HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1979.12.031?+
46,
BiIRLINGAIqE, CALIToRNIA
Decenrber 3, L979
CALL TlO ORDER
A ::egnrlar neeting of the Burlinganre City Corxrcil was held on tlre aborze datein the City Ha11 Cor:r:cil Chambers. Meeting was calIed to order at 8:06 P.M.
by Mayor Irvi::g S. Arnstrup.
PI,EME OF ALLEGIAI\CE TO TTIE FTAG
Led by John R. Yost, City Planner.
BOLL CAI;L
COUNCIL ME$4BERS PRRSE:fI: AIISTRUP,BARI'ON,CROSBY,MANGINI,MARIIN
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSEATI: NOI{E
MINUIES
Ttre minutes of the study nreeting of Norrernber 14 and regular neeting of
Novernber 79, 1979 v,iere approved and adopted.
HEARTNCS
1. TRANSIHIT OCCUPANCY TAX APPEAL OF PANI AI4ERICAI{ tr{CRr,D AIRI,AYS AIJD
IiYAIT I{CEEI.S.
Cor-rtcil receirzed letter of October 18, 1979 from Robert C. Alexander of He1ler,
Ehrman, t{hrite & McAuliffe, representing both Hyatt }louse Hotel and Pan Anerlcan
AirU-nes, appealing decision of Burlingalre City Treasurer, as Tax A&ninistrator
on October 2, 1979 tLrat Hyatt House Hote1 orryed $71602.00 tax for::oom rentals by
Pan Anrerican for tlre period Januarlz L, 1979 to Jr:ne 30, 1979.
City Attorney's brief of }dcvenber 26, 1979 attached doqmrentation of procedures
used in changing transierrt occupanqf tax ordinance.
Detailed r^ritten appeal transrnitted by Robert C. Alexander qcrzrered nature of
procreedings, issues pr€sented, facts, and argurent.
Irhyor Anstr:up a:rnounced that this is not a hearing in the usr:aI sense, but an
appeal. Both attorneys r,vould make their presentation and Counci-I voculd then
nnke a decisicn.
In his presentation, Mr. Ale:<ander foIlor,,ed tlre lines of his r,ritten appeal irr
declarlng Pan Anerican not a transj-ent in that it oontracted for occupanqg for
a wtrol-e year at a tine, whether rooms were occr4)j-ed or not, and that "occr4>ancy"
rreans subjection to control rather than actual physical occupanqF. Again he
stressed that the ordj-nance is j-nconsistent wil*r State authorizing legislature
vfuicfr sets the bornds for the taxes which Br-rrlingane as a general law city can
enact.
City Attorney, in addressing Council, noted he r,rould not repeat argrr-unents Jn
his brief, but pointed out that the intent of thre Council, iatrich is r,ve1l doenrented,is to @ver exactly the type of sitr:ation typified by Pan Anrerican, and erphasized
the strength that courts give to legislative intent. He told Cor:ncil that ttre
State statute referenced by }tr. ale><ander is rzery brief - 4\ 1.ines - and must be
vier,,ved as enabling legislature rather than one ttrat sets bor:::ds; also that jn
another case the Attorney C.eneral's office had ruled that the statute dj-d not
ljmit tLre sethod in vihicfr tLre agencry in-ucosed the tax. After further detail, City
Attorney closed his presentation by remi-nding Cor:ncil that if this appeal is
gnanted it will be the first of rnany such to follcirar.
Council dissussed briefly, witLr Cor:ncilman l\4artin pointing out that ttre ordinance
was changed with the specific knotvledge and intent of Council to cover ttre airlines
on their block leasing.
