Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.10.03466 BURLINGAME, October CALIFORNIA 3, l9'77 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City llal1 Council Chambers. The meeting was ca11ed to order at 8:07 P.M. by Mayor A.C, "Bud" Harrison. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE F],AG: Led by James A. Cfark, Police Lieutenant. ROLL CAIL COUNCTL I4EMBERS PRESENT:AMSTRUP , CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI , MARTIN NONECOLI{CIL MEMBE RS ABSENT: MIN UTES The minutes of the adjourned regular meetj-ng, September 7, and special meeting September L4, 1977 \.rere approved and adopted. The minutes of the regular meeting of September 19, 1977 were approved and adopted with correction of P. 457 draft minutes, second paragraph, first sentence, to read: "Councilman Martin asked if the financial return from the two top floors vrould be more than that from the first floor. " BI DS L977/78 STDEWALK PROGRAT.4 pttD 1977/78 WEED PROGRAM Director of Public Works explained to Council that the sidewalk program had produced only one bidder, Andero Construction Company, who was much higher than the engineerrs estimate. Bidder had mistakenly included the cost of handicap ramp construction in the unj-t price for sidewalk repair, which made the bid too high. rn discussion concerning denial of the bid, bidder indicated he would rebid. Director of Public Works recommended readvertising for bid for this program, possibly later in the year when contractors are less busy. Councilman Amstrup moved that bid of Andero Construction Company for 1977/78 sidewaLk program be denied and the program be readvertiseti for bidoing. Second by Councilman Mangini, unani!'tous l-.r earried-. Director of Public Works informed Council that there had been a mis interpretation of bio specifications on the J-977 /78 WeeA Program by the different contractors, resulting in different types of bids. Ile recommended that this project be rebid after rewording of the specifications for cl-arification. Councilman Crosby moved that all bids for weed abatement program be rejected, and the 1977/78 Weed Program be readvertised for bids. Second by Councilman Amstrup, carried unanimously. HEARIN GS 1. APPLICATION OF DONALD T. LIRETTE, D/B,/A TOWNE CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TAXI CABS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. TAXI , FOR TO OPERATE City Council had received application letter of September 8, I977 from Dona]d T. Lirette, 3953 Regan Drive, San Mateo, who stated he does business j-n Foster City and San Mateo. He proposed to have four vehicles, alI Volkswagen,/Rabbits , and gave specifics of equipment. Also transmitted to Council was letter of September 29, 1977 from Bel-Mateo Enterprises d/b/a YeILow Cab, 330 south Claremont street, San Mateo, opposing the application of Towne Taxi for various reasons and urging the Councj-l- to determine 467 that there is not enough public demand in Burlingame to warrant additional permit. City Manager's memo of September 30, 1977 defined necessary council action as a determinatj-on on requirements of Code Section 6.36.050, "Determination of public convenience and necessity. " Councilman Mangini noted that the City ordinance does not r'" "nstipulate as to the number of passengers. He questioned what ' ',))..,. taxi stand would be used and i-f Mr. Lirette intended to use the .Rabbits in Burlingame. Mr. Lirette replied the stand coul-d be designated by the City or he could use existing stands. He confirmed he would use the four Vol-kswagens in Burlingame. In response to letter of protest from Ye l-low Cab, Mr. Lirette stated that accordinq to the Finance Department there has been no licensed cab company in Burlingame since July 30, L973, nor does any cab company have an office in Burlingame. He noted incident several years ago where an employee of Yellow Cab was involved in a burglary in connection with the taxicab business, and noted previous competitor, Veterans Cab, had gone out of business in Burlingame because they were sued by Yel1ow Cab of San Francisco. He stated he wished to operate a tegal business with fu11 disclosure. Mayor Harrison noted Mr. Lirette had an office Burlingame. In response to his question, Mr. office had been open for five months. Councilman Amstrup suggested thj-s matter bereceipt of more information on questions of at 340 Lirette Lorton, stated this Publ-ic Hearing was decl-ared open. Mr. Oliver V. Nordby, Bel-Mateo Enterprises, Inc., addressed Council. He stated he had originally had 13 "permits" in Burlingame; however, with the coming of the bus system, passenger demand was down and this had been now reduced. to 8 permits' He had previously had an office on Burlingame Avenue, with a cab stand.; but when the beautification program was instigated it interfered with his cab stand and the office was closed. He presently has an office in San Mateo. In response to question from Councilman llangini, City Attorney stated that cab stands are designated by the Chief of Po1ice and any cab company can use. Councilman Crosby questioned the closing of the office. Mr. Nordby replied it was used primarily for a waiting room, record work was done in san Mateo, and he had other phones in the area, such as on Broadway and at various hotels. His cabs do not park in any specific space. Councilman Crosby questioned statement that City had not received any revenue since 1973. Mr. Nordby replied that he was uncertain, that he had a license and had always paid it. He would have to check the records. City Attorney, noting that the City does not get percentages of fares, offered to check on business license. He added that a cab company is not given a yearly permit, but a certificate for an indefinite period of time which depends on ordinance compliance. Mayor Harrj-son reviewed points for Council investiga+-ion in determination of public convenience and necessity: public demand, adequacy of existing taxicab service, financial- responsibility of applicant, type of equipment, and effect of additional taxicab service on traffic congestion and parking. Mr. Nordby commented. he had no complaints about service since its inception five years ago. