements. Mr. Keyston expressed the opinion that, in general , the project wilL have a favorable impact on the community. Robert Refvem, 525 Almer Road, stated that the project wiJ-1 improve the neighborhood visual1y, socially and cul'tura11y and, therefore, improve the city and benefit aI1 of the citizens. Mrs. Andrew Byrd, 2656 Summit Drive, widow of former Counci lman Andreu, Byrd, stated that her husband's family owned a portion of the property and throughout the years, despite financial hardship, paid the parking district assessments. She advised, based on personal observatj-on and contact, that the tenants occupying the existing buiJ.dings on the property contribute little or nothing to the community; whereas the proposal would be a fine development, of benefit to the corurunity. There were no further comments from the audience. The hearing was declared closed. In response to CounciLman Amstrup, Mr. Riskas explained that, originally, there were six units of townhouse design extending between the fifth and sixth floors. He confirmed that parking will be furnished at the ratio of 2.05 spaces to each unit and existing trees preserved and relocated on the property. Councilman Cusick recalled that at the December meeting she approved the idea of a condominiurn building at the location and was pleased to fearn that the project had been scaled down; however, revised material submitted by the developers appears to indicate that the building remains the same height and same gross floor area; further, there were 50 units with 90 bedrooms in the original plan, now there appears to be greater density by reason of 44 units, 88 bedrooms and 26 other rooms cal1ed "dens. " She noted that several of the units were two bedrooms r^tith 2-l/2 baths; 88 bedrooms and 26 other rooms that could be used for bedrooms total a possible 114 bedrooms, as opposed to the original 90. Mr. Riskas stated that the units are geared to upper middle-classretired people, vrho require a den or sitt.ing room; the intended sale price demands there be a full dining room and den., Councilman Cusick comrented that parking must be increased if thereis a possibiJ.ity the rooms designated ,'dens', can be used asbedrooms . l Councilman Martin referred to the parking plan showj.ng gg spacesin the underground garage, 1"7 tandem and some, apparently, sub-standard in size. He asked about assignment of the parfing. Mr. Riskas explained that the parking is considered a corunon area,each owner is entitled to one stall and, since there is a surplus,there will be extra spaces for those needing them; the owners-' 7))(l I Following a recess at 9:00 P.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 9 :07 p.m. HEARING CONTINUED Mr. Riskas explained that when the P1ans were modified to reduce density to achieve six less families, one bedroom units were con- verted to townhouses, which are sPlit level occupying two stories; for economic reasons, the number of units cannot be lower than 44 and, because of the townhouse concePt, 44 units would be impossible in a five story building. Councilmen Martin and Cusick agreed with Councilman Amstrup that the building is too big for the site. Councilman Cusick again asked for clarificatj.on of the 24 "dens", whether the rooms vrere in the original plans, or added later. Councilman Crosby mentioned that he was familiar with the area, having been in busi.ness on Park Road for close to 30 years. He stated that he listened with interest to coments indicating that "everybody seems to think there is a heavy volume of traffic on the streeti " speaking from personal observation, he pointed out that there is little traffic and ample on-street parking after 3:00 p.m., in the vicinity of the church and school. He noted that the property has been zoned commercial for a number of years, has always been residential in use and that, if it did chanqe to commercial, under existing rules there would be no provision made for parking. He mentioned that the existing dwellings have deteriorated steadi).y attracting undesirabLe tenants with incumbent problems, that similar situations exj-st throughout the city and some effort must be made on the local level to rehabilitate such properties, or some other jurisdiction may step in and force re- clevetopment on the city. Councilman crosby stated he was convinced Mayor Mangini recalled that at the meeting of December 18, when tfr-e proje6t vras presented, there was discussion about water mains ' He alkea the City Engineer to comment. The latter discussed existing installations, consisting of a tgy, inch main on Park Road, six inch on Bayswater Avenue and e*fit inch on Howard Avenue; existing facilities will not provide fire flow for the new construction; ii the project is approved, the four inch line on Park Road must be replaced. The City Engineer stated that the city would prefer there be a 12 inch line, which, in tirne, can be extended to Peninsula Avenue to bring additional \'rater into that area. He suggested that the developer shouLd not be expected to finance more ihan eight inch and that the new maj-n could