Mayor Arnstnrp onfirned tLre ordinance \,\las enasted with tlre jntention of closing the
loophole for the airlines. Cor:ncilr,vcnnn tsarbon mcved ttrat ttre decision of City
T?easurer. as Tax A&ninistrator, be ucheld, second bv Corncilman Martin, carried on
rnanimous ro11 call rrcte.
ffi
+
2. APPEAL F'ROM PIANN]NG CCT\MISSION DECIS]CIi CN PROPOSED SIO{ AT 533 AIRPORT
BOT]LEVA.RD
I-etter of November L3, L979 from I-orne R. Corbett of Ad Art. Electrical Products
Corporation apIEaled decision of Planning Cqrmissj-on. Staff report of Decerber
3, 1979 frcrn City Planner reviewed apptication action, attaching sign application,
sit€ plan, and rnilutes of Plarrrrjng Conmission meeting of Norrarber L2, \979.
CiW Plaffrer addressed Council, oplajl ing the Planning Cqrmlssion trad denied
this application for 195 SF sign located on the side of the penthouse whidl
projecEs above the building parapet because they onsidered it a roof sign.
City P1affEr noted the applicant oul-d lower the sigrr, but this i.lould require
2 @de exceptions: 1. Size of sigrr on this secondary frontage is ljmited to
75 SF. this sign is 195 SF. 2. No signage is authcrized above third floor
Ievef. this sign is near the 5th floor 1eve1.
Ihyor Anstnrp opened the pr:b1ic hearing.
Iorne R. Corbett of Ad Art. and llark Ecker of Anza Investors addressed Cornciljojltly. Itrey made tlre follo,v"jng poJ-nts: Ttreir sign is a wal1 sigur because it
is attached to a irall. TLre penthouse does rrct hor:se nechanical equiprEnt but
is an elevator shaft. Sign e><ceptions for height have been approved irr this
area for restaurants and lrotels; there is no valid reason tlley strould not be
approved for office Luildilgs. Size of sign and l-ett€rs is necessarl, so that
buildilg can be identified frcrn freeway fu prospective tenants and clients.
There is difficulty identifying l-ocation of their building by "1an&rnrk"
buildilgs r:nfaniliar to out of t-v,in people. The Kee Joon sign on the adiacent
building is approximately tw-ice as large as tlreir proposed sigin.
Tlere r,"ere no further public onnents and hearing vas declared closed.
City PlaffIer reported that Kee Joon sign !@s approved in 1973 and present sign
code was adopted in 1977 with a ner,v defjnition of roof sign. In response t!
Councj-1 guestion, he revielied the requirerents for both roof signs and wa11
signs. Coi:nci1 and applicants discussed alternatives of lorerilg the sign and
making j-t snal]er. Applicants agreed these atternatives were possiJole.
Mayor Amstrr'q> stated tJ.e roof sigrr regn:lation was pa.ssed for a pr.rrgnse and he
saw no reason for a sign to be on the building at all. Councilwcrnan Barton
considered this a roof sign and dj-sapproved afso of noving it dornrr on the
building. Council$an t'lanigni also considered this a rof sign but suggested
the applicants be allor,ved options. Councilman l,lartirr disapproved of identj-fying
office buildirrgs by these tlppes of signs. Councilrnan Crosbt/ stated he uould
not be concerned with the sign if it were lolered sfulce there are identification
problans in this area.
Councilnoman Barhon rDved the decision of ttle Pfanning Cc[ffrLissicn be tpheld,
second by Counci1rmn Martin, carried on unanjnrcus ro11 call rrcte.
3. APPEAL I'ROI\4 PIANN]NG CC[,1\'IISSICN DECISICAI CN PROPOSED SIE{ Af 433 AIRPOBT
BOUI.iE\ARD
I,IenD of November 2L, 1979 frcrn City Attorney to City Plaffrer re@InEnded this
itqr, ontjnued indefinj-teIy by the elanning Ccnmission, be scheduled for hearing
as a denial ,in the ftiterest of due proess.