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was declared closed. conti-nued 1 icens ing l pen di ng ^+^ 468 City Attorney commented that questions raised about existing cab company do not affect the present applicant. Councilman Martin disagreed, stating that if present cab company is not paying required fees they shou]d not be allowed to operate. Mayor Harrj-son asked Police Lieutenant if any complaints had been received about Yel-Iow Cab. Police Lieutenant replied there had been none, to his knowledge. The Mayor then noted there had been no evidence presented of Mr. Lirette's financial responsibility and experience. He noted this is necessary to comply with the ordinance. City Manager offered to check andreport back to Council . Councilman Mangini noted Mr. Lirette's statement that he would charge "fair" rates, and said he thought Council set the rates. City Attorney confirmed that Councj-1 did set the rates, and Mr. Lirette's were in conformance. He commented on the possibility of more need for service with the Convention Center and hotel activity. Cor:ncilman Crosby stated he definitely wanted information on the several questions raised. Cj.ty Manager affirmed he wouldinvestigate with report. Mayor Harr.j-son declared this hearing continued to the Councll meetj-ng of october L7, 1977. 2. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS 3 ASSOCIATES PROJECT, 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. CHARLES KING & Mayo whic and r h Se Harrison announced had been continued ptember 19, 7977. reopening of hearing on this from the Council meetings of project September 5, At the onset of the hearing, all members telephone and/or verbal contact with Mr. last Council meeting. of Council reported Charles King since the Mr. M. Arthur Gensler, Project Architect, addressed Council, describing revj-sed plan for this project. Mr, Gensler said he inferred from the last meeting that Council approved the concept of 202 compact spaces, and the new plan drawings reflect thispercentage. After reviewing all facts and optj-ons, it was his recommendation that the project contemplate a nine story building. He used slides of site plan for such a building, and of photographs of buildings using similar exterior material in describing the proposed plan. The proposed building has a basically open ground f1oor, solving some of the questions about the open space to the Bay. A major consideration had been the distribution of landscaping. He felt the greatest impact of the project would be on Bayshore Highway, so approximately 50? of the area in front of the building will be l-andscaped as would the berm. He had considered depressing the parking area, but decided against this because there is water 4' below the ground surface. By opening up the ground floor, enclosing only the core area, the problem of visibility to the Bay was solved. rn order for this plan to function, part of the present permanent parking alongthe Bay had been used, as weff as 55' of the 100r "BCDC" strip. The balance of this strip would be landscaped for a path along the Bay. He pointed out other landscaped areas throughout the parking l-ot. With this type of arrangement, the building would set in a landscaped park, making a much better visual contribution to the city. The facade will be mirrored glass, which takes on reflection of sky and trees, etc., thereby blending into the Council-man Crosby asked how Council could determine whetheror not more taxi companies are needed. City Manager replied information should be evaluated on whether there had been anypublic complaints on the service, for example. He said there had been none, so it would appear that at the present the service is adequate; adding that, on the other hand, a littl-e competition could be a good thing. 469 skyfine and negatj-ng the building's bulk and height.the nine-story building was a compromi-se which would developer cope with the various problems. He 1et cons ide red the Councilman Mangini questioned the architectrs present attitude toward the parking structure. Mr. Gensler replied it seemed the least desirable alternative, but in order to eliminate it,the developer proposes to use his own land in the BCDC strip. Councilman Martin questioned if there would be a fence on theperimeter of the d.eve lopment. Mr. Wintner stated a visual wa1l would not be a good concept. There will be a bumper divider,but no barrier, In response to further questions from the Council- man, Mr. Gensler stated they were prepared to work with City staffon landscaping, adding that 10' trees were proposed in the parkingl-ot beeause larger trees do not grow as fast. Cor:ncilman Martin asked what the developer proposed if BCDC does not approve this plan. Mr. Gensler stated the alternatj-ve would be to go all the way back on the existing parking and alsoutilize parking spaces in front. 