be accom- plished in the city's annual water main improvement Project, the developer to deposit with the city an amount to cover costs of the eight inch main and the city to pay the additional bet$reen eight inch and 12. The City Attorney indicated no objection to the City Engineers' suggested procedure . Councilman Amstrup expressed approval of the basic project as a suitable use of lanal in the location but felt, because of questions that were raised on parking and "bedroom vs. den" that perhaps the developer would be amenable to reducing the height of the building to five stories $rlth 44 units and the indicated parking. association will determine how the surplus parking shal1 be used. He pointed out there would be no way of determining at this time the num6er of spaces to be required for each unj-t. RECONVENE 3S0 that the area is not suitable for colunercial use and he did notshare the objections to the project raised by his colteagues. Mayor Mangini stated whatever when the density was reduced commerciaL zoning of the areait had, there would have beenthe proposal . objections he had were obviatedfrom 50 units to 44; he noted that never produced anything and, iffar more traffic aenerated than s( The City Attorney explained that there is before the Councilan Environmental Impact Report, which the Council must make byadopting the resolution that has been prepared. The Councildoes not have the right not to make the EIR and it may be . adverse or not. But the Council does have the right, once actingon the EIR, to determine vrhether or not to allow issuance ofthe building permit, having regard for the moratorium on high-rise buildings in the parking district; it is in that area wherethe Council has control and option of granting or not grantingthe permit; if the permit is granted, then the Council can makethe conditions on which it is to be granted. The City Attorneystated that it is not necessary to act on the EIR and the specj-alpermit at this time; either one or the other can be considered,or neither. RESOLUTION NO. 4-73 "Makin g Environmental Impact Report SixStory Cbndominium Auifding (Park Plaza Towers) 110 Park Road,E.I.R. No. 8B" was inlroduced by Councilman Crosby who movedits adoption. The resolution was seconded by Mayor Mangini. (LATER IN THE MEETING THE RESOLUTION WAS WITHDRAWN. ) The City Attorney explained that the resoLution accepts thebuilding official's EIR No. 8-B as presented, or modified as deemed necessary by the Council. He pointed out there is spacein the body of the resolution for the Council to add such rnodi-fications and that, under the statute, the Council has the mandateto determine whether or not there will be significant impact onthe environment from information presented in the Report. The Chair recognized Theodore C. Cannis, C.8., who prepared theenvironmental impact, st.atement for the applicants. Mr. Cannisstated that, from familiarity he has $rith regard to the statute,it is not appropriate for the Clty Council to make a negative or adverse report; there is no determination within the reportt itis an informational document and the action of the city is toprepare a report, hold the hearing and, in the presence of allthe information, to accept the report, none of this has anythingto do with either "positive or negative statement." Thexe followed considerable discussion concerning the "Friends of Marunoth " ruling, during which the City Attorney referred to the 120 day moratorium enacted by the State Legislature on the EIR requirement and to criteria to be furnished by the State to local governments for implementation of the Environmental Quality Actof 1970. Councilman Martin asked if the Act provides in some vray for thelegislative body to issue an EIR. The Citthat the original st,atute provided accordi has been modified to permit a city to contparty to make the report. The Attorney ex yA ng1 rac Pla ttorney affirmedy but the new Act t lrith anotherined that, sincethe City of Burlingame does not have the ner,, guidelines, it is operatj.ng under the old and the procedure contemplated thereprovides that the department head prepares the report, \"rhetherthe Plannj.ng Comrission, building official, Chief of the Fire Departmenti the report comes to the City Council, which makes itby adopting the resolution, after considering modification. 381 Councilman Martin indicated he intended to request that thelution show in the appropriate space that the Council findsproject will have an adverse effect on the environment. re so- the Councilman Amstrup stated he was hopeful the project could be accom-plished in a manner acceptable to both the city and developer. He suggested continuing the EIR and the Special Permit application for trrro h,eeks to aI1ow the developer time to determine whether ornot he can make further modifications so that the plans will be acceptable to the Council. Councilman Crosby indicated no objection to the continuance andthereafter withdrew his motion introducing the resolution forthe Report. He commented that whether the EIR shows there areor are not adverse effects should not