City Planners reporE of Decatber 3, 1979 docurented progress of application for
one 16 SF corlDrate logo for Anza Investors, and the continuance of the 382 SF
Ke€ Joon sign it 433 Airport Boulevard. The fogo is to be placed on a portj-on
of the neclnnical penthouse slightly above the parapet 1eve1 of the roof. Staff
reporE defined problens: If togo is not prohibited as a roof sign, ttap code
exceptions hDuld be required: 1' signage on secordarjz frontage iaculd be ercessirre '2. Slqr is to be instafled abor.e fifth ffmr level-. City Plarmer, in addressing
Corncit, onnented ttrat by thejr previous astion on 533, it i,'puld seen a;4>roprjate
to define this 1o9ro as a rof sign.
t4ayor anstnp opened hearing to the floor. There i.tere no @mEnts and tle public
hearing was declared cl-osed. ltere was lj-ttle Council discr:ssion-
Councihan Ir{angini nDved that ttre C-otr"rcif find the proposed logo to be a roof sign
at the location shoun and therefore prohibited, se@nd by counciltaunan Bartcn,
carried on unanirrous ro11 call vote.
4-7e
4
Council tlen disqussed the Kee Joon sign, with City planner rcporEjng thatt}te 1973 pernrit was granted for five years r:nJ-ess iuture buiJ-dilgs ereceeain front of it blocked the frearay view.
Council discussed briefl-y.
Cowtcilrnan Crosblz noved perlrIit for t]ris sign be extended for five years withstaff detennination at the end of that tire regardi-ng view blocJcage. Seondby Courcilnran lr{angini, carried on unanirprrs roll call rrote.
RET.IETiAL OF EVIERTAINMB.II PERMIT
1. P.J.'s, 261 CAIJfl)F[irA DRwE
Re. port of Novenber 13, 1979 frcm services Burieau of Burlingane potice Deparhrcntlisted seven incidents since Apri1, 1979, with a reccnrnendation for renq^ral forsix nonths and evaluation at the end of t].at tirre.
Courcil discussed briefly, and preferred to rener., for a shorter period becauseof ttte nurber of incidents.
councilran laaftin noved perrr[t be rene\^,ed for t]rree nnnttrs with eva}:ation at
end of that tine, second $ Co:nci1r,,rrmn Barton, carried rnaninously.
CORRESPONMNCE TRC$,I SITAET'
1. CITY IVBI{AGER: BURLINGAI4E DAYS BLIDGEf,
City l4anager's nsnr of Novernber 29, )1979 attacled request frcrn Burlingane Days
Ccnrdttee of the BurlillgarE Chamber of Ccmrerce dated Novarber 28, 1979 foy
$3,000 for expenses for 1980 Bururgare Days. A1so requested was futr:re increasefor non-resident booths of $10.00 per booth to be transferred to Burlil}qare Days
account b\z Art In Park Sponsor. I\,Ie!rD of Nove(ber 28, lg79 frcrn necreationDirector disapprored this additionaf $10.00 fee statillg no Recreation DeparErent
Class or event shorld carry a service charge to finance a non-rel-ated activity.
Council guestioned this request, sine quarterly staterents frcrn Chanrber of
CcnnErce had always been for $4,250 including the specific anrcr:nt of 9400 shcmrfor Burli-ngane Days, l,!r. Ray Kliever, nEnager, Ctranber of Ccnnerce, stated thatirt budget discussions the Cor:ncil trad rnade the decision to Iea\,,e City ontrilutj_onat $17,000 per year and iJlclude nothing for ex;:enses of BurlingarE Days. He sub-nitted a proposed br:dget with $9,353.71 for expenses for Burlingan€ Ccnrm:nity Days,1980. Approxj.mately $2,000 of this is for parade expenses. He discussed rational-efor the parade oncept. On ti-is budget City of BurliJrgare contribuEj_on was listed
as $3,000.
Council discussed at 1ength with I{r. K1j-er.{er, ccfilrerrtirrg on dr-:]cior:s value of suctr
a parade; hsufficient backup for oq)enses proposed, il parEicular tle Cityof $3,000; and the question of the $400 prerrior:sIy r:eporhed on quarterly requests.
