HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1980.02.19Ifi
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
February 19, 1980
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Cit.y Council was held onthe above date j-n the City HaIl Council Chambers. Meeting
was called to order at 8:20 P.M., after executive session onIabor negotiations, by Mayor Irving S. Amstrup.
PLEDGE OF ALIEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by John R
ROLL CALL
Yost, City Planner.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of
the study meeting of February 6, 1980
AMSTRUP , BARTON, CROSBY, MANGINI , MARTIN
NONE
February 4, 1980, and
were approved.
HEARING
APPEAL OF DAVID J. ARATA FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
SIGN EXCEPTIONS AT 1016 CAROLAN AVENUE
City Planner reviewed his memo of February 19, 1980 which
details Planning Commission action on application for two signs-
one a ground sign with face area 1r6u x 4', within code; and
one a pole sign 30' high with double face sign area of 203 SF.
Height and area of pole sign require variance. Applicant hadjustified both dimensions because they are within "Auto Row"
standards and this section of Carolan Avenue will be the newt'Auto Row." However, Planning Commissioners, focussing on height
of sign and nearby residential area, had denied application for
variance. City Planner identified central issue as being whether
the special size criteria affecting "Auto Row" also would apply
to this area.
Council members noted contradiction j-n Planning Commission docu-
mentation regarding height of sign - mentioned in one place as
30' and in another as 23t . City Planner clarified that there
had been discussion durj-ng which different heights had been
suggested and Mr. Arata had offered to make the si-gn 23'.
Mayclr Amstrup opened meeting to the f1oor.
Mr. David Arata of 200 california Dr-i-ve, Burlingame, addressed
Council. He said that at the time the project was planned
along the concept of the new "Auto Row" and signs had been
designed to meet t'Auto Row" requirements, with an original pole
sign heiqht of 30 '. However, since the height of his proposed
building is 23t , he had changed his ideas before the meetj-ng
and decided a. 231 sign, dt least the height of the building,
with 203 SF area would be adequate in addition to the ground
sign. At the Planning Commission meeting, however, these
issues were confused and the 30 t sign was denied without getting
into consideration of signage area. There were no further com-
ments, and the public hearing was declared closed.
Mr. Arata and Council discussed at considerable length areas of
effect of 30t sign on resj-dential neighborhood, effect of lega1
201 sign on proposed building, the fact that Council had not
promised that Carolan would be another "Auto Row", comparison
of area sign code with that covering I'Auto Row, n' Lhe fact that
only one fice (101% SF) of illuminated sign is viewed at a time
in the neighborhood, effect of Smaller 201 sign with proposed
L2
15r trees in landscaping, and other points.
Councilman Martin moved that variance be approved for 203 SF
Qn double faced pole sign, height of pole sign to be 20' , and
illumination to be turned off at 11:00 P.M. Councilman Crosby
seconded, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
BID AWARD BURLINGAME,/MILLBRAE SLUDGE PIPELINE AND SEWAGE
IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT C-06-I267-120-01 BURLINGAME PROJECT
NO.906-A
Director of Pubtic Works reviewed third bidding on this pro-ject which includes contract for force main to carry sewage
easterly of Freeway directly to the pIant, and work at Gilbreth
Pump Station. He emphasized work at Gilbreth is necessary
because of pipe problems there which have caused overflows of
sanitary effluent into a draj-nage ditch, and. which could go into
the Bay. Director of Public Works recommended that Council de-
clare that substantial harm to Burlingame will occur if project
is further delayed, and direct staff to request a waiver of the
Minority Business Enterprise requirements so that work may pro-
ceed.
Director of Public Works reported that low bid received was
from Arthur H. Smith. Following protests on bids had been re-
ceived: Bepco Construction protesting bid of Arthur H. Smith;
D. W. Young Company protesting bids of Arthur H. Smith, Bepco,
and Pat Kennelly Construction Company.
Pat Kennelly Construction Company protesting bids of Arthur H.
Smith and Bepco. Staff had reviewed bids and Director of Public
Works recommended that 1ow bid from Arthur H. Smith be rejected
and that award be made to next low bidder, Bepco. Report of
February 13, 1980 from Dj-rector of Public Works reviewed protests.