56 spaces must be picked up. He confirmed the Councilmanrs comment that most of the landscapingin front woul-d be lost in this event, although both pfans refl-ectI7? landscaping. He urged strong Council support as an influence on BCDC. Councilman Amstrup pointed out that with this plan approximately 18,500 SF per floor is projected with eight floors. Thisresul-ts in 4,000 SF more than the 144,000 SF desired, Mr. Wintner explained that the top fLoor is reduced in area bythis amount because it is recessed. (Note: top floor - 13,521 SF;7 office floors, 18,225 SF ea.) Councilman Amstrup was concerned about City loss of the 25r pathway, if BCDC did not approve andthe developer used existing parking. City Attorney sugqestedpermit could be conditioned upon receiving BCDC approval for the55' usage. Again Mr, Gensler urged strong Council support for his originalp1an, commenting that a positive attitude rather than aneither/or approach would gain BCDC approval. Conditioning thepermit would weaken its support from them. Mayor Harrison questioned how much parking could be accommodatedon the ground level of the building. Mr. censler repl-ied thereare about 24 spaces that cut under a portion of the bui1ding. He estimated he coul-d possibly get another 10 - 15. If hewent to und.erground parking he could get about 4l_, but with ramps it would net out to about 35. Mayor Harrison thenquestioned if the developer had considered hotel use for thebuilding. Mr. Charles King replied he would like nothingbetter than to sign a long term l-ease with a major hotel chainand avoid the problems of an office building. For severalyears, major hotel- chains had been approached, including AMFAC,with no success, because of the hotel rate in this area. 4 In response to questions from Councilman Amstrup, the architect confirmed that the building is now only nine stories, with eight occupied floors and the ground floor contains only lobbies, elevators, and stairs. fn response to Councilman Martin's questions, Mr. Gensfer confirmed that 144,000 SF was needed for a good economic development; with a ten story buil-ding height the area had been approximately 14,000 SF per floor; nine stories result in abuildj-ng 74\t larger on each side. The Councilman pointed out thatthe building itself has more bulk, and questioned how this rel-atesto the formerly critical problem of the foundation. Mr. Steve L.Wintner, Gensler & Associates, stated the excavation is 146' on each side, the ten story building had been 120r per side, andthis present building would be 135 I per side, which is still-less than the excavation. This building is 114!r in height,the ten story haal been 127' high. 470 Mr. Robert Brown, realtor, addressed Council, and stated his approval of this new p1an, which he considered even better than that presented at the last Council meeting. He feft confident that BCDC woul-d not turn down a request of this kind. He considered this building would be an asset to the City, and urged approval . Mr. David Keyston, address j-ng Council, said this would be the best ]ooking building on the street. He pointed out that if this is disapproved and the site broken up into several lots, results might not be so attractive. He asked. Council to approve. Councilman Amstrup thought the developer was trying to build a good project, but repeated his concern that the City would lose the 25' path along the Bayfront. He approved the building as being a better plan than had ever been presented with about one-haff the size, but was uneasy about the parking situation. Councj-lman Mangini saj-d his feeling was one of complete support for the devefoper, who hail cooperated to the best of his ability with Councif. He thought if Council took a firm stand and supported this project completely, BCDC would be influenced. Councj-lman Crosby also thought he could support the project, although he had some concerns about BCDC. He thought the parking could be worked out. He approved this project strongly in comparison with the original 16 story concept. Councilman Martin was not optimistic about BCDC reacti-on. He questioned Mr. Gensler about developerrs contribution to vrater, sewer, and signalization. Mr. Gensler reviewed contributions with justifications. For water, he thought the developer hrould be willing to go on a pro rata share proportioned over an acreage of the area affected. For signalization: the Kingproject and the Airport Marina would pay l/3, t.he Clty 1/3, and the undeveloped lands 1,/3, based on an estimate of $40-45,000for the signal. The King project's share of their 1,/3, $15,000, would be $7,500, of which a contribution of $5,000 has already been made. Sewer: the King project would pay its fair share. Councilman Martin stated he took this to mean that if an assessment district were formed, they vrould not oppose. Mr. Gensfer replied that was correct. The Councilman said he thought the $7,500 contribution was not enough, with a reply from Mr. Gensler that if a more acceptable basis were found, he thought Mr. King would go along. Councilman Mangini thought the developer was reasonable in agreeing to pay his fair and equitable assessment for water improvements and for willingness to participate in an assessment district for sewage. Both Mayor Harrison and Councilman Crosby questioned what conditions, if any, shoutd be put upon this permit to furnish leverage with BCDC. City Attorney replj-ed that no condition regarding BCDC was necessary if the permit was tied to this specific building and this specific plan. Councifman Amstrup commented it behooved Council to get the best building possible and a solution to the parkj-ng. He indicated he would support this p1an. Mayor Harrison stated he would support this specific p1an. conditions to be attachedCouncilman Crosby suggested a review of to the permit. Council-man Mangini emphasized contribution to sewer, water and signalization. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Martin suggested approval be tied to this specj-f ic drawing by date, height of building be specified (Mr. Gensler noted this as I14|' with 10' penthouse) as well as mass of building, 135' square, contribution of $2,500 to signalization, no objection to joining water and se\,rer assessment districts, landscaping as shown on the site ptan,v/ith I0' trees. The Councilman stated he would not vote for the project because if another story were left off it might solve the parking, and the developer might decide he could live with an eight story building. Councilman Mangini moved that Council support this project and approve variance for 202 compact parking and special permit for height over 50' for same project identified by Gensler & Associates site p1an, including landscaping, dated lO/3/77, Sheet No. A, San Francisco International Office Center, Job. No. 7715, with the conditions that the building be no more than 114t' high with a I0' penthouse for mechanical eguipment, 135' square building, beautification to be dealt hrith through the Park superintendent, and with the understanding that the developer has agreed to support equitable assessments for sewer and water, and will submit a statement that he wilf not oppose an assessment district if formed., and that he had paid $5,000 toward signalization and will contribute $2,500 more toward signalizati-on. Councilman Amstrup stated his understantling that no work would be done on the fand until BCDC ruled on the parking situation. Mr. censler replied he would rather be in a position where BCDC cou]d not hotd up the entire effort, so that if they did refuse he could implement similar parking ratio as on the site plan by using the front of the project, with total landscaping stifl meeting the requirement of I58. Mayor Harrison said his understaniling of the motion was that it did not give the developer permission to do anything other than exactl-y specified on this submitted site plan. He then asked how long it would take for BCDC approval, if Council approves the permit. Mr. censler estimated it hrould be six months, but City Planner estimated half that time. Councilman Mangini questioned if Mr. Gensler vranted latitude so that he could agree to possible BCDC conditions without coming back to Council. Mr. Gensler confirmed. City City plan very Planner commented that BCDC requires a statement by the that the plans have been approved. fn the motion a specific had been noted. From what he had seen of BCDC they refuse few plans that have been approved by local governments. Mayor Harrison stated Council's position should do no work on the site until BCDC as that Mr. censler approves this p1an. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COIINCILMEN:AMSTRUP (for MANGfN I reasons stated) CROSBY , HARRISON , NAYES 3 COI]NCILMEN: MARTIN RECESS After a short recess at 9:45 P.M. the fieetinq reconvened. COMMUN l CAT IONS 1. ROBERT S. STURGES, ATTORNEY AT LAW: REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE CITY COI]NCIL REGARDING FRAM-SMOOK-GARD CORPORATION PROPOSAL FOR LOT RESUBDIVISION, MILLS ESTATE NO. 27 City Council had received letter of September 19, 1977 from Robert S. Sturges of Caputo, Liccardo, Rossi & Sturges, attorney 477 Councilman Martin disapproved. In his opinion, Mr. Gensler should go to BCDC with this one specific pl-an. e 472 for Fram-Smook-card Corporation requesting a hearing on its appeal from the decj-sion of the Planning Commission on .fune 26, 1-977 denyinga variance. Letter al-so referred to hearing which was denied tothis corporat.ion on July 5, 1977 after it had requested a hearingon July 18, 1977. Attached memo of September 29, L977 from CityAttorney suggested that Council set a date when Mr. Sturges might make a presentation on the matter of referring the matter backto the Planning Commission. City Attorney also cornmented that Mr. Sturges had filed a $200,000 claim against the City, alleging theCity had inversely condemned his clientsr property. In response to request from Mayor Harrison, City Attorney reviewed events leading up to this request. He stated that this concerns Mi11s Estate #27. Council had placed a condition on thatsubdivision in l-968 that there be no further subdivision. City had received application for varj-ance and further subdivision a couple of months ago which was submitted to the Planning Commission.Staff had discovered the Council condition and had deci-ded as amatter of 1aw that the requested variance was j-nappropriate. Mr. Sturges would like to convince the City to remove the condition.City Attorney noted his memo comment that the Council might wantto send this back to the Planning Commission, but stated in dis- cussing with Planning staff they had felt this was a policy decisionat Council Ievel. Possibly the best circumstance would be a noticed hearing before the Council on removing the condition, if Council chooses to consider this, At this point, Counci lmen Amstrup, Crosby, and Mangini they had all received telephone calfs from Mr. Sturges matte r. reported on this Mayor Harrison reviewed Councif options as confirming originaldenial or scheduling a noticed hearing j-n two weeks. Mr. Robert Sturges briefly addressed Council to the point that Council had made a decision when the applicant was not present. He $/anted to explore the City Council's intention as to the numberof lots at the time of the 1968 decision and present his viewpointson changirg that decision. He thought his ideas had merit and askedthat