Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1974.03.18139 Burlingame, California March 18, L974 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burtingame City Council was called to order on the above date at 8:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEG]ANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Carl M. Lollin, Chief of Police. ROLL CALL Present - Councilmen: Absent - Councilmen: Amstrup-Crosby-Cus ick-Harr i s on-Mangini None MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of March 4, L974 and the special meeting of March L2, L974, called to canvass election returns, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS I. EMPIRE PERMIT SYSTEMS APPEAL]N RE SIGN VARIANCE FOR DICK BULLIS CHEVROI,ET Mayor Crosby announced this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing and to consider the request of GIen Crum, Empire Permit Systems, Oakland, for Council review and determination with respect to the conditions of the sign variance approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, L974, for Dick Bullis Chevrolet- A letter dated March 8, L974, from Richard S. Bullis, President, Dick Bullis Chevrolet, addressed to the City Council, recited as follows: "You will hear an appeal by Empire Permit Systems to the conditions of the sign variance approved for my facilities by the Planning Commission at your meeting on March L8, L974. f am not interested in the appeal and have no reason to argue against the decision of the Planning Conunission before your body. Empire Permit Systems does not represent Dick Bullis Chevrolet." In view of the foregoing, Mayor Crosby announced there will be no hearing, the matter of the appeal removed from the City Council agenda, and the action of the Planning Commission in approving the sign variance sustained. 2. TE}TIATIVE PARCEL MAP OF BARNETT PROPERTY, RALSTON AND OCCIDENTAL AVENUES. (APPROVED) Mayor Crosby announced the public hearing on the appeal of Robert H. Showen, fnc., Attorney at Law, in behalf of Miss G. Bernice Barnett, L575 Ralston Avenue, from the Planning Cormnission disapproval of a Tentative Parcel Map proposing a resubdivision of Lots 9 and 12, Block 6, Map of Subdivision #2, Burlingame Park, by deleting existing interior lot lines and. esta"blishing new lines dividing the property into three parcels ttAt', t'8" and. "C". At the Chair's invitation, the City Planner reviewed the action of the Planning Conunission at its meeting on January 28, L974t when the resubdivision was denied on a vote of 3 to 2, 1 member absent. Referring to the plot plan before the Council, he noted there is total land area of approximately 171500 square feet. He reported that the easement on Parcel "A", intended as a conmon driveway for Parcels "Al' and "B", was a matter of some concern to the Planning Commission. Recently, the attorney for the proponent poJ-nted out that the easement will contain only a driveway and could be much narrower than the suggested. 20 feet. The Planner noted that the area of Parcel "Arr is in excess of 61000 square feet. The easement is part of the parcel, neither detracting from nor reducing total square footage. As proposed, the resubdivision will create 3 buildable lots. On Parcel "C", an existing frame building fronting on Occidental Avenue could remain until completion of a new dwelling. 1,10 Mayor Crosby asked about two dwellings on the one lot. The Planner explained that the existing building is non-conforming because of lack of front setback. The building is on the property line. When application is made for building permit for this parcel, the building department will require demotition of the existing dwelling prior to occupancy of the new. Responding to Councilman Cusickts inquiry concerning removal of trees on "C" to accommodate new construction, the Planner explained this will depend on building design. He mentioned that an "L" structure, for example, probably would require removal of the 30" diameter pine. Declaring the hearing open, the Chair recognized Robert Showen, attorney for Miss Barnett. Mr. Showen referred to issues raised in the preceding discussion. He explained there is nothing in the proposal that contemplates two (2) buildings on Parcel "C"- He stated that the first presentation to the Planning Cornrnission proposed three (3) wedge-shaped fots conforming to code in alt areas but entailing removal of a munber of trees and wasted land at the rear of the property. After the initial discussion with the Commission, the plans were revised to take advantage of natural building sites. parcel "C", redesigned, has a buildable area of approximaleLy 2575 square feet after removal of the 30" diameter pine tree. ff there is to be a new house here, the tree should not remain for safety reasons. parcel "A,', redesigned, has a buildable area of 2425 square feet. For every two (2) feet, approximately, that the easement can be narrowed, the buildable area would increase approximately lOO square feet; for example, eighteen (fB) feet of easement would give an approximate 2525 square feet of buildable area. Further- more, this parcel has gross area in excess of 61000 square feet, Iot coverage permitted by code is 40%, or total coverage of 2400 square feet. WLt.}: 2425 square feet of buildable area, the parcel witl offer a buj"Iding site in excess of code maximum. I,lr. Showen stated the logical access to "A" would be alongside the northeasterly boundary of the property. He then read a letter dated March L8, L974, ftom Ellen W. Little, 326 Sonora Drive, San Mateo, sister of Mrs. Margaret Harford, prospective buyer of Parcel rrgtr, stdting that Mrs. Harford has no objection to the proposed easement so long as it is located as near as possible to the northeastern property line, that it is recognized this would require removal of a large plum tree but substitute plants will be placed for screening, and that use of the coflrmon driveway wiII permit full development of the property with least possible change in trees and ground cover and permit construction of three (3) homes in an area where elderly peopte can live and walk to the shopping area. Mr. Showen then discussed the issue of inverse condemnation. He maintained that all of the plans presented to the City conform to the zoning code and, if not approved in some form, would provide a basis for inverse condemnation of the property for the reason that the zoning