Director of Pub1ic Works recommended that protest against
Arthur H. Smith be upheld, but that protests against Bepco and
Kennelly be denied.
Mr. Donald W. Curran, 2030 I'ranklin Street, Oakland, attorney
representing Bepco, addressed Council. He detailed Bepcors
ongoing minority program which has been in practice for some
time, and referenced documentation in the possession of the
Council - minority business enterprise forms for Double O Trucking
and Link Pacific as well as copies of letters to various cities
wherein contracts have been obtained affirming Bepco I s status as
equal opportunity emptoyer and proponent of Affirmative Action.
Mr. Curran listed contracts similar to this completed by Bepco in
Bay Area cities.
Mr. Matthew Kllpstein, representing Arthur H. Smith, told Council
that this rvas no longer a competitive bidding situation, but had
degenerated into a contest of which contractor had the best pre-
pared paper. On the crj-ticism that Arthur H. Smith had not listed
subcontractors, he noted the company needs only one to bore
under the Freeway - since they have their own truckers, backhoes
and operators. He stated Arthur H. Smith had contacted Homitz
A11en and Associates, and they thought if he purchased materials
from a minority supplier the company would qualify. He also
questioned if this is even pertinent, since the City will re-
quest a waiver of Lhe MBE requirements. In defending the com-
pany's capabilities for a job of this magnitude, he noted it
takes the same expertise to Iay 10t of pipe as it does 1r000r.
In response to Council questions, Director of Public Works noted
the possibility that Arthur Smith Company conceivably could get
minority subcontractors after bid letting, but since no sub-
contractors or suppliers are listed, he did not believe the State
would approve an application to award. Mr. Nick Damer, attorney
representing Kennelly Construction Company, advised Council to
overlook recommendation of staff, particularly in waiving MBE
requirements. He questioned if this would avoid delay in contract,
t
13
particularly if the matter is appealed through State channels
EPA channels and through injunctions in the Federal Court. He
commented if the City wants the Governmentrs money it must play
by the Governmentrs rules, and all bidders should be requiredto observe the same set of rules. He stated only his company
had demonstrated complete compliance with the MBE and referenced
extensive documentation submitted. He also noted that calcu-lations were submitted showing how much lower their bid would
have been had they not complied with this regulation, and thatthey would have had the lowest bid. He criticized Link Pacific
as being a broker rather than a supplier, and questioned howstaff could know Bepco would meet requirements without documentedproof required of other construction companies. He stated that
Bepco was being given the opportunity to comply after bids wereopen. He asked that the City affirm the integrity of both the
MBE and the competj-tive bidding process.
Mr. Curran of Bepco in his rebuttal defended authenticity ofsupplier Link Pacific referencing their letter of February 14,
1980 and protested doubts of his companyrs intentions. He
again reviewed their minority business experience and their com-pliance with other bid requirements.
Councilman Martin questJ-oned Mr. Damer how many times he had
represented Kennelly Construction Company in a similar case
hefore a simj-Iar body. Mr. Damer affirmed he had never done so. He
statecl it was not a question of challenging anyone's j-ntegrity,
but ratirer, that the person rvho comes forward with the most con-
vincing evidence in compliance with the program is the one who
should be given the reward, particularly when he also demonstrates
that if he had not complied with the program he could have given
the best price.
Councilwoman Barton questioned staff if Bepco had met the re-
quirements. Director of Pub1ic Works said that technically they
had, although they did not contact Homitz Allen. He stated the
next step would be to request approval from the State, and the
other contractors could then protest. The State is expected to
gj-ve an answer within 10 days after the protest. City Attorney
noted that the spirit of MBE is what is important, not whether
or not they contacted the referral agency.'
Mayor Amstrup voiced his confidence in the staff recommendation.
Councilman Mangini questioned if awar<l of contract must be based
on Statefs approval, and was assured by Director of Public Works
that it uras.