Council decision ms postponed to the Cou'rci1 reeting of Decqrber L7, l-979. Staff
\,ras requested to resea::dr nEeting tapes i lqr. K1ie$pr is to furnish detailed justi-
fication of budget itqns; and Recreation Dj-rector is to attend reeting.
2. CITY MANAGER A}ID F]I\IANG DIREIIOR RE SEI,ESIICN OF AUDITOR FOR 1979-80.
l&rp of Novenber 12, 7979 frcrn Finance Director revierarcd current agre€flent forauditilg services and attactred bid letter fron Peat, I,larsricl<, l4itclrell & Co. for
the next tl:ree years. Fi.rlance Direstor requested Council- direction on acceptingthis bid or seelcing other proposals.
Cor:nci1 discussed and concurred i-n renewing this three year @ntract, but then to
ctnnge auditors for financial crossctreck and frestr ideas.
Councilman Crosby roved Peat, Marwick, l4itctrell contract be rsrervred for a period
of three years, second b1t Councilman tttangini, carried rnanilously.
3. CIIY IIGNAGER: AIVIS]DI\.IM{IS RECCT\4MENDM TO BI]RLINGAI.{E A\MiUE AREA PARK]NG
FEGLTIATICNS.
lHro of No\Enber 29, L979 frqn City Marrager attactred reqmendations of Traffic,
Safety, Parking @n,nission and the Planning Ccrnnission on these anendrents.
Malor Anstrup annor:nced tlds r,,ouId be discr:ssed at Ure study neeting i.rl Januarlz.
4-7+
+7
4. CITY }4A}iA@R: JOIM LAND USE STUDY, S.F. AIRPORT
ItEro of Novernber 29, 1979 frcrn City l\Gnager attadred proposal for interim
servicre on t.I'e inplerentation of Joint rand Use Study reonnendations for
San Francisco Airport fron the Forrrn on Corm:nity and ttre Ervironnent. Tttis
proposal requires that the cities of South San Francisco, San Bnrto, Millbrae
and Burlilgane participate as cities neigtrlcoring the aj-rport. there i.ould be
gran@pplication to San ftancis@ Foundation and eventual fi.rlancial on-
tributj-on by the cities.
Cou-rcilman l4artin spoke at lengrth on this matter, ans'wering Cor:r'rcil qr:estions
regardi-ng proposed joint por.rers board, the S. F. Foudation, and the r.rork of
tte Joi-nt Land Use Oormittee. IIe suggested Councj.l r,ould prefer to have
airport problerns controlled b1, cities ttrat surror:nd airporE ratler than by
County Staff.
Councilrnan Martil iroved that the City of Burlingane declare an interest jn this
proposal w'ith no conrdtrent at this tjnre. Second by @uncilnnn tr4angini, carried
on rnanirrous vote.
5. CIIY Afi'ORI{EY: EASTf,N "EASEMENIS
City Attorney's infor:national neno of No\Enber 29, 1979 descrilced status of
a1Ieys in East n Subdivisions I thror:gh 4. He stated tlrese have been deeded to
the City and have tlre sane status as streets. ltre pr:blic is entitled to use
thqn but the City tns control orzer their fuprovanent and there are @ncerns
about their use b1z adjacent property ovners.
APPEAL OF PIANNIIT{G CCWISSICT{ GRAIiE OF \ARII'NCE FOR 1104,/1106 and 1110/}112
EL CAI\,IINO REAL - JIJLIAN GIUTTIOI,I
I4alrcr Anstrup appeal-ed th-is decision of the Planning Ccnraission, parE of vittidt
relates to tlle r:se of the alley. Ilearing was set for the neeting of Decerber
t7, L979.