code does permit three (3) lots on the property and the proponents have been most flexible in attempting to satisfy whatever requirements would be imposed upon establishment of the three (3) Iots- Mayor Crosby commented there have been several suggestions for the width of the easement. He asked Mr. Showen for clarification. ft was Mr. Showen's suggestion that this be determined at staff level. He pointed out that the final map must be returned to the City Council for approval. If the tentative map is accepted, the prospective purchaser of rrArr can confer with her architect. Until there is some architecturit projection for the site, it is difficult to attempt to make a firm commitment on easement width. Both the current and the prospective ol\,ner are agreeal:Ie that the easement in its proposed location is the best means of saving the maximum number of trees. The intent is to make the easement as narrow as possible but to accomplish suitable ingress and egress for the two (2) Iots. Removal of the one (1) plum tree will save two (2) other trees well over twenty (20) feet in height. a I -11 Councilman Harrison asked if the 6000 square feet area in Parcel "A" is inclusive or exclusive of the easement. Mr. Showen responded "inclusive." Councilman Harrison asked about land area if the footage in the easement were subtracted out. Ivtr. Showen reported the easement is approximately 80 x 20 feet but it is not common practice to exclude easements when computing 1ot area. With reference to corrunents at the Planning Commission level concerning development of Parcel "C", Mr. Showen stated the existing house is built over the creek, it has lasted,52 years, and, hopefully, with modern construction expertise, an egually substantial house of pleasing design can be buiIt. I'urthermore, realinement of lot lines resulted in a buildable area that will accommodate an entire structure without any part spanning the creek. In response to the Chair, there were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared closed. There followed a period of Council discussion. Councilman Cusick asked the City Attorney if she was correct in assuming, if the Council does not accept the revised ptan, that the proponents can initiate litigation against the City to allow the property to be subdivided in accordance with the original proposal, which complied with code. The City Attorney confirmed this, explaining there is in excess of I5r000 square feet in the property. The first proposal was to divide into three (3) 1ots, each having in excess of 5000 square feet; the original plan met lot area requirement. Each lot had frontage on a city street, no street improvements were required. That being the situation, the property and the applicant met all of the reguirements of the ordinance. While practically speaking it may not have been a good p1an, nevertheless, Miss Barnett is entitled to have the property divided in the form she originally submitted. He recalled a sj-milar situation years ago where a proposal was made for resub- division of a corner property on Easton Drive. The plan conformed to the City's ordinance but the City Council denied the application. The owner took the matter into court and won her suit. Councilman Cusick then asked if the City accepted the revised p1an, including the easement, can the action be conditioned upon preservation of the trees. The City Attorney indicated this would be legally proper. Further, in response to Councilman Cusick concerning enforcement of conditions with respect to the easement, the City Attorney reviewed code provisions whereby the City would ask for a grant of easement from the property owner as a separate document. This document, to be formally accepted by the City, would particularly describe the easement and the conditions set forth by the Council; one of the conditions could be provision with respect to maintenance of the trees. Councilman Cusick asked I,1r. Showen if he would be willing to accept a condition that there be no building over the creek on Parce1 "C". He felt this would be an inappropriate condition hampering effective use of the land. Councilman Amstrup asked if the oviner immediately adjacent to Parcel t'A" ls aware of the easement. Mr. Showen replied he is and has not objected. Councilman Amstrup asked about future plans for the two-story dwelling presently occupied by Miss Barnett. Mr. Showen indicated this was uncertain. The home has been offered for sale. Miss Barnett addressed the Council, cormnenting that the concept of 50 foot lots side by side, alt in a row, is o1d-fashioned, an obsolete idea. The current trend is toward open space and park-like surroundings. With reference to the pine tree on "C", she stated that the tree sh8uld come down because it is in poor condition and causing injury to the redwood tree, which is worth saving. The plum to be removed from the easement is very oId. Councilman Mangini asked who will be responsible for removal of the eucal-yptus tree in the easement. ivir. Showen stated it wiII remain, the driveway designed to accommodate it. Further, in response to Councilman Mangini, Mr. Showen stated that full responsibility of maintaining the easement will lie with the owner. The City has no obligation in this area. Councitman Mangini then asked if consideration had been given to two lots. Mr. Showen maintained thj-s would be an economic impossS-bility. ? 112 Mayor Crosby and Councilman Amstrup asked Mr. Showen to explain how the easement can be useful as a driveway with the eucalyptus at the entry. Mr. Showen stated it is not intended to provide a straight-Iine drive but to loop around the trees. I4r. Herbert Williamson, owner of 1555 Ralston Avenue, stated the eucalyptus is adjacent to his home and that he would prefer to see it out, because of the litter. councilman Amstrup noted there is gross land area in Parcel "A", of 5150 feet, of this 1600 is contained within the easement, resulting in a lot of 4550 square feet. He voiced his personal objection to a precedent condoning lots in this section of the city below the 5000 square feet legal minimum. The City Attorney, responding to the Chair, explained that the easement would not be subtracted in determining lot area. Mayor Crosby reported he lived in a home for years with an easement down the side to a 1and-locked lot at the rear and that he felt no special concern about this proposed easement. He referred to comments in the Planning Commission minutes indi- cating construction costs on "C" might be prohibitive but, according to IvIr. Showen, there are other ways of building on the lot without spanning the creek. The Mayor noted also that rrc, is a legal lot. Councilman Cusick stated she would prefer that the City be in a position to control disposition of the trees. Her motion to approve the Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Howard Hickey, 3/L2/74, Drawing #498-L, was conditioned as follows: l. The propertj-es to be developed in comptiance with R-1 District Regulations. 