they be heard at a properly noticed public hearing. Counci-1man Amstrup questioned if Council would be jeopardj-zing its previous decisi-on by reopening the hearing. City Attorney stated not, that Council could actually affirm that subdivision condition. Councilman Crosby moved that a noticed hearing be held on this matter on October 17, 1977. Second by Councilman Mangini. Councilman Amstrup questioned the $200,000 suit, Mr. Sturgesreplied this was filed on the basis that his clients had requested a hearing on a certain date, and they felt the hearing was denied. In reply to comment from Cor:ncilman Martin that a hearing would necessj-tate a lengthy review of all the facts, City Attorney replied this could be evidenced by all the minutes from the 1967 and 1968 hearings. Councilmen Amstrup and Crosby indicated they would not object to hearing, with the object of being fair to afl concerned. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sturges questioned if motion included a hearing on the variance as well as the original condition, and was informed by theCity Attorney that it would be merely on the condition. 2. SENIOR METHODIST YOUTH FELLOWSHIP OF MILLBRAE RAQI]EST TO USE BURLINGAME DISPOSAL AREA LATE OCTOEER, EARLY NOVEMBER Council Whi te d, received l-etter dated September 21, L977 from Mr. Gene Counselor, Community United Methodist Church, requesting ) 473 permission to use Burlingame dump facilities on OcEober 22 and Novembe r 5,l.2,19,L977 in connection with tree trimming sponsored by the Senior Youth Fellowship of this church. Mr. Whited, addressing Council, said they had considered the Colma dump, but it presented transportation problems Burlingame is closer. 29,project Councilman Mangini had no objection to this request especially since the City has accommodated this group beforei but questj-oned if the possibility of using some facility other than Burlingamers could be explored. He noted information received that processing station in San Carlos would be constructed. City Manager noted that this facil-ity would not be compLeted for some time. us ing and Councilman Crosby added that Millbrae has only disposal boxes, and this is al1 they have ever provided for the community itself. STAEF MEMORAN DA 1. CITY PLANNER: DRAFT EIR-43E FOR BAYSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT City Plannefs memo of Septemlce r 29, 1977 informed Council thatPlanning Commission hearing of September 28, 1977 had been held on Draft EIR-43E. At this time wrj-tten comments from public agencies had been presented, and public questions and conments were received.. City Planner noted that draft EIR must include hearing minutes and written responses to all inquiries and comments. Hearing concluded with passage of P]anning Commission motion thatCity Council contract wj-th a consultant to finalize this draftEIR. City Planner explained that City's contract with HKS cafl-ed for the preparation of draft EIR with one appearance byconsultant before the Planning Commission for purpose of verifying and explaining material. Their contract obfigations have beencompleted. A supplementary agreement would be needed to modify and make the draft EIR legally adequate. h additj-on there is a_ concurrent application to add 210 rooms to the hotef. This wouldrequire a variance from parkj-ng, and an analysis of this addition must be covered in the final EIR. City Planner reported CityAttorney had received a proposal from HKS for the additional work to finalize the EIR. City Attorney reported on HKS proposal dated September 30, L9'17 which would cover an updated analysis of the 210 room hoteladdition, responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses to verbal- comments made at September 28, 1977 Planning Commission hearing. The price would be $1,840 for whichthe Redevelopment Agency is the payee, and which would be eventually be repaid from bond proceeds, This work coul-d be accomplished by October 21, the last Planning Commission meeting in October. Cj-ty Attorney colunented he believed staff could handle, but there was a time consideration, and HKS would be abfe to meet the time1imit. Councilman Amstrup asked if this was brought about because theproject had changed. City Attorney replied that in any EIRthere is a draft and public comments on it. Final EIR must contain responses to those comments. The only change would be the 210 roomanalysis. When the Councifman asked why this final work was notincluded in the original contract, City Planner stated that the spread of prices varied. Thj-s consultant bid for the draftonly and was below what others had proposed for the draft. Councilman Amstrup asked when the Council would be able to sit dor{n and discussthe Convention Center. Cj-ty Attorney replied Ken Jones and Counci lman Amstrup commented on the fact that Millbrae facilities will be used for only two days for this project, whereas Burlj-ngame is asked to provide for five days. Councilman Amstrup moved that this request be approved, second by Council-man Crosby, carried on unanimous vote, I 474 Hornblower Weeks had both indicated they would like to conferwith staff next week and then with Cor:ncil. Ee thought that bythe next Counc.il meeting a date could be set for a special meeting. He stated, however, he would be out of town from October 25 to November 5. Councilman Crosby asked if it were true that staff could do asgood a job as HKS. City Planner replied that one problem forstaff woul-d be providing a type of report that woul-d showcontinuity to make it legatly adequate. He estimated it wouldtake 50 manhours for staff to do the report. This additional