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---