The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - CC - 1982.01.18-- 318 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL January 18, 1982 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burl-ingame City Council was held on theabove date in the City HaI1 Council Chambers. Meeting was calledto order at Br05 p.m. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Alfred J. Palmer, Chj-ef of police. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNC]L MEMBERS ABSENT: MINUTES Minutes of the and adopted. AMSTRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN NONE regular meeting of January 4, 7982 were approved HEARING - SECOND READING - ORDfNANCE NO. I2I4 LTSHING BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA AND ',AN oRDINANCE ESTAB- REGULATIOI{S THEREFORE " City Planner explained that Ordj-nance 1214 washelp of merchants in the Burlingame Avenue arealong term parking problems. developed with the in order to regulate Mayor Mangini opened the public hearing. speaking against the ordi-nance were Archie offield, 310 pepper; Barry Hurley | 23L California Drive; Cyrus McMi1lan, representing owners on Auto Row; Joseph Karp | 1209 Burlingame Avenue; stephenPeters, representing Richard Bullis; Joe putnam, auto dealer;Mike Harvey, 200 California Drive; Fred Allen Jones , 4lL CaliforniaDrive; Gladys costa, property owner; Betty Lilienthal, 309 Lorton;Earl Raymond, 28L2 Rivera, property owner; Lawrence Rornney, SanFrancisco, propertv owner; John Cockcroft, 1345 Howard, property owner. Objections raised in order of presentation: 1 5 1. 2 3 4 6. 7 10. 1t_. L2. Ordinance does not state reason it. is being established. What is meaning of "financial business?" (City Attorney explained) Present parking laws are not beinq enforced. Why did council increase parking fees; to increase turnoverof cars or increase revenue for city? ltilI this legislation improve parking? San Bruno passed similar ordinance several years ago and nowis trying to change it. Limiting types of business can harm the area's economy. Opposition to designating Sub-Area D as auto row when thereare auto deale::s in other oarts of the city. Ordinance is not necessary; is inapproprj-ate; will createhardship; and does not accomplish purpose of keeping auto row. Auto row has nothing to do with Burlingame Avenue. Discriminates against auto dealers in that three block area. Ordinance is not beneficial to rnerchants and restricts growth. B 9 319 f3. 14. Can't conceive why real estate offices create impactparking; are figures available ? Owner needs to protect tenantswill be reduced. on 15. Why does Sub-Area A receive a parking exemption and not Sub-Area B? Gection 25.72.020, part 3.) Suggested councif surface parking. use Councilman Amstrup's suggestion on Unfair because i-t restricts to whom owner can rent. Auto business is sick, difficult to find tenants row now, ordinance wifl make if more difficult.for auto Ordinance seems vague about "present use." Does it mean whole property or each tenant on property? If someone l-eaves res idential use does it convert? and property; property value 18. 10 20. 21. Why is Sub-Area C excluded? 22. why are businesses outside of parking district incfuded? Speaking in favor of the ordinance was Jim B1ak1ey, ofFord. He felt Sub - Area D should be auto row and that enhance the auto business. Burl ingame it woufd Mayor Manqini declared the public hearing closed. City Planner explained that the use of a business stays until the owner or tenant changes the type of business. The purpose of the ordinance is long termi one major problem is all day parking. Some businesses need parking turnover. Sub-Area A encouragesretail business, Sub-Area B encourages business rrhich requireslonger parking. Sub-Area C is excluded because it is largely residential and it was fel-t that Areas A, B and D should be zoned first. City Attorney explaj.ned that legislation defines "financial use" as banks, savings and 1oans, and thrift institutions. Coun ci lwoman was incfuded the problems taken out of Mayor Mangini suggested that the ordj-nance have He explained that council had three options: 1)2) reject ordinance, or 3) accept only part. Barton stated she did not understand why Sub-Area Din the ordinance; inclusion of D does not address in the do\^,ntown parking area. She felt D should bethe ordinance. Councilman Amstrup declared he would fike ordinance to be reviewed. City Attorney stated that some businesses are awaiting action by council before they can start building or remodeling. A11 buildingin the area is suspended by the Moratorium which expires in Marchor when council approves ordinance, Councilman Martin stated that ordinance does not restrict business but does restrict the use of property. Whenever there is zoningthere is restriction on the use of property and that is a good thing. He would like ordinance passed.. It is a r^ray to solve parking problems and keep the merchants downtown. As far as parking feesgo, there are parking spaces avail-ab1e now so raising parking fces must have been right. " sunset, " if passed. approve