2. As a condition to the City's acceptance of the ingress and egress easement on Parcel "A", all of the trees plotted on the map shall be preserved, except that the plum and eucalyptus in the easement and the 30" diameter pine on Parcel "C" may be removed at the ownerts discretion. 3. There shall be separate sewer laterals and separate water service to each Iot. 4. Prior to occupancy of a new dwelling on "c", the existing dwelling shall be removed. Councilman Mangini asked if it would be possible to observe all setbacks without removing some of the trees. Mra. Showen indicated no problems on "A" and "B", on,,C,,to develop logical building site, the pine should be removed; if not, it will probably fal1 in time. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mangini. fn summarizfung, Mayor Crosby stated that Councilman tunstrup wants to be certain that ,,A,' shall have an area not less than 5000 square feet exclusive of the easement. The city Attorney states this is not necessary. The Mayor suggested that the proponent=, in preparing the fj-nal map, design two proposals for the easement, one straight and one curved, to show how each will affect footage in the Iot. ft was the City Attorney's opinion that the Council accept Mr. Showen's suggestion earlier in the discussion that precise location of the easement be determined between applicant and staff. He approved the Mayor's idea of two proposals, conunenting that the Council could adopt either one, or some modification of either, when presented in final form. The motion to overrule the Planning Commission and to approve the Tentative parcel Map with conditions was unanimously carried on ro11 call. RECONVENE: Following a recess at 9:15 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.m. HEAR]NGS (cont.) 2. PROPOSED AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL ADDfTfON (DEIiIED) Mayor Crosby announced that the hearing on the above project was continued from the meeting of January 7, L974, to the present time' 4 t43 Councilman Harrison asked the City Attorney for clarification on his status with respect to participation in the continued hearing. The City Attorney explained that, if this is to proceed from this point on as a continuance of hearings previously held, thenthe Councilman would be disqualified from participating or voting. This would be true of the action on the Environ- mental Impact Report and. the apptication'for special permit. The matter of the appeal by Benjamin W. Frankel, Attorney, in behalf of Mr. and l4rs. William F. McClenahan from Planning Commission approval of setback variances was not before the City Council by way of hearing but was set for hearing. That being sor Councilman Harrison could be qualified to participate in that. This presents practical problems in the event there should be a desire on the part of the City Council to consolidate afl three topics in one hearing. A method for the Council to overcome this and to permit the Councilman to participate would be for the City Council to cortrnence a rehearing on each application so that all matters previously heard were heard again and all matters were then presented so that the Councilman could have complete participation in the entire new hearing. Councilman Amstrup stated it should be pointed out in fairness to the applicant that, Iacking full Council participation, there could. be a 2 to 2 vote. This would not be desira-b1e from the viewpoint of the City Council or the applicant. He suggested it proba-bly would be better for Councilman Harrison to participate and vote. In response to the Chair, James E. Ruthroff, consulting structural engineer representing the applicant, indicated that full Council participation would be desirable. There were comments by the Council, staff2 and the applicant's representative on proceedings at the Iast meeting. There appeared to be a consensus that this was, ostensibly, a joint hearing on aII phases of the project, but, in actuality, the discussion did not progress beyond the E.I.R., with no decision reached. Mayor Crosby noted that the Council has been furnished a corrected d.raft of the E.f.R., which must be heard anew. Followinq procedural guidelines offered by the City Attorney, Mayor Crosby, with Council concrtrrence and no objections voiced by the applicants, announced that the parking structure wiII be considered first. Declaring the hearing open, the Chair requested Councilman Mangini to read. the letter of March 8, L974, from Mr. Ruthroff. fn substance, the communication requested that the E.1.R. be heard separately from major policy issues that will affect the City of Burlingame. Policy issues were identified as the six-story parking structure, eleven-story hotel addition, setback variances for the parking structure and sign variance approved by the Planning Commission. In conclusion, the letter stated: "We are expressing these views to clarify the position of the applicant and it is our belief that there is no benefit to either the Council or the applicant to bog on finite details, if any, if the general concepts are not acceptable. We again offer our time should you wish to discuss these matters in a study session, and express our desires for approval of our request consistent with the best interests of the City of Burlingame." (A copy of the letter is on fj-Ie in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mayor Crosby stated it was his understanding that, if the parking structure failed to receive the Council's approval, there was nothing to be gained in considering other phases of the project. Mr. Ruthroff explained that, to provide parking required by code, (687 spaces in the opinion of the City) a six-story structure providing seven level-s of parking, 50 feet in height to the top of the parapet wa1l, will be required, together