Councilman Martin moved that the bid of Arthur H. Smith be re-
jected on the grounds that he did not meet several conditions of
the specification one of which is the listing of subcontractors;
that the City accept the Bepco bid as the lowest responsible
bidder; that the City ask for a waiver of any irregularitiesof
the Minority Business Enterprise Act; that the remarks of the
Director of Public Works in relation to the Gilbreth pump station
are an addendurn tc this rnotion, particularly the fact that the
City could be cited by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
for dropping raw sewage in the Bay. Second by Councilman Crosby.
Director of Public Works noted that this waiver does not relieve
the contractors from any requirements they have already met.
Motion carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
RECESS
There was a short recess at 9245 P.M. after which the meeting
reconvened.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. COLLEEN WOOLF, 2180 TROUSDALE DRIVE, MILLBRAE PROPOSED
AN]NEXATION TO CITY OF BURLINGAME
Mayor Amstrup acknowledged letter of 2/lL/80 from Colleen Woolf
of. 2180 T::ou.sdale !-rri.re, l'illbrae, on l:ehalf of residents in
I
1i
{
I
i
I
1,4
I
t
t
i
t
2100 block of Trousdale. Attached was petition to San Mateo
County LAFCO signed by block residents, dated November 2, L979,
requesting annexation of this one block to Burlingame for reasons
of fire and police protection, clarity of address identification,
and school systems.
In her letter to Council Mrs. Woolf requested that Burlingame
a1low the 2
and sewer slation of B
Millbrae is
100 btock of Trousdale to remain on Millbrae water
ystem so as to eliminate the $8r600 cost of instal-
urlingame water and sewer lines, stating the City of
willing to bill for this service.
Council discussed mechanics of situation with Director of Public
Works and City Attorney, and concluded it would be agreeable to
the City for the residents of this block to annex to Burlingame,
pay City of Millbrae for sewer and water, Burlingame to service
water and sewer mains, and work out agreement with Millbrae on
sewage costs. Council agreed this policy of the City could be
presented to LAFCO. They cautioned that annexation does not
necessarily mean inclusion in the Burlingame School District.
This must be worked out with the District.
It was noted LAFCO has not yet determined whether or not this
block is within Burlingame's "sphere of influence". In the
meantime, staff will discuss with Millbrae.
2. BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT: IEASING OF SCHOOL EACILITIES
Letter of February 13, 1980 from Superintendent, Burlingame
School District requested discussion on a wider range of uses
for lease of school facilities than City Code now provides. Mayor
Amstrup set Council discussion of this matter for next study meeting.
3. RTCHARD r'. MCKTNNON, 124 LORTON AVENUE: RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Letter of February 1I, I9B0 from Richard F. McKinnon, L24 Lorton
Avenue *6, requested Council consideration of increase on dis-
ability retirement. Council deferred discussion to a budget
session.
STAFF MEMORANDA
I CITY MANAGER:BUDGET' SUPPLEMENTATIONS' & TRANSFERS
Memo of February L4, 1980 transmitted requests from Department
Heads for budget supplementation by transfer as follows:
Building regulation (1-530) $e,000; City Attorney (L'435-2L)i
and Civil Service (l-442) $10,7L2.
Councilman Martin moved these transfers be approved in the amount
of $241712, second by Councilman Crosby, carried on unanimous vote.
2. CITY MANAGER: JOINT LAND USE STUDY REPORT, SAN FRANCISCO
AIRPORT & ENVTRONS
City Managerrs memo of February L4, 1980 reminded Council that
any comments on this report must be submitted prior to the
February 28, 1980 meeting of the Joint Powers Board.
Mayor Amstrup suggested the following regarding th9 report:
P. 5 - "Current ffigfrt Procedures" there is problem with noise
on Runway 1; not primarily on departures on Runway 28'
P. 16 - ;'might time Noise Abatement" - Noise problem is earlier
than from nl to 6 A.M."
Page 2l "Prohibit land use with the 70'7 5 CNEL. " Who is going
to pay for this?
fagl 2: "Local Street Traffic Program.'r - Bayshore Boulevard
should be included.
Councilman Martin noted that com:nents made by Mayor Amstrup are
15
correcti however, the City has just a sunmary of the report;
and due to lack of time it is doubtful changes will- be made onthe real report. The Airport Land Use Conunission will con-sider the report of the Joint Powers Board. He suggested theCity go in with statements of generalities where the report isfaulty, until everyone is in agreement. He noted that therewill be an attempt made to get City Councils together in an
educational effort on this matteri and suggested that afterthat specific changes be suggested.