ordinance, Councilman Amstrup moved tabl-e the ordinance, seconded byBarton. The motion failed on a ro1L call vote: Amstrup,voting aye, Crosby, Manoini and Martin voting no. Co unc i lwoman Barton 16. L7. Councilman Martin moved to reconsider closing the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimously. Mayor Mangini moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Crosby, carried unanimous 1y. Council agreed to adjourn meeting to January 26, lgg2, at 8:00 p.mto continue the public hearing on Ord.inance t214. RECES S Mayor Mangin j. declared reconvened. a recess aL 9:25, after which the meeting APPEAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DECISTON .]UDITII YOUNG Mayor Mangini stated that council had before it a recommendationfor dismissal of Judith Young by the Civil Service Comrnission. Michael Nave, 1ega1 advisor to council, explained that council,acting as tribunal , would consider the record before it; the briefsthat had been filed; the oral argument of Mr. Charfes Garry, attorneyfor Mrs. Young; rebuttal by Mr. Jerry Coleman, attorney for thePolice Department; and the final argument by Mr. Garry. Mr. carry presented his arguments for Mrs. young stating that shehad been employed as a dispatcher for 16 years; that the CivilService decision would prevent her ever being emplolzed in a munici-pality in her chosen profession; that the Ske11y hearing was amockery; that Mrs. Young had called in sick and, on a subsequentdate, when asked where she ca11ed from, stated she had cafled from home when she had actua1l1z called from Lake Tahoei that P. D. wasdiscriminating against her for tiving wj.th Sergeant McDonnel; thatfiring her was too harsh a punishment when Sergeant McDonnel, whoalso lied about this, only received a f0 day suspension; that thePofice Department opposed her unemployment insurance which wasupheld by State. Mr. Coleman rebutted, stating that the Ske11y !{earing was proper and 1ega1 ; that this is a second instance ofdishonesty by Mrs. Young and that her credibility has been destroyed;that the unemployment insurance issue is j-rrelevant to the matter. I,1r. Garry asked that the transcript of the unempfoyment hearing be accepted by council. Mr. Nave ruled that j.t could not be considered.Mr. Garry stated that the unemployment decision is germane becauseMr. Coleman presented the Cityrs case in the same way before theCivil Service Commi ssion. City Council retired to an executive session at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at I0:40 p.m. Mayor Mangini announced that it was the unanimous decision of thecouncil that the decision of the Civil Service Corunission, dated November 2, l98l , be sustained, that Findings of Fact Numbers 1-5, 7 and 8 be adopted by council; and the recommendation for dismissal be adopted. Mrs. Young was notified that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section L094.6, she has 90 days from this date, January 18, 1982, to file an action seeking judicial review of this decision. This decision wiLl be provided to Mrs. Young in written form. HEARING - FI REWO RKS SECOND READING - ORDINANCE 1220 "AN ORDINANCE LIMITING SALES TO NON-PROFTT ORGANI ZATIONS '' Mayor Mangini opened the pubfic hearing on Ordinance were no public comments and the hearing was declared Councilman Crosby moved that Ordinance 1220 Councilman Amstrup, carried unanimously. 1220. There closed. be adopted, seconded by CORRESPONDENCE - ANZA SHAREHOLDERS LIOUIDATING TRUST WAREHOUSE RES TAURANT APPLICATION REGARDING City P]anner explained that Mr. Keystonr s letter, dated 1982, requested clarification of a decision by Planning January 14, Department 320 32L concerning the application of I{arehouse Resbaurant. At the timethe application was received there was no traffic caoacity for the project. In that case, procedure has been set up for an appli- cant to be considered preliminary. The applicant's fee is returnedwith a letter notifying him that the application is on file. Mr. Keyston appeared before council. He said the letter was very discouraging to the applicant. It was his understanding thatcouncil wants this type of project in that area. Mr. Keyston asked if council could have these applications submitted to council before sending fee back. City Planner distributed copies of letter from Marriott, dated January 13, L982, indicating that plans for thei-r project had changed. This change alIows for more traffic capacity in the area and council- can consider three projects: 1) Anza Office Park project; 2\ Warehouse Restaurant; 3) hotel proposed by Mr. Stanley Lo. City Planner will prepare a report for the February study meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Mangini removed the item "Contracts with Environmental Sciences Associates for Preparation of the Granada Royal Hometels and Anza Office Park Environmental Impact Reports" from the agenda. 