with on-site parking. He pointed out that a formal request for variance was filed requesting relief on front and side seth,acksi however, the parking structure was planned so that there wil-l be eleven feet of setback on one side with exposure to the central area of the City. This is adjacent to the gasoline service station where there will- be landscaping and a concrete architectural wa1l. Adjacent to the existing industrial pIant, there will be no setback, and a smalL setback at the line of Burlway Road wheretrees and shrubs can be planted. If Burlway Road T 111 is considered by the Council as the front of the lot and the thirty foot setback required, or the other side setback, it will be necessary to consider adding a story per setback. on the side next to the one-story industrial buildingr it would seem reasonable that there is nothing to be gained by a ten foot strip between buildings; it would probably become a catch-all for debris. The wall of the parking structure will be solid, ten feet away from the solid wall of the industrial building, and ten feet of waste space between. IvIr. Ruthroff stated that the volume of the structure is required by reason of sheer requirement of parking spaces. A model was placed on display showing the hotel site and adjacent properties. Iulr. Ruthroff discussed visual impact from the foothills, stating that every effort has been made to make the structure as compact as possible. Mayor Crosby asked if Burl-way Road is considered entrance or exit. One of the supporting documents indicates "exit." Mr. Ruthroff explained that, essentially, it is an exit from the parking structure. However, there will be people familiar with the area who will enter off Burlway Road. On-site traffic will be directed by arrows and signs to exit on Burlway. Mayor Crosby conrnented that there should be thirty feet of setback on Burlway if it is considered the entrance. I"1r. Ruthroff stated that the City Planner interprets Burlway as the front of the Iot, which would require the thirty feet regardless of whether the hotel calls it t'entrancett or t'exit.t' In response to Mayor Crosbyl lvlr. Ruthroff stated that the setback adjacent to the service station is documented at eleven feet, eight inches. If the Council does approve, the applicants request it be referred to as eleven feet; figures in preliminary drawings tend to become greater when final plans are drawn. Mr. Ruthroff stated it would be possible to move the deck toward the south a reasonable amount to give plantings at the front and soften that elevation on Burlway. The penalty is the loss of two spaces; for every one foot the structure is moved, two spaces are Iost. A three-foot setback could accommodate trees. fn response to Councilman Mangini, Mr. Ruthroff stated it is difficult to interpret front and rear of a parking structurei presumalrly, Burlway would. be the front, though people would be using it to exit. Further, to Councilman Mangini, Mr. Ruthroff confirmed there should be thirty feet setback at this frontage, but this is the relief the applicants are requesting. At Councilman Mangini's request, I{r. Ruthroff displayed an architectural rendering depicting the proposed wall adjacent to the service station, a precast concrete panel painted in multicolor. Councilman Mangini commented that the Council is not overlooking the work done by the applicants and their consultants. However, there were some categorical statements in I"1r. Ruthroff 's letter (3/7/74); it was stated there would appear to be no reason for undergrounding the parking, nor for reducing size of parking structure. Councilman Mangini stated it is the Councilrs responsibility to give the people of the City what they want. He expressed the opinion that the structure is too high; moreover, it will go higher if the Council insists on setbacks. I,lr. Ruthroff recalled that the Planning Commission recormnended approval of the setbacks to the Council. Councilman Mangini asked l,lr. Ruthrof f to clarify the issue of nuniber of parking spaces. The latter stated that 687 is the number determined by the City Planner in interpretation of the code. It is the opinion of the consultants that the number is 645, a lesser number; the applicants witl yield to the ordinance. Councilman Mangini asked Mr. Ruthroff to conunent on addition of retail shops resulting from the proposed hotel addition. Mr. Ruthroff stated he was unable to give a precise answer but, as a matter of the detail plarl, it is possj-ble retail space wil-l be needed. Barber and beauty shops, a dress shop, magazine and gift sales are all needed for serving the hotel. Councilman Mangini stated that the Parking Cormnission finds a total of 7LL spaces are neededt 24 above the number required by code. Mayor Crosby invited William Orr, Chairman of the Parking Commission, to comment. Mr. Orr stated that PauI Fratessa, consultant for the project, met with the LD l,llt Commission on January 23, L974. The Conunission was presented with a set of figures outboard to the plot plan; in subsequent discussion, the consultant maintained that the only part of the public record is the plot plan itself. Mr. Orr stated he wrote to the City Council in February, on behalf of the Commission, and reconrnended a totaL of 778 spaces, based on figures resulting from the discussion at the Commissionrs .fanuary meeting. Mr. Orr, referring to the plot p1an, pointed out there is a small change in restaurant use and a small change in meeting room area, which represents the additional twenty-four spaces. He stated that his letter was sent to the City Manager. Copies were forwarded to the City Council and the chairman of the Planning Commission, but not to ttre consultants, for the reason that the Parking Commission considers itself advisory to the City Council. Mr. Ruthroff stated that management has developed certain expertise throughout the years. It is their desire to produce a piece of merchandise that wiII be usable and acceptable to the people. The records have been searched with Mr. Sturgis, hotel manager, a determination mad.e of what the needs were and what they are now; these have been extrapolated to what actual needs are. It should be pointed out that the percentage of parking that would be provided under 680 or 587 spaces is at a higher percentage than now exj-sts. The intent is to p:rovide the nr-unlcer of spaces requiredby code, as weII as a reasona.ble