Council- discussed, and concluded that City Manager should
transmit Cityrs conunents on this summary.
3. TRAFFIC, SAFETY, PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
PARKING LOT H.
PE RMI T
Recommendation of January 24, L980 of.
H be formally established as a permit
to next study meeting.
this commission that Lotparking Iot, was referred
4. CITY ATTORNEY: RENT REVIEW BOARD
Council acknowJ-edged City
February 13, 1980 on this
next study meeting.
Attorney I s comprehensive report of
subject and decided to discuss at
5. LAW ENFORCEMEIiT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Memo of February 1, 1980 from Chief of Police recornmended City's
participation again this year, for a small sum (1ast year
$1,285) in this Federally funded program in which the region
receives LEAA funds based upon the expenditures of both the
County and Cities in the region. Council had no objection.
Mayor Amstrup announced that order of agenda would be changeil
at request of audience to consider foLJ-owing two ordinances at
this time.
ORDINANCES SECOND READING - HNARING
1 . ORDINANCE NO . 116 9 IIADDING
THE BURLTNGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
PARAPHERNAL IA TO MINORS. 'I
Mayor Amstrup opened public heari.ng on this ordinance. There
were no audience cornments, and the public hearing was declared
closed.
ORDINANCE No 1169 passed its second reading
upon mot IOn O f Councilman Mang ini, second by
carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
2. ORDINANCE NO. I17O ''ADDING CHAPTER 10.66
CHAPTER 10.65 TO TITLE
TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF
10 0F
DRUG
and was adopted
Councilman Crosby,
TO TITLE
DI S PLAY
10
OF
OF
DRUGTHE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL
PARAPHERNALIA TO MINORS"
CODE TO PROHIBIT THE
Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing on this ordinance.
Ms. Nancy Windish and her father, Irving Windish, proprietors
of "Disc And Thatri, record shop at 3l-8 Lorton, spoke against
this ordinance. They stated they had no objection to the
prohibition of sale of paraphernalia to minors and would check
i.D.'., but this ordinance would make it necessary to build a
separate room in their store; is not Iegally defelsible; no
CiLy in California has been able to enforcei in cities where
pasied it has immediateJ-y gone into courti and they noted that
irinors are able to enter liquor stores and smoke shops and' view
thej-r merchandise. They consialered the purpose of protection
of minors already accomplished by ordinance 1159- Following
speakers were in favor of the ordinance:
tti. oiane Costel1o, PTA council: Stated reason not passed in
other cities is because of stores like Macys. lnspected al1
stores in Burlingame and only two sold paraphernalia'
Mrs. Patricia Cockcroft, pta Council: Stated this branch of
PTA is acting in conformity with request of California State
PTA.
t6
There were no further comments
clared closed.
and the public hearing was de-
ORDINANCE NO.1170 passed its second reading and was adopted on
motion of C ounca lwoman Barton, second by Mayor Amstrup, carried
on unanimous ro11 call vote.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT RENEI^IALS
1. SHERATON INN,117 7 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
2. CHARLEY BROWN'S RESTAURANT,I55O OLD BAYSHORE
Memo of February 4, 1980 from CitY
of this clai-m because there was no
City liability.
Attorney recommended denial
indication of basis for
Councilman Mangini moved that both permits be renewed for
a perJ-od of one year, second by Councilwoman Barton, carried
on unanimous vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. CLAIM OF STEPHEN A. ORMONDROYA
2. RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 9_80 "ESTABLISHING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT. "
b. RESOLUTION NO. fO-80 'IN SUPPORT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM''
3. ORDINANCE INTRODUCT ION
a. ORDINANCE NO. 1173 ,'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE EITY OF BURLINGAME RELATI NG TO THE CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATION, REGULATION AND CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION
SYSTEMS WITHIN THE CITY.S TERRITORIAL LIMITS. ''
Councilman Martin moved consent calendar be approved, second
by Councilman Crosby, carried on unanimous vote.
