The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - CC - 1983.06.08BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING June B, ]983 Mayor [,llilliam J. Crosby convened the Study Meeting of the Burlingame City Council in Conference Room B of the Burlingame City Hall at 8:00 p.m. on the above date. STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, F. FRICKE, H. FRICKE, KIRKUP, MONROE, PALMER I. SHERATON EXPANSION--BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION The City Manager briefly introduced the request of Law Management Company of Cleveland to discuss with Council the extension of Bulding Permit #245'l issued November 20, 1980 to San Francisco Airport Motei Company for the expansion of the Sheraton Hotel. Because of the adoption of Ordinance #1226 April 5, 'l982, whjch changed the expiration times on building permits and required Council action on extensions, staff felt it could not grant an extension of the permit on an admin- istrative basis and directed the applicant to approach the Council directly. Mr. Cyrus McMillan, representing the Sheraton, reviewed their position concerning a request for a one-year extension to start construction. They stated that there are extraodinary circumstances which the Council should take into consideration concerning an extension. There is a lawsuit concerning the property and the gen- eral economic conditions for the past two and one-half years have been depressed. Council discussed the lack of traffic circulation capacity in the area and the fact that other projects are being told they cannot proceed because there is no capac- ity. There was a general consensus that the City has granted the Sheraton ample time to start construction and this has not occurred. Councilman Martin reviewed the various staff letters to the Sheraton notifying them of our new ordinance and their need to proceed to construction. Mr. Ernie Laks and Mr. Rudy Rausch, representing the Sheraton, discussed with Council their reasons as to why an extension should be granted. There was a general opin- ion among the Council that an extension should not be granted, but the item was referred to the Regular Meeting of June 20, .I983 for formal action. 2, PROPOSED BUDGET REVIEW I983-84 4se PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS A]4STRUP, BARTON, CROSBY, MANGlNI, MARTIN Budget Chairman Amstrup, briefly introduced the proposed budget and Council began a department by department review. Council agreed to add the following Revenue- Sharing funded programs to the budget: Easter Seal Society, $l ,500; Center for the Independence of the Disabled, $2,200; Proiect Reach, $l ,000; and Human Invest- ment Shared Homes, $l ,000. All of these allocations are contingent upon the Federal Government renewing Revenue Sharing. Concerning the cormunity promotion budget, the Chamber of Commerce was approved at a $'l5,000 amount as submitted in the proposed budget. Councilman Martin requested that the Chamber Director be prepared next year to indicate when the Chamber will become self-sustaining. The budget amount for the San Mateo Tourist and Convention Bureau v,,as increased from $160,000 to $180,000. This amount is for both the con- vention promotion contract and the previously approved convention center study. Any funds which are not allocated to the study may be a] located to the Converition Bureau. In reviewing the Fire Department budget, the Council agreed to three additional Fire Prevention Special ists for the Fire Department at a cost of $4,680. In reviewing the Pol ice Budget, a Capital 0ut1ay item for $6,400 for replacement of bullet-resistant vests was reduced to $2,500 with the concurrence of the Pol ice Chi ef. In reviewing the Capital Improvement Program, Council requested that prior to beginning design on the Broadway Pedestrian 0vercrossing that Council approval be t- 500 obta'ined. The Counc'il also authorize carried over from the current year bu also increased $49,000 to adjust for ,500 for CATV monitoring contract to be and that the Water Purchase account was.l8.4% San Francisco v',atelincrease rather jtems in the City Manager proposed budget d$e dget the than the 10% budgeted amount. All other were accepted by the Council. Council d be on June 20. irected that the pub)ic hearing on the budget 3. REGULATION OF RESTAURANTS ON BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY The City Planner responded to Council's request at their meeting on May 'l6, l9B3 for a summary of the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the large number of restaurants on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. In November .l982, staff surveyed the restaurants in these areas and presented the general conclusions to Council. 0n April 1l and 25, ,l983, it was again brought up before the Planning Commission and possible regulations and alternatives discussed, copies of the Planning Commis-' sion minutes were given to Council reporting findings. Pitfalls of the regulations were outl ined by the City Planner. After extensive Council was to permit the balance of restaurants to and not to regulate them at this time. The Chamber that they are also studying this issue with the merc matter on June 2l at their noon meeting. d.i sc bea ofC hant ussi on, the consensus of chieved by market forces ommerce Pres ident stated s and wi I I d'i scuss the 4. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) REQ UEST TO REVIEI/'l BURLINGAI,IE GENERAL PLAN The City Planner stated that new legislation has been passed wh San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's authority to rev The legislation permits them to review the plans of airports an of cities within the county. They would continue to review app do now; i.e., Marriott. There were, however, some changes in A11 airports were not required to have a master plan; San Franc one. Under this legislation and under the review, ALUC has two ich affects the iew land use plans. d the general pl ans I ications as they the legislation. i sco does not have cri teri as they look at, noise and safety. In both cases operational changes at S.F. International Airport could affect the land area affected by San I'lateo County ALUC's review. It should be pointed out that the City's Generai Plan is a matter of publ ic record and we cannot deny it to anyone who comes to the City and asks to see it, but the issue here is the formal official submittal to a reviewing agency. Council directed that the plan not be submitted to San Mateo County ALUC. 5. AIRPORT ROUNDTABLE Council's position on the Roundtable is not to ioin the S.F. Airport Community Roundtabie. 6. SANITARY SEWER USE,RULES AND REGULATIONS Director of Public t,lorks referred to Section 3 and 4 of the Rules and Regulations submitted to Council. Council directed staff to submit a list of those areas affected and what costs are in terms of generalities for the rneeting of July 5. 7 . BIDS--POLICE STATION AND FIRE STATION SITE City Attorney stated that the City will go to bid on two pieces of property, the o'ld police station at 1238 Howard Avenue and the fire station site on 1610 Hunt Drive. Since this opening is occurring the day after the holiday, Council directed staff to call bidders the nnrning of July 5 as a reminder of the opening. 8. PACIFlC CABLE TELEVISION A letter from Pacific Cable TV requesting permission was presented by the City Manager. After discussion request prior permission of specific council meeting. 9. ADJOURMENT to televise counci I neetings by Counci 1, direction was to il u-L(. tt Eve lyn City Cl H/ erk Meeting was ajourned at 10:45 p.m. Hill 1