1 Memo from City Lantos for use Manager, L/L4/82, requestof space in City Hall.from Congressman 2 3 Memo from City Manager L/L4/82 labor Memo from Finance Director , l/4/82,of Finance Director. Resolution No. L-82 Energy Audit" negotiations agreement. procedures for replacement 4 5 6 7 Resolution No. 2-82 "Resolution Authorizing Certain Records, Documents and Papers" Resolution No. 4-82 "Resolution Authorizing Star Excavation, Inc., for a portion of City salvage work. "Agreement for Wastewater Treatment P1ant Destruction of Rental Agreement" Dump for brick Resolution No. 5-82 Police Station""Agreement for Architectural Services 9 Claim, John Renn, $2r000, City Attorney's memos, L2/3L/8L and l/L2/82, recommended denial. Claim, Danny and Donna Lema, $6rOOO, City Attorney's memo of l/8/82 recommended denial. Councilman Crosby moved approval of consent calendar, seconded by Councilman Martin, carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 3.82 IIAGREEMENT ANZA OFFTCE PARK'' FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Councilman Martin moved approval of Resolution 3-82 "Agreement for Environmental Impact Report - Anza Office Park, " seconded by Councilwoman Barton, carried unanimously. UNF]NISHED BUSINESS 1. WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT 117 Director of Public Works presented new specifications for water meter replacement which were requested by council. If council had no objection, specifications would go to bidders this week. City will receive sealed proposals February 4 and a recommendation would be presented tocouncil at the second meeting in February. ii I 322 2. BUS SHELTER - RAY PARK AND L CAMTNO Councilman Amstrup reported on the deplorable condition of bus shelter at Ray Park and E1 Camino. Public Works Directorindicated SamTrans is going to replace that shelter and he will inquire when replacement is scheduled. 3. VACANT PROPERTY CHAPIN AVENUE Councilman Amstrup and Councilwoman Barton had received complaints about the poor condition of vacant 1ot on Chapin. There is a large hole fiIled with water and the lot is over- grown with weeds. City Attorney explained that the property is in litigation and, therefore, city cannot force improve- ments. City can demand that weeds and water be removed, andproperty fenced for safety. 4. STORM OF JANUARY 4-5 Council-woman Barton inquired about the debris in creeks which added to flooding problem city experienced during thestorm. Director of Public Works explai-ned city does not own creek, it runs through private property and owners must keep it cleared. Councilman Amstrup complemented the Department of Public !{orks on the fine job done during the storm. IIe asked if there were any way to get funds to clean creeks or to have a public in- formation program to get owners to clean creeks on their property. MISCELLANEOUS 1. CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS Councilman Amstrup inquired whether any suits had been brought against cities regarding the consolidation of elections. City Attorney was not aware of any; he explained that if a suit went to court, a decision would come within a couple weeks. Councilman Amstrup stated that he would like to see this put to a vote of the people. Council keeps talking about home rule- Yet, counoil .is dlselnfrAnchising our.rown votsr:s -b), not allowing theo 1:o decide-wheth:er they want. Ehi:s 'Ccburrrcil for anothdr 18 Council-man Amstrup moved consolidation of elections be a vote of the people, seconded by Councilwoman Barton. failing on a ro11 call vote: AYES: AMSTRUP, BARTON NAYES: CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN put to Motion 1981, checks seconded by Cor:ncil- ABSENT: NONE 2. COMMISSIONERS' DINNER Mayor Mangini requested City Manager arrange for the Commissioners' Dinner on a Friday night in February. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL Councilman Crosby moved that the warrants for December 1981, numbered. 11479-11684 in the amount of $596,843.71 be paid, seconded by Council /\mstrup, carried unanimously. Councilman Crosby moved that payroll for 30563-3L292 in the amount of $531,852.10 man Martin, carried unanimouslY. December be paid, P ROCLAMAT IONS Mayor Mangin.i proclaimed the week of January 17 Jaycee Week. 23, L982 , as Mayor Mangini proclaimed the week of January 31 as National Catholic Schools Week. February 6, L982 ACKNOI^]LE DGEMENT S Letter, l/4/82, San Mateo County Corununity College District, regarding consolidation of efections. December and. year-end report from Fire Department. I 2 4 5 6 7 December report, Pol-ice Department. Treasurer's Report, 12/3l-/gl-. san Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau, Beautification Commission minutes , l/7/82, December report. Letter, l-/8/82, Nancy Finney, regard.ing flooding along Sanchez Creek. Letter, l/4/82, Heather Sterner, regarding design of police station . Letter, 72/28/81, San Erancisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, regarding Menlo Park Dump. ADJOURNMENT 8 9 At 11:30 1982 , atthe publi Burl i ng am p. 8: e m. , Mayor Mangini adjourned the meetinq to January 26, 00 p.m. in the City HaI1 Council Chambers to continue hearing on ordinance L274, "An ordinance Establishing Avenue Commercial Area and Regulations Therefore." z/ zlt/ eCity C1 rk a 11 323 I II