Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.05.02Jba) BURLINGAME, CALIEORNIA May 2, 1977 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame city Council was held on the above date in the City Ha1I Council Chambers. The meeting was ca11ed to order at 8:11 P.M. by Mayor A.C. "Bud" Harrison after a study session corunencing at 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Council Counci 1 Membe rs Membe rs Pre sent : Absent: Ams trup , Harri son , Mangini , Martin Cro sby MINUTE S The minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, L977 were approved and adopted, POLICE CHIEF Mayor Harrison announced the resj-gnation for health reasons of Police Chief Gera1d A. Nordstrom effective May L5, L977; and the appointment of Alfred .T. Palmer, former police lieutenant, to theposition of Police Chief effective May 16, L977 . The l4ayor congratulated Chief Palmer on behalf and welcomed him to the City family in his new of the Council capacity. Chief Palmer introduced his family to Councj-1 and audience: his wi-fe, Joanie; hj-s daughter, Nancyi and his son,Gary. BID 1. TRAFFIC SIGNALS INSTALLATION TROUSDALE/MAGNOLIA SIGNAL CONTROLLER INSTALLATION CALIFORNIA DRIVE/OAK DRIVES AND GROVE AVENI]E . B ids 2:00 for the above project, opened on Thursday, April 2l , 1977 at P. M. were declared as follo'r^Is : BIDDER A},{OUNT Rosendin Electric, Inc. R. Flatland CVE Inc. Steine and Co. $24 ,222 .00 28 , 459 .00 24,550.00 25 ,839 .00 Engineer's Estimate $48,000.00 In a memorandum dated April 25t 1917, Director of Publj-c Works recommended award of contract to the low bidder, Rosendin Efectric,Inc. of San Jose. By endorsement of April 28t !977, City Manager concurred in recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 34-77"AWARDING CONTRACT - TNSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT TROUSDALE DRIVE AND MAGNOLIA DRIVE (JOB 76-3) AND INSTALLATION OF A SIGNAL CONTROLLER AT CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE (JOB 76-4)" (Rosendin Electric, Inc. $24,222.00]-was introduced by Councilman Amstrup for adoption, second by Councilman Mangini, unanimously carried. on roIl call of memberspresent. Led by Al-fred J. Palmer, Pol-ice Chief. ROLL CALL 356 HEARINGS City Attorney explained that these easements there are no utilities in them, and they arefor public use. are not being utili zed; considered unnecessary Director of Public Works stated that the property owner will bebilled for the cost of the vacation, and utility companies have been notified of the vacati-on, and agree to it. Mayor Harrison declared the meeting open to the public. There was no audience cornment and the public hearj-ng was decl-ared closed. Resolution No. 35-77 was introduced by Councilman Mangini for adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup, unanimously carried onroll call of members present. 2. APPEAL OF MARVIN I. SHAPIRO, M.D., 1816 MONTECITO WAY, PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT OF VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1835 DRIVE TO GUSTAVO KUBICHEK AND JACOBO MERLIN FROM LOYOLA City Council had received letter of March 30, 1977 from Dr. MarvinI. Shapiro, appealing this variance grant; and City Pl-anner reportof Aprif 27,1977 attaching Plannj-ng Commission minutes of March 28, 1977, floor plans and profiles of proposed construction, and site survey with topography. Council also recej-ved unsigned, undatedpetition from homeowners on Montecito Way conditionally opposingthe variance and suggesting a condition under which they woul-d accept it. At request of Mayor Harrison, City Planner reviewed his report, which cites Clty ordinance requiring that aI1 houses buitt onhillside not exceed height of 30' at setback l-ine of l-5' . Proposed house wj-I1 exceed heiqrht limitation by 11'5". City Planner presented photos of site and voiced three concerns about this construction:1. A three story buildj-ng could be created. 2. The property isbuifdable using a di.f ferent design. 