nrunlcer commensurate with the hotel needs. Councilman Amstrup asked Mr. Ruthroff, if the Council insists on thirty feet of setback at Bur1way, will this entaif another story on the structure. Mr. Ruthroff replied that deducting thirty feet from buildable area will- result in loss of approximately I00 spaces. With sixty four spaces per floor, probably two additional stories wou1d. be needed to recover the 100 spaces. Councilman Amstrup stated that sheer bulk'of tl.e structure is a matter of concern. There is sheer bulk occurring in this whole section of the City. It appears now that this parking structure may rise to eight stories. Councilman Cusick expressed the opinion that the code does require more parking than the 687 spaces. Page 305 of the code recites table of requirements. Parking has been computed for the restaurant part of the buildtng and it is difficult to understand why meeting rooms do not faLl under the same categoryr i.e., "establistrments for consumption and sale on the premises of beverages, food and. refreshments. " Airport Marina has many conventions, there are banquets where food and drink are consumed. Councilman Cusj-ck maintained that meeting rooms should not be permitted to escape the requirement of one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Mr. Ruthroff stated that Airport Marina will- accept the interpretation of the City Planner with respect to parking requirements. Councilman Harrison commented that Mr. Ruthroffrs presentation was made, presumably, on a six-story parking structure and predicated, a1so, on granting of certain variances in the setbacks. Referring to Councilman Amstruprs comment regarding bulk, Councilman Harrison stated this is the concern of many of the people of Burlingame. Residents of hillside areas do not appreciate gazing on a mass of structures along the bayfront. He, as a representative of these peopleris not happy with the idea of the parking structure, nor granting variances where the end result would be a higher structure. ltr. Ruthroff explained that the model on display actually does not go far enough to show the Wells Fargo Bank building, a six-story structure, three to four feet per story taller than Airport Marina. He emphasized that the City's plan for shoreline development has been incorporatod in the hotel plan; the 100 foot band will- be landscaped, bicycle path added, public access to shorel-ine provided. When completed the project will result in a centralized focal commercial development for the City; these are some of the advantages offsetting to a mass. In response to Councilman Amstrup, Mr. Ruthroff confirmed that if the parking structure cannot be built, the tower cannot be built; one is linked to the other. There is no alternative way of developing the property; the owner believes it is necessary to expand the hotel to make it a usable, vibrant industry. Airport Marina must make the improvements or seek other alternatives. '7/. 1,t(i Councilman Harrison asked if the property immediately adjacent to the south has been considered as an alternative. Mr. Ruthroff replied not; it does not appear to be a suitable one at the present time. Comments were invited from the floor in favor. Sergio Zygarewicz, 3032 Alcazar Drive, supported the project, explaining that to him, and to some of his neighbors, questions of bulk, size, mass are not important. The existing view from the hills is not of such magnitude that the proposed construction will make any appreciable difference. Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive, (member of Parking Commissj-on) offered the following: I. The developer to provide required number of parking stalls in accordance with codq- 2, gssue the variance procedure to obtain what has been proposed. The proposal is well documented and merits consideration. 3. The City should consider modifying parking requirements with respect to developments of this nature. 4. Reduce land use intensity to match parking they will provide. 5. Combination of the above four. !Ir. Subbotin stated he is convinced that the Parking Commission's interpretation of the code is correct, the basic difference being in the developer not recognizing parking for the meeting rooms, such as those used by the Rotary CIub weekly, for example. There is no provision for this type of use. Mr. Subbotin stated there would appear to be a need for further variance in connection with width of parking stalls. Code requires minimum width of nine feet, the plot plan indicates eight feet, six inches. Opponents were recognized. Bernard M. Wolfe, attorney for Mr. and I'Irs. William f . McClenahan, informed the Council that his associate, Mr. Frankel, appeared before the Planning Commission and filed the letter of appeal. Mr. Wolfe in debating the issue of the variances, discussed the four conditions in the zoni,ng ordinance requisite to variance grants (Section 25.54.020), pointing out that all of these conditions must be found. to be true before the Council j-s a liberty to issue a variance. He stated that the parking structure has been labeled a six-story building; actualIy, there are seven floors of parking. Height of parapet walI is sixty feet above ground level, cars will be parked on the roof, resulting in a height of sixty-two to sixty-three feet; furthermore, the orvner of the property is entitled to place signs on the roof up to fifteen feet in height. It is possible the structure could be as high as seventy-five feet in some areas. He discussed parking stall dimensions recited in building and zoni,ng codes, stating there does not appear to be required height of seven feet. Rather than the twenty-four feet of aisle w there should be at least twenty-five to twenty-six feet for maneuverability. Also, indicated traffic patterns on up and down ramps could result in aisles being completely blocked in the center of the parking area and an overlap of automobiles going in both d.irections. idtq With reference to public access across the property to the bayfront, there has been no mention made where the public will park. WiIl they be perm5-tted to park on the hotel property, or be forced to park on the street? There are eighty-seven spaces on the plan between the proposed addition and hotel boundaries. Il7hy has not the developer, as an alternative, made some effort to put a second deck in that open space? The lot on Burlway is a separate piece of land from