respons j-b j- lity would mean that staff would be working for the developer concurrently with the City. He stated this would notbe easy, but if Council decided on this way of doing it, he would do it. Councilman Amstrup questioned if the CETA person on Plannj-ng staffcould be used. City Attorney noted this person has been injured and is currentl-y off duty, also he does not have the professional ability for this. Councilman Mangini tended to would be considerably slowed to save $1 , 800. agree with the poss ibi l ity down if they were directed that staffto do this In response to question from Councilman Crosby, City Planner explained his reluctance as the fact that the EIR is being usedto qualify a private application for a parking variance. As City P1anner, he was responsible for controlling the zoning in the City. The draft EfR serves as EIR for the private appl-ication, and the Redevelopment Agency would be providing the funding for the Citystaff to do the EIR for a private developer. Councilman Martin suggested that Cj-ty Planner could furnishreport on the verbal and written comments, the portion of the EIR which deals with the Convention Center; and HKS could respond tothe portion which deals with the 210 room addition. Since thisaddition is Mr. Sil-vertonrs project, Mr. Silverton could pay forit. This would not be recaptured from the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Silverton responded that while he agreed with Council-manMartin in prineiple, he did think that the 210 room addition r^ras dj-rectly related to the Convention Center site as a harmonious part. However, he had no objection to paying for that proportion of theproposal. He suggested that another member of the Planninqtstaff, familiar with the Convention Center Project, could do the 210 room portion on hi.s own time, thereby expeditinqt the fj-nal- EIR so that it would be available for the Planning Commission meeting of the l2th. He would pay for thj-s person's time. City Attorney emphaticall-y stated he was firmly opposed to thisproposal to have City staff do work for Mr, Silverton, and was concerned about the legality of it. He thought Mr. Silverton had some misconceptions about staff availability. Mr. David Keyston, addressing Council-, urged that HKS do the 210 room addition part of the EIR and the City Planner the Redevelop- ment Agency part, as a method of expedj-ting this EIR on which adecision must be made before the Blayney and Drachman studies can proceed. Martin moved that staff furnish the final EIR withthe written and verbal comments at the Plannj-ngpublic hearing, and that HKS be employed by Mr.at his own cost, to furnish an updated analysis wj-ththe 2I0 room addj-tj-on. Second by Councilman Mangini. Councilman Martj-n objected to this proposition because a membe rof City staff would be doing outs j-de work and coming back to theCity as a consultant. IIe preferred that an outside firm do Mr.Silverton's portion, since having a City staff member working onthis would create various probfems. Coun ci lmanrespect to Commiss ionSilverton,respect to City Planner reminded Councif that the Planning Commission must subsequently accept this final ErR and recommend it to Council. Mr. Silverton asked if he coul-d explore hiring another consuftant so that this report could be submitted by the Pfannj-ng Commission meeting of October 12, ).977. Councilman Martin objected that this would affect the continuity of the EIR, since it would have come from three different sources. A1so, he thought it would be extremely difficult for an outside consultant to tie it atl together. City Attorney noted that Mr. Silverton apparently hoped to get his portion fi-nalized for the Ptanning Commissj-on meetj-ng of the 12th. The City Planner reported that this meeting contemplates some 20 items, and he had previously mad.e arrangements for his own time on the \,ireekend preceding it. He could not work on this report until after the Planning Commission meeting. He estimated he could have his portion done in time for the hearing on the 26lh of october. Mayor Harrison commented that the HKS proposal letter indicated the date of october 2l for completion of all three sections. Previously stated motion carried unanimously. Councilman Martin noted he had seen references to addendums to this EfR of which Councj-L had not received copies. He asked that staff provide as soon as possible. City Planner stated that minutes of the Planni.ng Commission meeting of September 28, 1977 and the Goodrich report would be furnished to Council at the next study meetin g. 2. CITY PLANNER: STUDY AREA PERMIT APPLICATION AE ROBAY OFFICE CENTER BUILDING +2, !60I BAYSHORE HIGHWAY City Plannerrs memo of September 28, L911 transmitted to Council this application with other documentation, including negative decfaration, site plan, floor p1ans, elevations and landscape ptan. City Planner's recommendation \^ras that this permit be approved. City Planner, addressing Council, stated that the original permit for this site had included two office buildings. Permit was approved in october of 1971. One office building, 840 Hinckley, has been constructed. This study area permit is for the other. He suggested permit be conditioned upon landscaping plan approved by the Park Di re ctor. Cor:ncilman Crosby moved that this study area permit be approved subject to approval of landscaping plan by Park Director. Councilman Crosby seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3. CITY MANAGER: APPLICATION H I GHWAY FOR DESIGNATION OF RO IITE 280 AS SCENIC City Manager memo of September 28, 1977 transmitted to Cor:nci1 