3. The applicant is not yet the lega1 owner of the property. He noted Planning Commissionfj-ndings of special circumstances supporting this variance. Wayne A. Mcradden, attorney, 100 S. Ellsworth, San Mateo, addressed Council on behalf of Dr. Shapiro and other homeowners in theneighborhood. He directed Council- attention to document presented by homeowners stating their concern with structures which coul-dblock views from their homes, and further stating they would be amenable to the variance with the condition that no structure,pIant, or tree, antenna, etc. be allowed to extend more than 5' above the roof of Mr. Kubichek's proposed house and with the provision that plants may be maintained to a height of 1r above the ground tothe rear property line. Mr. McFadden stated that Mr. Kubichek agreed to such an agreement, but woufd not agree to have it recorded so that subsequent purchasers of this property would be aware of this restriction. Based on the failure to reach agreementwith the property owner, the neighborj-ng householders are now asking that the variance be denied. They also wished the record to ehow their support of the City Plannerrs contention that the 1otis buil-dable without a variance; that the basis of hardship forthe variance was to al1ow for an additional story, not to af 1owfor use of the property. ln response to question from Mayorthis document from property owners Harrison, Mr. McFadden stated. replaced original signed by 1. RESOLUTION NO. 35-77 ''ORDERING THE VACATION OF' PUBLIC UTILTTY TASNITITTII, AIICITON TZ,.STIIIEIII AND WIRE CLEARANCE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 7, 8 AND 9, BLOCK 5, AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP OF EAST MILLSDALE INDUS RIAL PARK, IJNIT NO. 2" was presented for Council consideration and hearing. 357 Dr. and Mrs. descript j-on. Councilman Mangini requested confirmatj-on of his understanding thatthe neighbors wouLd agree to the variance for 4l\r plus 5r for trees and structures, that Mr. Kubichek agrees to this stipulation but won't sign an agreement to be recorded. Mr. McFadden confirmed that Mr. Kubichek would sign 1f the agreement were not to berecorded. He added that neighbors feel- they are fair and thatthe additional- 5r wil-I not impede their view. Mayor Harrison asked how tree grohrth coul"d be McPadden replied that the agreement contained neighboring property owners could cut or trim day notice to the property owner. Therefore, agreement would be better than conditioning a poficed. Mr.a provision that trees after a tenthey considered an variance . Wm. F. Mccann, 2601 Frontera Way, opposed the variance becausea three story dwe11j-ng is already built on property adjoining his and he finds it objectionable. Dr. Marvin Shapiro displayed photos taken from above the site. He noted willingmess of neighbors to enter into a fair agreementwith Mr. Kubichek and cited estimate from real estate representativesof property loss of $5,000 up on sites in this neighborhood if views were destroyed. Edward M. Tcjnini, attorney, 1921 Va1lejo, San Francisco, addressed Council as representative of Mr. custavo Kubichek. He stated Mr. Kubichek was the owner of the property but a transfer had not yet been record.ed because there was an easement problem. He saj-d the house next to ]vlr. Kubichek's si-te is about the same height as the proposed structure, and presented photos of the site which heaffirmed proved that the house would not impede others' views becauseof the 1ot sIope. Mr. Tonino stated that Dr. Shapiro had calledMr. Kubichek with the poj-nt that neighbors' concern was with thepossibility of trees, not his house, blocking the view. Mr. Tonino had discussed the neighborhood proposal with Mr. McFadden, and he and his client had agreed with all aspects of it. However,this agreement consists of a 24-page document, and he had advisedhis client against having such a lengthy document recorded againsthis property. It{r. Toninors viewpoint was that this would be amatter of public record in the action of the City Council. He suggested this be made a condition of the variance, repeating hisclient would sign any agreement but did not wish to record. it. Councilman Mangini questioned if Mr. Kubichek and his partner,Mr. Merlin, were building the house. Mr. Tonino replied Mr. Kubichek pl-ans to live in it with his family. When the Councilman remarked he did not understand the rel-uctance to sign the agreement,Mr, Tonino stated he did not see the necessity for recording a document of thj-s length against the title when record of Councilaction would be adequate. Councilman Amstrup pointed out that the matter before the was whether or not to sustain a variance, and discussioncenter on that, not on an agreement. Counc i 1 should Mayor Harrison questioned the Legal implications of conditioningthe variance with this agreement. City Attorney replied thecondition would have to be enfolced by the City, remarking thereis no place else in the City where the City enforces the hej-ghtof trees. A1so, this condition would be documented by a resolution which would be recorded. Mr. Tonino had no objection to a recordationof