the hotel site proper. Neighbors who purchased and developed on Burlway were given to understand setback requirements would be observed. The developer is seeking relief from these requirements. Traffic exiting to Burlway will encounter "blind spots" at the sidewalk, because of the proposed three feet of landscaping, and again at the curb where cars are parked solid. why does the developer propose the structure on the property line on the east boundary where ten feet of setback is required, and then offer eleven feet, eight inches on the west boundary? Perhaps, in the future, he intends to ask the City Council for permission to use this area as an additional drive. I{r. Wolfe advised that the McClenahan building is twenty-one feet j-n height, it is considered an interim use. The McClenahan's would not oppose this d.evelopment nor the permit for the structure if they did not consid.er their land suitable for high-rise use at some time in the future. Because the existing structure is a Iow-cost form of improvement, this does not give to the City the right to allow a development on the adjoining property that could have the effect of blocking their plans for a higher and better use. A parking structure seventy-five feet in height will el-iminate any view they might have. O t47 Referring to the E.I.R. prepared for the project, Mr. Wolfe guoted the following: "parking Garage: Mitigation: Total mitigation of adverse impacts not feasible when utilizing parking garage of proposed capacity and form." (Page 42) In conclusion, l,ir. Wolfe stated that, in order to find an alternative, the principals should look for off-site parking, or building another deck on their owr] property, rather than encroach on the street and on anotherrs property. Mrs. Marie Graham, 958 Chula Vista, stated the project will bring increased revenue to the City but this will be offset by harmful impact on the environment. There were no further speakers from the floor. The hearing was declared closed. Councilman Amstrup asked if he was corresb in assuming that the developers are convinced there are no alternatives open to accomplish the project, other than the submitted proposal. Mr. Ruthroff stated that what has been calculated is what is necessary, in the number of rooms and public facilities, to make this a successful operation. Councilman Cusick referred to an amount of $98Ir000.00, indicated cost of the parking structure. She asked if this is correct. Mr. Ruthroff indicated it is, basically. Councilman Cusick stated it would appear that additj-onal land could be purchased for that amount to accommodate parking for the expanded hotel. Mr. Ruthroff agreed this would be true if land were available at a convenient location. HoteL patrons look for convenient parking. It is doubtful they would be receptive to riding a bus to and from the hotel to their cars. He reported that efforts were made to acguj-re the property occupied by the Shell service station but, at the present time, this appears to be totally impossible. The Director of Public Works stated that code requirement.. for parking stalls is nine feet by twenty feet, driveway for perpendicular parking should be a minimum of twenty-four feet in width. Basically, this is what the plan shows on the easterly one-haIf of the drawing; on the westerly one-haIf, there is not sufficient dimension to duplicate that. The plan is four feet short on the outside dimension of the parking structure and the thickness of the waII wiII increase the shortage of the minimum parking space dimensions somewhat. Mr. Ruthroff stated that there is a plan for the sign that, hopefully, will be accepted. Airport Marina will waive any rights to the sign on the parking structure. The eleven feet, eight inch setback will be waived to eliminate the possibility of future driveway in that area. Parking stall d.imensions can be expanded to give fuJ-l nine foot width, and the shortage in parking space dimensions mentioned by the Director of Public Works can be corrected. Councilman Amstrup informed lvlr. Ruthroff that, in his opinion, Airport Marina is an efficiently operated hotel. However, in good faith, he found it very difficult to allow a seven story garage on the bayfront Councilman Amstrup then introduced a motion to deny the variance application for sign and setback variances, and the application for special permit to exceed building height limitations. The motion was seconded by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on roll call. RECONVENE: F ollowing a recess at 10:55 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at l-1:10 p.m. HEARINGS (cont. ) 3. AMA PACIFIC CORPORATION PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING 533 AIRPORT BOUI,EVARD (APPRO\rED) Mayor Crosby announced that the hearing on the above project was continued from the meeting of January 21, L974 for the applicant to make certain modifications in his proposal. Councilman Harrison asked for clarification from the City Attorney with respect to his participation in the continued hearing. The Attorney explained that, because this is a continued hearing, and there was evidence previously takenr which the Councilman did not hear, he may not participate in the'discussion nor vote. c,) /. 1,19 Dectaring the hearing open, Mayor Crosby recognized Mr. David Keyston, Executive.Vice-President, Anza Pacific Corporation. Mr. Keyston referred to his letter addressed to the City Council under date of January 24, L974t wherein the modifications to the submitted Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment Forms El- and E2 were detailed. AIso, under the same date, the Council was furnished copies of, modified landscaping p16.n "Lll' showing .seven parking spaces el-iminated on the lower level in front of the building between colump lines 10 and J-3, and in place thereof, the planting area was extended the full thirty feet back to the building line. This elimination of parking will reduce the parking from 269 ptaces to 261 places, and Environmental Assessment Form E2 should be modified accordingly. Mr. Keyston reported that the Pfanning Commission, at its meeting on Februaty 25, Lg74, approved the tentative parcel map delineating precise boundaries of site area for this project so that a determination could be made on proper lot coverage and proper landscaping requirements in accordance with C-4 District requirements. With respect to lot