letters of Septembe r 22 and September 26, L977 from State Department of Transportation forwarding copies of Scenic Highway Report for State Highway Route 280 for the use of the City in the preparation of a Scenic Corridor Plan and subsequent application for designation of Route 280 as an official State Scenic Highway, City Resolution of May 3, l-976 had supported this proposed actj-on. City Manager's memo indicated Council has already enacted Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the General P1an. councifman Amstrup questioned how this designation would affect City owned lands bordering on 280. City Manager considered thatthis point should be checked with the State before the applicationis made. Mayor Harrison directed that this be done before Council considersresolution approving appl-ication for designation of Route 280 as an offj-cia1 State Scenic Highway. Cj-ty Planner pointed out thatthe City-ol.\rned l-and is outside the City l-imits. It is not yet 475 476 annexed, therefore it is conmented that something not covered by should be done City zoning. City Attorney about annexation. 4. CITY MANAGER AND CHIEF OF POI,ICE: MISTREATMENT OF POLICE DOG By memo of September 14, 1977 Chief of Police requested that City Council enact an ordinance which prohibits the mistreatment ofpolice dogs. City Manager recommended that this legislation be passed by endorsement of Septentber 28, 1977. ORDINANCE NO. f115 ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 9.04.028 TO THE BURLINGAME for firstMUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING POLICE DOGS reading by Councilman Amstrup . " was introduced CONSENT CALEN DAR 1. COMPREHENSIVE WATE R PLAN PENINSULA WATER AGENCY City Manager memo of Septembe r 28, L977 informed Council that his office had just received thi.s p1an, on which the Engineering Department woul-d prepare a report. City Manager suggested that Council- consider the first meeting in November, November 7, L971. 2. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, I309 CASTILLO Assistant City Engineer's memo of September 16, 1977 transmitted this permit and recommended its approval . This permit is for installation of two gates in an easement between Lots 11 and 13, Block 62, Easton Subdivision. By endorsement of September 29, 1977 City Manager concurred in this recommendation. 3. DENIAL OF' CLAIMS: MABEL BROMAN, SYLVIA ROE. City Attorney's memo of September 23, 1977 transmitted recommendation from R. L. Kautz & Company that the claim of Mabel Broman be denied. A like recommendation from this company on the claim of Syl-vj-a Roe was transmitted by his memo of September 29, 1977. In both cases City Attorney requested an appropriate motion denying the cIaim. 4. PARCEL MAPS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: AVEN UE (I352/L356 EL CAMINO) , 1435 BELLEVUE AVENUE ].4 4 7 GROVE Assistant City Engineer's memos of September 29, 1917 transmitted these maps, noting that all conditions of tentative map approval have been met, and recommending approval. City Manager's endorse- ments of September 29, 19"77 concurred in this recommendation. Councilman 7\mstrup stated he would abstain from voting on parcel m.ap at 1435 Bellevue Avenue, since he p1-anned on buying one of the units contemplated for this property. Councilman Crosby moved approvaf of consent calendar, Councilman Martin, carried unanimously with exception Amstrup's abstention on one item mentioned above. second by of Councilman RES OLUT ION S 1. RESOLUTION NO. 84-77 "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1976-77 WEED ABATEMENT ffi3 To 5, JoB 77-L" was introd.uced by Councilman Crosby who moved its adoption. Second by Councilman Martin, carried on unanj-mous roll cal-I vote. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 85-77 " RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AIRPORT BOULEVARD ffiT, JoB No. 76-12. was introduced by Counci lman Martin who moved its adoption. Second by Councilman Mangini. David Keyston addressed Council to the point that the contractor had failed to do work on several trees, that the contractor had a ll one-year maintenance agreement on his own work, and requestedpermission from Council to get this done. Director of Public Works confirmed the contractorrs one year maintenance agreement, and Council agreed to Mr. Keystonrs request. Motion carried on unanimous rol-1 caf l- vote. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 86-77 '' RESOLUIION TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURE DETERMINING DISTRIBLITION OF FEDERAL ATD FOR SAFER OFF-SYSTEM (SOS) ROADS" was introduced by Councilman Mangini who moved adoption, second by Councilman Martin. FOR its Councilman Amstrup questioned the requj-rement that the San Mateo County Technj-cal Advisory Committee shalf determine the funddistribution and also that the fund distribution be approved bythe representatj-ves of a majority of the cities within the County.Director of Public Works confirmed that this is tfre way the FAU projects currently work, and at this level he did not see .rny problems. Motion carried by unanimous ro11 call vote. ORDINANCES 1. ORDINANCE NO. f]14 "ORDINANCE ADD]NG SECTION was presented 6.12.075 REGARDTNGfor CouncilRENTAL OF PREMISES TO AUCTIONEERS.' consideration and public hearing. On motion Ordinance unan imous of Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Crosby, No. 1114 passed its second reading and was adopted on ro11 call vote of members present. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 11]-6 "ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STOP SIGNS AT LEXINGTON WAY APPROACHING BLOOMFTELD, NORTH LANE APPROACHING CAROLAN WHILE TRAVELING WEST, AND MAJILLA AVENUE AND CHULA VISTA AVENTIE, AND ELIMINATING YIELD SIGN AT LEXINGTON WAY APPROACHTNG BLOOMFIELD ROAD" was introduced for first reading by CouncilmanMangini. In response to question from Councilman l4artin, CityAttorney advised that all warrants have been met on this signing and were approved by Council some time ago. UNFINISHED BUSTNESS HOO\,'ER SCHOOL TBAT'I'] C COUNT In response to question from Councilman Mangini, Director of Pub1ic Works confirmed that this count had been accomplishedthe \,/eek of September. The intersection did not meet either urban or rural warrant as far as automobifes was concerned.City Traffic Engineer and the Po1ice Safety Director had metwith the schoof principal subsequently and discussed several recommendations to improve the situation. durin g the The Mayor Harrison commented he had checked out the cost of acrossing guard to the City, and found that a four-hour limit wou1dcost the City around $2,]-12 per year, This crossing would requirea man for 5 hours a day. Mayor Harrison questioned if the City worked lvith the SchoolDistrict in terms of crossing guards, and was informed by thePolice Lieutenant that there is cooperation in the matter ofschool safety patrol-s. Director of Public Works stated there would be a fu1I report presented to Council at their next meeting. COOLIDGE SCHOOL LEASING Councilman Iqartin suggested that Council appoint a representativeto meet with a representative on the Schoo1 Board level to discuss and possibly work out problems relative to the leasing of CoolidgeSchool. He suggested that some meeting of minds might be achieved. 477 Mayor Harrison declared the hearing open to the public. There were no audience co[unents, and the public hearing was declared close d. i 478 Council and staff agreed. Mayor Harrison volunteered to work $rith the School Board on this matter. BUMPER STlCKERS Councilman Crosby stated he had heard bumper stickers on City vehicles, andinvestigate. City Manager agreed. reports of asked that inappropri ateCity Manager NEW BUSINESS APPEAL - PLANN ING ROBERT AND SYLVIA PISANI, 5OO PENTNSULA AVENUE, FROM COMMISSION DECISION ON VARIANCE Councj-l- received l-etter dated September 30, 1977 appealing this decision from Mr. and Mrs. Pisani. Mayor Harrison set hearing on this appeal for the Cor:ncil meeting of November 7, 1977. ACKNOWLE DGMENTS 1. Letter of September 22, 1977, from Arthur Lepore, Mayor, City of Millbrae concerni.ng San Francisco Airport Commission and its proposed Noise Abatement Program with suggestion that affectedcities convene to discuss available remedies. Councifman Martin tofd Council that basical-1y this has to do with the blast fence on RunvTay 1 and its effect on Mj-11brae, Burlingame and Hillsboroughwith regard to noise. The Airport's position is that this is a replacement for an existing blast fencei therefore, there will be no EfR. He thought that the Airport should be required to supply an EIR as to what the effect will be. For audience benefit, he stated there is no intention of stopping the aj-rport or closing them down. ALUC is trying to get them to cooperate. What Mr, Lepore is asking j-s the appointment of a committee representing each city, The Councilman suggested that one Council member and one staff membe r be appointed to help investigate and find if this problem is getting to the stage where it might be feasible to get 1ega1 help to force the Airport to get an EIR. He detailed further problems with the Airport, and urged City appointment of a committee to join in this investigation with a report back to the City. Mayor Harrison appointed Councilman Martin and the City Attorney as members of this conmi-ttee. 2. Letter of September L5, L977 from Chairman, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission with that Commissionrs request that Council consider establishing a fund exclusively for parking revenue to support additional future parking. City Manager's memo of September 29, 1977 detailed present use of parking meter revenues and advised against such change. 3. City Manager memo of September 28, 1-977 attachj-ng rePort on proposed Municipal Court consolidation. City Manager outlined advantages and disadvantages and attached draft of letter to Board of Supervisors describing Cityrs position. Council directed that letter be v/ritten expressing their opposition to this consolidation. 4. Letter, undated, from Barry Silverton, 1177 Aj-rport Boulevard, regardj-ng Convention Center Pro j ect. 5. Letter of September 19, \977 from L. J. Devincenzi, President, Browning-Ferris IndusLries advising of successful negotiations with the City of San Carl-os for construction of process ing- trans fe r station in San Carlos with eventuat dlsposal at ox Mountain' 6. Letter of Septemller 15, 1977 from Ed Arnold, 213 Anita Road reqarding Airport noise. 7. Reports: City Treasurer, August, 1977i Librarj-an, September 20,1977. 5. Minutes: Library Board, September 20; Planning Comrnission, Septemlcer 12; City council study Meeting, September 7, L977. vlTlrF?FrrqErym' 479 PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Harrison proclaimed October 9 to 15, 7977 as Fire Prevention Week; and October 24, 1977 as United Nations Day. CITATION Mayor Harrison acknowledged "Pedestrian Safety Citation for 1976" presented to City at recent Council of Mayorsr Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at l-1:15 P.M. to study meeting of October 5, L977- +/ Respectfully submitted, f^,r-/n.,-Z/ rfulE\relyn fl.. Hill City Clerk -. -- Jr .,r+r r ,.@r't'Gf#rr.r.tr.-.-.E---