preclude the Council from taking an action on the Report. The City Attorney advised that in making the finding of adverseeffect, the Council must say $rhat is to be done in mitigation, or as an alternative, Councilman Martin stated that the core of the matter is the specialpermit, j.f the Council denies the permit, the applicant, trega1ly, can return to the next meeting with a new application; in the mean-time, there remains the EIR; the developers have been made aware that some members of the CounciL believe the proposal will have adverse impact, they have been asked to make certain modificationsin the plans and, hopefully, this can be resolved. John Riskas stated there is conformance with all city codes; the number of families who will occupy the building was red.uced when one-bedroom units were converted to two bedroom and total units i.nthe building remained the same. He stated that rooms identifiedas "dens" are intended for that purpose; they are not bedrooms because there wilL be no closets,but built-in bars and bookcases. He noted that if the rrrord "den" is objectionable, the rooms can be designated "storage" or "closet" but their ultimate use restswith the owner of the unit. Mayor Mangini, with Council concurrence, declared a continuance tothe meeting of February 5, 1971. RECONVENE Following a recess at 10:15 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meetingat I0 :25 p.m. HEARINGS (cont.) 2. SF AIRPORT TOWERS, 1350 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY The public hearing on the above project, initiated at the Council meet,ing of December 18, 1972, was continued to the present time. Mayor I''langini acknowledged, and accepted for the record, communi- cations filed by the applicant subgequent to the December meetj.ng. Ri.chard Ware represented the developers, Charles King & Associates. 1,1r. Ware eferred to "Addendum To Environmental Impact Report" dated January 5, L973, explaining that, basically, the document answersquestions presented in a letter to the Council from the City Planner at the December meeting. He requested Council's attentj.onto the copy of the letter dated January 1I, 1973, from San Fran-cisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and copy ofletter dated Decembet 29,1972, from San Mateo County Airport Land Use Cor nission, both reporting that the project is not $rithin their areas of jurisdiction. 3U2 The Chair opened the floor to audience comments. Mrs. Dennis I) paPer articleold Bayshore . news- along The City Engineer, through the Chair, replied that if the question relates to sanitary sewage, the main pump station and sewage treat- ment plant can carry the additional flo$, without difficulty but, as mentioned in the EIR, a }arger main will be required in the st,reet if the project is approved. There were no comments in favor. Mrs. John Barton, 734 Winchester Drive, on the issue of height. David Larson, L2l6 Cortez Avenue, protested building height andwidth and bulk of parking structure. He stated that the buildingat 250 feet in width is wider than many of the buildings in San Francisco, citing, as examples, Crown zellerbach at 200 feet, Metropolitan Life. 206, A1coa, 2L2, and Bank of America, 243. He requested Council's consideration to a definitive waterfront plan controlfing height, bu1k, land use, and environmental impact. Stanley Thomas, 443 Cumberland Road, concurred \^ri th Mr. Larson and filed a communication with the City Clerk dated January 14 reciting h j.s personal objections. Charles Nolan, 221 victoria Road, stated that the city is faced with a good example of Lrhat can occur in the absence of proper planning and guidelines and that studies should be undertaken to develop revised standards for height throughout the city. Robert De1ze11, 1345 Desoto Avenue, urged rejection on the basisof the building official's findings that there will be adverseeffects on the environment. Mrs. Jean S. Jones, l4L7 Sanchez Avenue, teacher in Burlingame schools for L7 years, stated th61t for f0 bf the 17 years her students rnade field trips regularly to the bay and municipal dump for nature studiesi now, the shoreline is closed off, there are no places to park. Mrs. Jones asked the Council to limit the l-and area that buildings can occupy to preserve open space and places for nature study groups . Kent Dedrj.ck, President, CoNnittee for Green Foothills, reported that in contacting B.C.D.C. he learned that the project was not within its jurisdiction but it is important to note that B.C.D.C. Design Review Board made a study and that in the opinion of one of its members the project "was the worst possible utilization of the site." Mr. Dedrick stated that the fact the aPPlicant revised the plans to remove the structure from B.c.D.C. authority does not significantly alter the findings that the structure is as unsuitable today as it r4ras trhen the agency had jurisdiction. He stated that approval of the project can have the effect of establishing a precedent for other similar buildings and other similar parking structures backed up against the L00 foot shoreline band; the precedent need not be confined solely to the City of Burlj.ngame but could extend throughout the entire bay area. Mrs. Sylvia cregory, member of "Bay watchers," stated that theproject should not be built because of its horrendous size and resultant increase in population density. . Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue, referred to a regarding handling effluent from the buildings Objections were heard from: I))D.) Edwin P. Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue, M. W. Nicolson, Benito Avenue and IJ. Salter, 1408 Castillo Avenue. spoke ;;;i;;;";aar aeterioration bv reason of loss of view of Uuy, gt.a".I disappearance of the city's remaining open and increased air and noise pollution. Robert Refvem, 525 Almer Road, cited Mission Bay, San Diego' as an example of how the environment can be cared for r^'ithout placing a moratlrium on progress. He stated that, as an air line pilot' he might be inteiesled in the height of the building, but was pii.ui:.fy concerned that there be godd planning and not dis--continuairce of progress for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Mr. Thomas Hunter, Business Manager, Plumbers and Steam fitters Iocal unj.on, and representative of ttre Building and construction Trades Councj.I, stated that the project conforms to zoning and building codes, that the groups he represents are not for construc- tion, p6r se, but do have a vested interest in the economic welfare "i tir.it membership; norma1Iy, all construction people live in the county in which they bui1d, their children will continue to live theri; building moiatoriurns hurt the building industry and itris, in turn, hliIl--af fect local and regional economy; if building projects that meet loca1 codes contj-nue to be turned dot"n on iemlntics, city after city can be torn asunder; the building in- dustry is-conc-erned that lhe situation wilt create a political war. ).4 49 of the sPace for clarification on actual feet and 18 1evels, two for storage and other The hearing was declared closed. The City Planner pointed out that the EIR PrePared by the building official meets the standards for such documentsi he reported that the planning commission has been considering the idea of regulations for C-4 Dislrict; the subject project will satisfy the require- ments for such districts; The Planning Commission has scheduled a special meeting on January 2t to obtain input from the public or, !."p..ution oi open space and conservation elements and a design f rairew6rk, intended primarily to establish regul'ations for projects throughout the city. Councilman tunstrup asked the ProPonentsbuilding height. Mr. ware rePorted 200 Ievels below ground intended primarily special facilities. Councj-lman Amstrup requested Mr. ware to discuss plans for the 100 foot shoreline band controlled by B.C.D.C. Mr. Ware explained that there have been dj.scussions with the City Planner concerning the area, that any improvements there wi).I require B.C.D.C. approval, the devEloper is willing to cooPerate with the city and to provide landscaping or other similar amenities that the city may require. Councilman Cusick asked about building dimensions and public access to the shoreline. Mr. ware confirmed building height at 200 feet, width or length 250 pIus, and depth 85 feet, gross floor area 407,OOO square feet; 20 foot permanentLy landscaped strips on both sides of the building wiJ-I offer walking trails to the bay front. Counci lman Cusick comrnented that the building, spread across the width of the proPerty, will obstruct the view of the bay; a1so, from the bay and ttre proposed shoreline trail, the massive parking structure will be clearLy visible, the project will create 3rJ4 significant visual- impact. . . a concrete mass 1arger than the Bank of America building i.n San Francisco, width comparable tofive 50 foot viride Lots and more than sOt taller than the AirportMarina. She stated that there may be a shortage of parking spaceson the basis of figures submitted by the applicant. Mr. Ware discussed formulas that were used in arriving at parking requirements, based on past experience with office buildings thedevelopers have built in East Mi11sdale Industrial park. Hepointed out that the developers are aware of the need for ampleoff-street parking if the building is to attract desirable tenantsfrom the large cities, where parking is not avaitable. Mr. Ware, in response to an inquiry from Councilman Crosby, con-firmed that the developers are willing to participate with thecity in installation of a new sanitary sewer line. Mayor Mangini asked about adequacy of access for emergency vehicles.Mr. Ware explained that a "Life-Safety" sprinkler system will beinstalled and that emergency vehicle access wj.ll not be reguired because both building and parking structure will be sprinklered. The Flre Chief, in response to the Chair, confirmed that the systemis satisfactory. Further, in response to the Chair, Mr. Ware stated that the twostories below ground 1eveI will be used only for storage andthat experience in other office buildings proved