coverage, Mr. Keyston referred, again, to his letter of January 24 and to the statement therein "Accordingly the figure on page 11, Paragraph 2 of the Environmental Impact Report should be changed from 158 to 19% (l-ot coverage). Mr. Keyston referred to revised drawing Ll, Februxy 27, L974, stating that the final revision is one that should meet all of the objections by the City Council and the Planning Commission. In order to do that, it is now proposed to install a top deck to the parklng structure in front of the building in the front setback. On top of this deck, landscaping can be installed as shotrn in the fatest revision. The proposal is to have a broad expanse of lawn back of the sidewalk to the building, similar to the present buitding, with some accent trees. The specifications designate "open lacey treesr" which will not interfere with vehicl-es turning into the parking ramp but will obscure the view of the lower l-evel parking area. The building will comply with all of the requirements of the C-4 zone. The only relief that is being sought is approval, under the emergency ordinances, of building height in excess of thirty-five feet. Mr. Keyston stated the project also requires an E.I.R. The draft report submitted to the Council is almost identical to the one adopted by the City on the adjacent building at 433 Airport Boulevard. fn response to Councilman tunstrup, Mr. Keyston stated it is planned to use solar glass in the back of the proposed building, gray in color, because of heat problems. One office in the existing building is being changed to experiment. ff installed in the new building, the glass will face toward the drive-in theater and industrial park area, not to the bay. Councilman Cusick asked lvlr. Keyston to describe landscaping treatment at the front of the building. He advised that the retaining waII indicates there j-s a concrete deck. The dots indicate that lawn on the top of the deck extends back to the building. The City Planner, responding to Councilman Amstrup, expressed the opinion the revisions at the front of the building will satisfy objections raised by the Planning Commission. The Chair invited comments from the floor. There were none. The hearing was declared closed. The Director of Public Works inquired if the proposed northerly driveway will require revisions to the islands on Airport Boulevard. Mr. Keyston indicated not, explaining that the main entrance proba-b1y will be at the other end of the site. A motion introduced by Councilman Amstrup to certify Environmental Impact Report - 23P and to approve application for special permit for the proposed office building at 533 Airport Boulevard, five stories in height, exceed.ing thirty-five feet height limitation recited in Interim Urgency Zonj.ng Ordinances Nos. 984, 994, IO0O; development to conform to plans on file, and landscaping at the front of the building in accordance with drawing LI, prepared by Blunk Associates, Architects, revised February 27, L974. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried on roll- call. lo' I t{) COMMUNICATfONS 1. CI,ARIFICATION OF ZONING CI,ASSIFICATION DRIVE-IN THEATERS SITE Under date of March 6, L974, David H. Keyston, Executive Vice-President, Anza Pacific Corporation, requested a statement from the City Council under Section 1630 of the Revenue and Taxation Code asserting that the present zoning applicable to the site occupied by the Burlingame-Peninsula Drive-fn Theaters does not permit use of the property for corunercial or hotel purposes without a Use Permit. The City Attorney, responding to the Chair, explained that, under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code cited by l{r. Keyston, a written statement may be made by the governing body of a local agency and that statement may be presented to the County Board of Equalization as evidence that restrictions on use of land still persist. The City Attorney noted that the county assessor has an obligation to assess land for its highest and best use. Because of development taking place on other lands owned by Anza, nearby the drive-in theaters, the county assessor may hold the opinion that a higher and better use may be made of the land than the M-l zoning. The City Attorney stated that, apparentlyr Mr. Keyston is asking for a statement to the effect that the Iand is zoned M-I and cannot be used under the zoning for hotel purposes without a special permit that a prior application was heard and denied to rezone the property to C-4 where such uses would be permitted, and, finally, that there is no present intention of changing the zoning. Councilman Amstrup commented there was a prior agreement with the landovn:er that, if the drive-in theaters cease to operate, the use of the land will change. Mr. Keyston reported that lt{r. Slrufy, owner of the theaters, initiated the request for the statement, because of problems with the county assessor. Mr. Keyston confirmed. that Anza has a conunitment from Syufy and a commitment to the City of Burlingame that the lease will not be renewed under any circumstances. When application was made to the City to reclassify the property, the City Council and Planning Commission, at that time, felt it inappropriate. With Council concurrence, the Chair directed the City Manager to prepare an appropriate statement for transmittal to Mr. Keyston. 2. BIKEWAY FUNDS In a communication dated March L4, L974, the City Manager advised that cities are eligible under the Transportatlon Development Act to obtain some monies from the Metropolitan Transit Conunission for planning pedestrian and bicycle pathways. His reconsnendation that the required procedure be follcrnred, necessitating a puJrlic hearing on the resolution authorizing the application, was concurred j-n by the City Council. The public hearing was scheduled for the meeting on April Lr L974. ORDINANCES I. ORDINANCE NO. 1001 "An Ord.inance Amending The Municipal Code of The City Of Burlingame By Adding Subparagraph 60 To Section 13.20.010 And Providing For An Intersection Stop For Vehicles Traveling Easterly On Trousdale Drive And Approaching The Intersection Of Magnolia Avenue'r was introduced at the meeting of January 2L, L974. 