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