there is a needfor such f acil-ities. Mayor Mangini suggested that the developers consider a heightconflguration to match the Well-s Fargo Bank and Airport Marina buildings. Mr. Ware explained that land cost and foundation system costs influence building height. Arthur Gensler, assocj.ated with the project, noted there are a number of factors to be considered by the Council: The project is totally within the laws of the city; the developers were ready to get their building permit and start construction when the EIR re-quirement was enacted; the proposed building will not necessarily increase population but there will be economic j.nput into thecity from the people who will- work there; a uniformity of buildingsize along the bay front would be the Ieast desirable architecturaldesign; a one-story building can create a sight barrier, and thevisual impact of any building along the bay is lessened from higher areas of the city. The developer is willing to create something extremely attractive within the I00 foot band and will accept such improvement, and the requirement for sanj-tary sewer line, as modifications to the EIR. -'] In response to Councilman Amstrup, Mr. developer would be willing t,o deposit develop the 100 foot band at such ti.medirection for its improvement. censler stated that the "X" number of dollars tothat the city can furnish There follovred considerable discussion concernj.ng procedure. TheCity Attorney instructed the Council that the only matter requiring an action is the EIR prepared by the building official . The Council makes the report, either as presented or modified to suitthe Council's wishes, by adopting the resolution prepared for the purPose . The City Planner referred to Item 8 in the building officialrs EIR wherein the person making the report is asked to describealternatives (if any) to the project and their effect on theenvironment. He quoted t.he comment in the Report, as follows: :ls5 "The only economic alternative is not to proceed hrith the project. " The Planner stated he was unable to agree for the reason he felt there were alternatives and that it may be incumbent on the cityto attempt to determine what the alternative design might be. The City Attorney stated that the judge who wrote the "Mammothcase" noted. one sentence in a footnote: "Obviously, if the adverse consequences to the environnent can be mitigated, or feasiblealternatives are available, the proposed activity should not be approved . " The City Attorney stated that the nev, legislation supported thisstatementi therefore, if the Council finds anything adverse, it has the right to explore means of mitigation or alternativestuntil this has been done, the Council need not make the report and the building permit need not issue, if there are alternatives and the developer refuses. A motion thereafter introduced by Councilman Martin to continuethe EIR and directing staff to study alternatives as to trafficimpact, sanitary se\"/er problems, development of 100 foot shoreline band subject to BCDC approval , visual impact of the buildingin the immediate vicinity of the bay, because of its buIk, size and spread,, and interference with vistas visible from the hillsideareas by reason of height and size, was seconded by Councilman Cusick. On the question, members individually expressed their positionswith respect to the project: ._. ")... Councilman Martin asked for a reduction in height; Councilman Arnstrup was concerned about height and bulk and use of the 100foot shoreline band; Councilman Cusick asked if the buitding couldbe relocated further back on the property and made smaller; Councilman Crosby indicated no objection to the height, MayorMangini expressed a preference for less height, in line with We11s Fargo and Airport Marina and asked that the matter of theshoreline band be explored wlth B.C.D.C. ?he motion was carried unanimously on ro11 call. Mayor Mangini declared the hearing contj.nued to the meeting ofEebruary 5. L973. Mr. censler was informed that a full set ofmodified plans need not be prepared; elevations, plot plan andfloor plan would be sufficj-ent. The public hearing on the above matter was continued from themeeting of December L8, 1972, to the present time. At the meeting in December, Councilman Martin declared his inten-tj.on of not participating in the proceedings, because of a possj.bleconflict of interest. He excused himself from the rostrum. Mayor Mangini recognized Mr. Robert Thompson, who spoke for theproponents. I,1r. Thompson directed his corunents to the issue ofoff-street parking. He recalled that at the time of formationof the parking district a solemn promise was mad.e to property owners in the district, by the cj.ty and proponents of the district,that if the assessments hrere paid there would be no need to provide any further parking. He referred to the interim urgency ordi.nanceadopted by the city and the parking study undertaken by consultantsretained by the cityt both the ordinance and the consultants'report discuss the matter of exemptions that $rere granted property owners who participated in the district and suggest that perhaps 3. 