'fhe City Manager advised the Council that consid.eration to adoption of the ordinance has been delayed so that an evaluation can be made of the effect that the new signal system at EI Camino and Iulurchison will have on Trousdale Drive traffic. He reported also that the Health, Safety & Traffic Conunission is preparing some reconunendations for signals on Trousdale. He recorunended that the ordinance be removed from the agend.a until the Council reviews Health, Safety & Traffic Conunission proposals. The Council concurred. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1004 "An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Authorizing An Amendment To The Contract Between The City Council Of Burlingame And The Board Of Administration Of The California Enployeest Retirement System" was introduced for first read.ing by Councilman Mangini. (Exclude Fire Cadets And Crossing Guards Hired O: Or After Ivlay 1, L974.) il 15U NEW BUSINESS A Mayor Crosby announced that Mrs. Martha R. son,I Paloma Avenue, has been appointed to the Beautification Conunission, I. Ben and Robert N. Podesta, 67 Loma Vista Drive, to Health, Safety e Traffic Commission. 2- Finance Department Equipment: Purchase of an automatic magnetic record reader, as an adjunct to the L-6000 accounting computer, was discussed by the City Council at the study meeting on March 13, 1974. In a letter dated March L4, L974, the Ci-ty Manager recommended that the equipment be acquired, in accordance with the price quotation submitted by Burroughs Corporation. A motion introduced by Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried, authorized the City Manager to issue the necessary purchase order. 3. Speed Limit Adjustments: A recommend.ation from the City Manager under date of March 14, )-974, that a public hearing be held at the April 1, 1974, meeting on findings of the traffic engineering study with respect to uprgrading of speed limits on certain streets was accepted by the Council. 4. Burlingame Days Budget Allocations: The City Manager, in a memorandum dated March 14, L974, reported that $1650.00 will be allocated for the City's assistance in the Burlingame Days program in June, as directed by the Council. The City Manager advised further that he has discussed the Art-in-the-Park project with Sandy Towles and will keep the Council informed. Councilman tunstrup asked if arrangements can be made to store materials and equipment from the Art-in-the-Park project at the corporation yard this year. 5 Assistant Planner: A recommendation from the Ci ty Manager, in his memorandum of March 14, L974, that an assistant planner be retained to perform a variety of tasks enumerated by the City Planner in a recent report, was accepted by the majority of the Council, Councilman Cusick voicing her opposition to employment of a full-time assistant. UNFINISHED BUSfNESS 1. Police Station Committee Council-man Mangini reported that Vj-ce-Mayor Arnstrup, the City Manager, Chief of Police Lollin and he met on March 24, L974. The discussion concerned actual square footage needs of the operation, one-story vs. two-story building, possible new locations, dollar val-ue of the present site to the City if sold. Expansion of the existing building could be costly. It may be necessary to seek professional advice in order to evaluate the best approach. The conunittee will meet again in April. Communications: 1. Burlingame Civic Arts Council, Wilma Myhre, Chairman, March 8, L974, requesting the Councilrs consideration to reserving a parcel of land in Bayside Park for an Arts Center facility. 2. Bay Area Sewage Services Agency, Paul- C. Soltow, Jr., General Manager, March 4, L974, advising that Trustees of the Agency, by resolution, endorsed the Staters Cl-ean Water Bond fssue provision for issuance of $250 mill-ion of State bonds to be presented to voters on June 4, L974. 3. fnvitation extended by City and County of San Francisco, Mayor Joseph 1,. Alioto and the AJ-rports Commission, to dedication of the International Rotunda, South Terminal, San Francisco International Airport, Wednesday, April 3, L974, two orclock p.m. 4. Regional Planning Committee, San Mateo County, Lore Radisch, Chairman, March L8, L974, requesting response of cities to sugrgested reorganization for RPC (conununication from County Manager's Office, December, 1973). This matter was referred to the April study meeting for review. 5. Minutes: Planning Ccrrunission, February 25, Parking, February 27, Civic Arts Council, Eebruary 28, Beautification, March 7. /Z a ACKNOViLEDGMENIS 151 6 Monthly Activity Reports, February, L974, Police Department and Fire Department. Councilman Cusick commented statistics i-ndicate a decline in enrollment at Burlingame High School. She stated a cursory survey of Washington, Roosevelt and. McKinley Schools, indicate a s1ight increase tn L974 over L972 enrollment. POST REIMBURSEMEM: Chief of Police Lollin presented two warrants totalling $9400.34, representing reimbursement for training costs of nine officers from the period April 1973 through October 1973. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: The City Pl-anner reported the buses will arrive during the first two weeks in May. The contract has been executed with the operator. Trousdal-e Drive, Hillside Drive, Mil-lbrae Avenue and RoIIins Road will be added to the roller of destination signs. In response to an inquiry from the floor, the City Planner reported there will be a stop at the library. With respect to bus stop signs, the City Planner displayed a proposed design. Councilman Amstrup felt there should be some lettering so that patrons would recognize the sign more easily for what it is. He asked the City Planner to pursue this. APPROVAI,S t. WARRANTS Nos. 5454 - 57L4, inclusive, duly audited, in the amount of $1951543.86, were approved for palzment on motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on roll call. 2. PAYROLL February, L974, Checks Nos. 20099 - 20799, inclusive, in the amount or $ffi.86, was approved on motion of councilman cusick, second by councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried. _ ADJOURNMENT The meeting was regularly adjourned at L2 Midnight. Respectfully submitted, Herbert K. White, City Clerk APPROVED: WILLIAM J. CROSBY, MAYOR BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL: Councilman Amstrup reported on his attendance at a meeting offfigto',SaveBur1ingameHi9hSchoo1.,'Thecommitteewi]-1be asking the City Council for a resolution, similar to an earlier one in support of the conrnittee. Mr. Robert Thompson will appear before the Council in this matter at the meeting on April 1. t2