1. EESOLUTICN NO. 90-79 ''SUPPORTNG OPPOSITICT{ OT IHE CITY OF IIALF I.OCN BAY IlO
IMTIAIION OF RECYCIJNG PROCEDURES RECARDING ROTIIE 92 IN SAN I{ATEO COU{IY BEIIffiN
ROLIIE I AIiD RCI.EE 280. " was introduced Llz Corncilrnan Crosby w]tc rDved its
adoption, seoond by Corncilrnan trhrtjn, carried on r:naninor:s ro11 call vote.
2. RESOLUIICN NO. 91-79 '.DECI.ARI}IG RESULT OT SPECIAL I4T]NICIPAL ELECTION. ,' V,JAS
@unc Iaangini wto noved its adoption, seaond by Coi.ncilman
Crosby, carried on unaninous ro11 call vote.
ORDINA}iCE
OBDIMNCE NO. 1161 "AMENDING SEf,iF INSURANG RESEF/E REQUIm,E\ITS" uas introduced
for first blz Cor:ncilrnan Manqini.
OLD BUSINESS
EOUSING EI,EI\4ENT
NEW BUS]NESS
JOIT\TI MESTING - PIANNING CCI.4MISSIO}i & COUNCIL
Mayor Anstn4) noted. success of this neeting held Decenber l, L979 and r"eocnnended
this be a yearly occurenoe.
PIANNING CDTA.4ISSICNI
Council briefly discussed changing "apprenticeshi-p" period for nery Plarrting
Ccrnnissioners t sjx nonths jlstead of tlrree. It was agreed this could be done
wj-th staff notifyiltg Council- six nonths ahead of term e&iration dates.
RESOLUIICNS
City Planner inforned Corncif they i.ould receirre anended draft of this elenent
strortly and could decide if studlz discussion was necessarlz.
+7+
4.1:'
2
ACKNOI^iIEDGMmITS
1. letter of No\rember 28, 1979 from Anza Sharelplders Liguidating Tfust
requested consideration of directory sign program as soon as possible by
Plar:ni-ng Conn-ission or Council. Ivir. Keyston, present at tlle nEeting, uas
advised this r,"ould be discussed at the next Cotrlcil study rpeting jrr
Januar]r, h:t could be referred to Planning Ccnrn-ission for infonnation
at their next neeting on Decedcer 10, 1979.
Letter frcrn City Clerk and City Treasurer. I\rayor Amstrup set dis-
cussion on ttris ccnrm-rrication for lTanuary study rreeting.
I€ague of I^IclrEn Voters letter of Novembr 20 , L979 .
Letter of l{ovenrber 15, 1979 from ftan}< Pagliaro, Park and f€Geation
Ccmission.
Letter of Novefiber 14, 1979 frqn nichard E. Kee1, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue
comending Dave Anderson of Street and Ser,rer Depart]IEnt.
Ietter of october 24, L979 from California Fiater Colnn-ission regardj-ng
loca1 jurisdicEional efforEs in flood-prone areas. Dj-rector of
Pr:blic l{crks rcquested he be alloved to reporE to Counci.l on this at
a stuity rEeting.
Letter of NoTqrber 19, 1979 from Adrian Ionzaridt and June Wisecarver
of tlrc l.bntessori Sctlcol thankinq Courcil for permit approval.
letter, undated, frorn Burljngane Braves Baseball Club.
l[irrutes: Library Board of Trustees, Novenber 20; and Park & Recyeation
Ccnmission, Itro'rqrber 15, 1979.
LIBRAFY Af'\[SOW BOARD
l4ayor Amstnp suggested the nane of !lrs. Joan Giaq)ao1i for this Board. Cor:nci1
agr:eed, and he announced I\4rs. cianpaoli as a nernber of the t ibrarlz Advisory
Boad.
AD-TOUR}S,IFXVT
I\4eeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. to el<ecuti\E session on negotiations.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L ., 't : tl
Evebm Hj-lI
City Clerk
(-v-L4