ORDINANCES SECOND READING - HEARING
1. ORDINANCE NO. 1171 "PROVIDING FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
a
FOR USE OF MID-BLOCK RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing. There were no comments
and public hearing was declareil closed.
ORDINANCE NO. 1171 passed its second reading
adopted on mot f Counc ilman Crosby, second bYl-on o
Mangini, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 1172 ''REOUIRING CONFORMANCE TO DESIGN
GUIDELINES IN WATERFRONT COMMERC]AL DISTRICT. .'
Mayor Amstrup opened public hearing. There were no conunents
and public hearing was declared cl-osed.
ORDINANCE NO. 1172 passed its second reading and was
adopted on motion ofl Councilman Martin, second by Councilman
and was
Counc i lman
Mangini, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote.
Mrs. Marty Knight, 9 Dwight Road: Questioned how much money is
lost by not selling paraphernalia in a record shop when their
stated business is to sell records.
Police Department Services Bureau report of February 5, 1980
on both these establishments stated there had been no police
activity since the fast renewafs that would prohibit further
renewal.
t7
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF PREPAYMENT AND PREPAYMENT CHARGE
NOTE, MIKE HARVEY OLDSMOBILE
P ROMI S SORY
Memo of February 7, 1980 from Finance Director reviewed indetail the prepayment provision of this promissory note,principal balance of which is $265,794.54, and recommendedthat Council accept prepa].ment on this note with certain
prepayment charges.
Councilwoman Barton moved that the recommendation of the I'inanceDirector be accepted, and prepayment of this note be allowedwith a prepayment charge of 2.5* upon close of escrow and infour additional annual install-ments, second by Councilman Crosby,carried on affirmative vote, Councilman Martin abstarning.
NEW BUSINESS
1. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF BART FROM DALY CITY
TO SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
Mayor Amstrup spoke at length on thj-sit contains mention of the need for athe Airport and a transit car yard.
study, pointing
terminal system
out that
south of
He consid.ered Council- should take a definite stand on thj-s, in-
forming Assemblyman Papan, Caltrans, and al-l officials connectedwith the report of their disapproval- of any plans to include
Burlingame in any extension of BART. Councj-l agreed, and City
Manager was requested to express Council's disapproval , Tt wasalso suggested that this be contained j-n reply to Joint Land Usereport on Airport.
TIBURON REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID
Letter of 2/8/80 from City of Tiburon requested financial aidof the City in their litigations involving a decision of the
California Supreme Court which was appealed to Superior Court.
Council noted their concern, but made no decision for aid.
WARRANTS
Warrant Nos. 4300 throught 4602, duly audited, in the amount of
$516,001.30, were approved for pa].ment on motion of Council"man
Mangini, second by CounciJ-man Crosby, carried on unanimous vote.
PAYROLL
COMMISSION DINNER
Council decided to hold
Restaurant on March 21,
ACKNOWLEDGEIVIENTS
1. Letter of February 7,
regarding Council support
Transit District.
3. Report of February 4, 1980
of design review board. Mayor
sidered at a study meeting.
Commissioners ' Dinner at Kee
1980 and invite the crossing
Joon' s
guards .
1980 from Mayor of Redwood Cityfor election to San Mateo County
2- Letter of February 6, 1980 from City of San Bruno re
Airport Joint Action PIan.
from City Planner
Amstrup suggested
on formationthis be con-
APPROVALS
Payroll for January, 1980, Check Nos. 15842 through 16456 in
the amount ot $374,473,9I approved for payment on motion of
Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Martin, carried on
unanimous vote .
t8
4. Letter of January 18, 1980 from Supervisor Rafalow re
charter amendrnents for San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
5. Negative Declarations from City Planner
6. Police Department Report, January, 1980
7 . Treasurer's Report, January, 1980
8. Planning Commission minutes, 2/lL/80
WHEELCHAI RS
Mayor Amstrup stated he had received communication from
Burlingame Senior Citizens reguesting aid in getting a wheel-
chair for Recreation Department. City Attorney suggested
service clubs might aid, and it was decided to solicit their
cooperation.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting regularly adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
7/ zJt-z
fyn Hill
City Clerk