2OO PARK ROAD COMPANY OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION 386 the properties should not be exempt. which is the subject of the hearing since its formation. He stated contr ibuted that the property to the district Mr. Thompson referred to his communication dated December 29, L972, to the City Attorney outlining conditions that the applicant would accept in connection with issuance of the building permit. The commirnication is in the form of a guarantee to th; tity that if it embarks on rental of parking spaces the applicant $rould commit itself to rent up to 25 rental off-street parking spaces for a period of five years, or shorter, at the option of the city; the condition j-s in no $ray intended to obligate the city to provj'de the spaces. The applicant is agreeable to prepay rent for the parking spaces up to a maxj.mum sum of $10,000.00, and to file a iaithful performance bond in the sum of $10,000.00, to cover the prepaid renti the commitment should expire in three years, if the iental spaces have not been made avail-able within that time. Mr. Thompson stated that, subsequent to the above offer, the applicant decided to make an alternative proposaL in line with the "in 1ieu" contribution discussed on page 47 of the De Leuw, cather report; the applicant will make a 59r000.00 in lieu cornmi tment and deliver the payment at the time of issuance of building permit to pay for two off-street parking sPaces to-be acquired by the city. If such parking is not constructed within three years, the money to be refunded. Councilman Anstrup reported that he was invited by Mr. Frank Ingersoll, one of the principals in the development, to inspect the project site, which he di<l , but he made no commitment with respect to the matter before Council. There was one conment from the audience. Robert Refvem approved the project. The hearing was declared closed. Councilman Amstrup asked a series of questions concerning parking. Mr. Thompson advised there will be no on-street spaces lost at the Park Road frontage by reason of the ingress driveway; on Howard Avenue, four sPaces will be eliminated; the exit at Hor^rard will be landscaped. With reference to the $9r000.00 "in lieu" payment, Mr. Thompson explained that it was suggested by the p.iXing consultanls as a method trhereby the city could establish i "feqif income which could form the basis for providing additional parking as it becomes practicable. " Councilman Amstrup recognized that if the ground level parking was eliminated thL construction would not requj-re council approval to a special permit; the applicant is attemPting to provide parking, which, legally, he need not do because the proPerty was granted exemptioni in the parking district. He indicated no objection to the project provided the resolution is modified to include the in-1ieu payment or rental sPaces and landscaping. RESOLUTION No. 4-73 "Making Environmental Impact RePort Three Story 7P" w seconcall: o ce Bu ng, 1240-1256-L260 Howard Avenue, E as introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved ].ts d by Councilman Amstrup and carried on the follow AYES: COUNCILMEN: Ams truP-Crosby-Cu s ick-Mangini NOES: COUNCILTUEN: None ABSTAIN COUNCITMEN: Martin 1 .I.R. No. adoption, ing roll The City meet the Attorney report.ed that the resolution will be modified to Council' s requirements. 3E7 Councilman Cusick announced that she cannot resolve going ahead with the project before the parking study is comPleted and the Council has made a determination with respect to exPanded parking in the do\,rntown area. A motion introduced by Councilman Crosby, second by Amstrup to approve issuance of the building permit was carried on the following ro11 call: Counci lman for the project AYES: COUNCILMEN: Ams trup-Cro sby-Mang ini NoES: COUNCILMEN: Cusick ABSTAfN COUNCILMEN: Martin BART MEE?ING A motion was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, seconded by Council- man Crosby and unanimously carried, to invite representatives of BART to a spec5.aI public meeting for the purpose of presenting to the citizenry j,ts proposals for the Peninsula and, particularly, the extent to which the City of Burlingame will be affected. COMMUNI CAT IONS 1. EXECUTION OF AGREEMEMT FOR TOPICS PROJECT "ROLLINS ROAD WTDENING." Under date of January 8, L973, the Dj.rector of Public Works sub-mitted the form of agreement covering TOPICS project of Rollins Roadwidening between Edwards Court and Mills Creek and recommended itsexecution and transmittal to the State Division of Highways.In an addendum to the comnunication, the City Manager concurred inthe recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 5-7 3 "Authorizing Execution Of Supplenent No. 4 ToMaster Agreement Between The city Of Burlingame And The State ofCalifornia, Acting By And Through The Division Of Highways Of The Department Of Public Works, Program Of Local Agency Topics Improve-ment Projects In The City Of Burlingame" was introduced byCouncilman Martin, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup and. unanimously carried on roll ca}1. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNALS PARK AND HOWARD ACCEPTED. In a conmunication Works reported thatfor installation ofHis recorunendationby the City ManagerJanuary 11, 1973. dated January 9, L973, the Director of Public Rosendin Electric has completed its contractsignals at Park Road and Howard Avenue.that the project be accepted was concurred inin an addendum to the communication dated RESOLUTION NO. 5-7 3 "Accepting Traffic Signal System Park Road And Howard Avenue, lob No. 72-8, S.S. 140" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by CouncilmanCusick and unanimously carried on ro11 ca1l. 3. SAFETY MEMBERS ONE-HALF CONTINUANCE BENEFIT Under date of January 11, 1973, the City Manager submitted theresolution providing for implementation of one-hatf continuancebenefits for safety members and recommended its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 7-7 3 "Resolution Of Intention To Approve An AmendmentTo Contract Between The Board Of Administration Of The Pub1ic Employees' Retirement System And The City Council Of The City OfBurlingame" was introduced by Councilman Cusick, who moved itsadoption, second by Councilman Martin and unanimously carried onroll ca1l. 388 A conurunication from the City Manager dated concerning disPosition of the above site was held for discussi-on at a later date. 4 5 BREWER RESERVOIR PROPERTY TRAFFIC SIGNATS OLD BAYSHORE January 11, 1973, acknowledged and Under date of January 11, 1973, the City Manager submitted communications from 'sergeant Robert J. Quinn, Burlingame Traffic oirector, and John R. G;ilhamet, Planning Engineer, - county. of s;;-ili;;, concerning installation of traffic signals at the intersections of o1d Bayshore Highway at Mitten Road and Mahler Road. the City Manager noted that the traffic will beiome $rorse as development increases' have signals designed for the two inter- in the letter from the county, costs to tax funds, was accePted by the Council' REsoLUTIoN No. S-T3 "Accepting Grant Deed From Virginia Boyd Done iffi-f"ma"t-"a li ng wilh Her Separate ProPerty, dated January igii;i *u" introduced b! Councilman f,lartin, who moved its adoption, iecond by councilman airstrup and unanimously carried on ro11 call' GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE MEET]NG: Councilman Amstrup extended an to any interested Person' to itte"a the meeting on Tuesday, January 23, 1973, aE 7:30 p'm" in Conference Room B, city HalL. In his communication, situation in the area His recommendation to sectj,ons, as mentioned be charged against gas RE SOLUTI ON NEW BUSINESS T,IEETINGS SCHEDUI.,ED COUNCIL AMSTRUP REPORT 1tI5, With Council concurrence, Mayor Mangini announced the fotlowing:- -i"i"t Counci I/P lanning Cominission dinner meeting, Wednesday' January 31r 5:30 p.m., starlight Room, Hyatt House' -coun-ci1 monthly- study meeting, wednesday February 7' 8:00,P'm' De Leuw, Cather parking study, Burlingame Avenue Area t"l-rr De reviewed at the study meeting.--stecial pubtic ."utitg on iroadway Area parking we'lnesday' February J-4, 7230 P.m.fhe mitter of the annual Council,/Commission/Auxi I iary dinner ,n..ting was referred to the study meeting for discussion' Councilman AmstruP and the city Engineer met with Millbrae CounciLman Arthur IJePore and city Engineer Va1 Padovan' The discussion covered l,tiltbrae,s pllns ior eventual widening of uiffnt.. Avenue, closing off t-hat portion of California Drive iight "r tray connect,i"g-to Millbral Avenue and the possibility "t'li""iai"i a substitite connector route by extending 1t -."i'rl:."g sh5rt cul de sac street t,esterly from California Drive i"-Bi ci.i"o, paralleling MilJ"brae Avenue' Councilman Amstrup reported there- was excelient rapport with the Millbrae people and they too are anxious that there be dialogue between the two cities on matters of mutual interest' ;iEg APPOINTMENT Mayor Mangini announced that the Council has appointedM!s. Gloria Barton, 734 Winchester Drive, to fill a vacancy onthe Beautif ication Commission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Police and Fire Departments monthly activity reports, December, l-g'12,ci,ty Pranner report of Planning conunission actions and reconunendations ,adjourned meeting, January 8, L973, parking Commission minutes, December 27, 1972. The Chamber of Commerce quarterly report, January I through March 31, 1973, was accepted and approved on motion of CouncilmanMartin, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried. APPROVALS on motion of Councilman Cusick, second. by Councilman Amstrup andunanimously carrj.ed, warrants Nos. 2097 through 2270, for December purchases, duly audited, were approved for payment inthe amount of S195,165.02. On motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Amstrup andunanimously carried, payrotl for the month of December, 1972, Checks Nos. 10132 through 1090I, in the amount of $228.067.20were approved. ADJOURNMENT Res ctfully submi t K.City Clerk ROVED: ctor A.n Mayor There being no further business, the meeting r^ras regularly adjournedat 2:00 a.m.