this type. M-r. Mccann again objected to the proposed structure which would be on the same l-evel- as his home and woul-d cut off the view. Shapi.ro \4,hich contained an inaccurate property 358 There \,7e re no further comments and the public hearing was declared c l-osed. Councilman Amstrup received confirmation that Mr. Kubichek knew about the height ordinance before he planned to buifd the house. The Councilman then reminded Council they had passed this ordinance to prevent the conditions these people are complaining about - interference with light and view. He felt the variance should be denied. Councilman Martin noted the considerable amount of slope above the extra 5' permitted, and questioned provisions for the area to the rear lot line. Mr. Mcf'adden replied that plants up to 1'in height could be grown to the rear lot line. Councilman l4artinpointed out that under the terms of the agreement Mr. Kubichek would be able to fence only part of his back yard. There would be about 40r to the rear lot line that could not be fenced, and a f j-re hazard could develop. Councifman ArEtrup remarked the Fire Department enforces weed abatement in the summer. Councilman Martin stated that all kinds of things can happen in unfenced areas and he did not like to deliberately exclude anyone from fencing, Mr. McPadden replied that putting a fence at a lower leve1 would not impede policing and clean-out efforts. At this point, Mayor Harrison acknowledged letter of March 29,7977 opposing the variance from Mr. and Mrs. Alberto Becerra-Sierra, 1842 Loyola Drive. Mayor Harrj-son stated the matter beforegranting of the variance, and he was not conditions under whj-ch it was granted. the Council was the satisfied with the Councilman Amstrup pointed out all aspects had been studied carefulfy by Council before the code was changed, and he considered it fair. He questioned the driveway easement across the front of the 1ot behind which Mr. Kubichek must build his house. Councilman Mangini requested confirmation that the height of the house is governed by 15' from the curb line, not from the drive- way. Mr. Tonino stated the driveway bisects the lot, and also serves the 1ot next door. Nothing can be built down slope fromit. Mr. Gustavo Kubichek addressed Council. He stated the prevj-ous owner was forced to grant the driveway easement because the driveway servicing the next lot was too steep. He said he was paying a high prive for the 1ot and wished to build his house so he could have a view, but affirmed his willingness to cooperate with his neighbors. City Attorney confirmed the height of the house is measured at 15' from the front property line. Mr. Kubichek stated that if the driveway dj-d not exist, he would have no trouble with the regulations. City Attorney reviewed Council prerogatives in this matter. fn response to question from Councilman Mangini, he stated that if the variance were conditi.oned there would be a recorded resolution. He added this would be forcing City regulations of trees. Councilman Martin noted there had been no reference to trees in the Planning Commission variance. Councilman Arnstrup noted the City had always taken the position of not wishing to become involved in this type of regulation, andit was possible to develop this project according to code. 359 At the request of Section 25.54.020 Mayor Harrison, City Attorney quoted Code - Conditions for granting of variances. RECES S Short recess was declared at 9:05 P.M. after whj-ch the meeting reconvened. Councilman Amstrup moved that the variance be denied. Second by Councilman Mangini. Councilman Martin quoted Planning Commission findings, Planning Commission minutes of March 28, 19'77; and noted that apparentlyconditions for granting variance had been met to Planning Commissionsatisfaction. Mayor Harrison stated his dissatisfaction with variance finding of "undue property loss." He questioned, as did Councilman Mangini, what advice could be given to the property owner. City Plannerstated the owner coul-d redesign and attempt to meet existingregulations. He poj.nted out that if this variance is denied,the owner may not make application for another variance, for apossibly smaller amount, for a period of one year. He suggestedthe possibility of having the variance application continued for another P]-anning Commission review. Councilman Martin asked if the variance were denied "withoutprejudice" would it be possible for the owner to come back for a smaller variance. City Attorney considered this could be done. Council agreed denial without prejudice would be an acceptable solution. Councilman Amstrup amended his motion to include "withoutprejudj-ce." Councilman Mangini accepted this wording in hissecond. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of members present. COMMUN ICATIONS 1. APPEAL OF NAOMI DENIAL OF PERMIT TO OUARTERS. P. AZZARIA, 1510 CYPRESS, FROM PLANNING COMMISSION USE DETACHED RUMP US ROOM AS FAMILY SLEEPING Council received letter of April 27, 1977 from Ms. Azzaria appealingthis Planning Cornmission decision. Mayor Harrison set hearing on this appeal for Council meeting of May 16, 1977 . 2. CITY MANAGER SUBMITTING TRAFFIC, SAFETY, PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMEN DATI ONS Letter of April 22, L977 from Chairman of Traffic,Safety & Parkj-ngr Commissj-on notified City Manager of this Conunission's recommendationthat fifteen parking sta11s in the existing parking lot onCalifornia Drj-ve, north of Burlingame Avenue, be converted toshort-term parking. This action is in response to a request bythe Palm crill Restaurant. By endorsement of April 26, 1977 City Managerof this request, with short-term restrictionsfifteen staIIs. recommended approval to be placed on the (B) Removal of Parking Restrictions, Broadway Area. Letter of April 22, 1977 from Traffic,Safety & Parking Commission recommended unlimited parking north of Broadway, one-half blocksouth of Lincoln Avenue on each cross street. Endorsement ofApril 25, 1977 from City Manager recommended approval since thereis no demand for either long-term or short-term parking in this area. .1-frl!Ia!'71'gi.'i!@Wt}tl'l'l'Fc'-r-i'<r- (A) Parking Limitations on California Drive Lot North, Startingat North Lane, 360 Councilman Amstrup moved approval Second by Councilman Mangini, aII of both these parking recoruoendations . aye voice vote of members present. f. SECTION 2156 STREET AND HIGHWAYS CODE REPORT. COUNTY ROAD AND CITY STREET PROGRESS AND NEEDS. Memo of Aprj-l- 27, 1977 from Director of Public Works transmittedthis report which summarizes expenditures during the past five years and an estj-mate of needs for the next five years. Estimate of needs is based on continuation of maj-ntenance, construction of Broadway Grade Separation, and safety needs identified in TOPICS Study and Accident Surveillance Study and Report. By endorsement ofApril 28, 1977 City Manager recommended concurrence. 2. BROADWAY MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION REQUEST TO CLOSE B ROADWAY EL CA.MINO TO CHULA VISTA - ANNUAL STREET FAI RE This requestr transmitted by letter of April 25, 1977 Merchants Association, is for Sunday, August \4, 7977 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., with the notation that north-south cross streets will be open throughout the day. from Broadway from 8 :00 traffic on 3. PARCEL MAPS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Lots 6 & 7, Block 33, Easton Addition No. 2 (Bernal Avenue)Final Map. Parcels 1 and 2, Lot 2 Court) - Tentative map Edwards Industrial Park (50 Edwards Lots 14 and 15, Block 6,Real) - Tentative l.{ap Burlj-ngame Grove (1352 and 1360 EI Camj-no Copies of these IIuIps were transmitted by Director of Public Worksl memoranda of April 27, )-977 with his recommendations for approval subject to conditions on the tentative maps. City Manager concurredin these recommend.ations . 4. CI"AIM OF BLANCHE BURR, PROPERTY DAMAGE. BY CITYIS INSURANCE MANAGEMENT EIRM AND CITY DENIAL RECOMMENDED ATTORNEY City Attorney's memo of April 19, L977 recommended. denial of this claim by owner of property at 28 Anita Road. Property was damaged by entry of police officers on the occasion of a crime. I.4emo attached letter of April 74, 7977 from R. L. Kautz & Company reviewing claim and concluding there was no liability on the part of the City. Councilman Amstrup moved consent calendar be approved. Second by Councilman Mangini, al-I aye voice vote of members present. RESOLUTI ONS T. RESOLUTION NO. 36-77 ''RESOLUTION APPN6Y156 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IOR SOLID WASTE }4ANAGEMENT P RoGRqM" was l-,ntroduced by Couacilman ,i . 11 Amstrup for adootion. Second by Co Jnci".man Manqini . $Councilman Mangini commented this resolution makes the County Health Department the enforcing agent and the Board of Supervisors the hearing board. Motion carried on unanimous ro11 call vote of members present. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 3 7- 7 7 " RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON ALLEY AND EASE}4ENT BETWEEN LOTS 32 AND 33, BLOCK 50, EASTON NO. 4' was introduced by Councilman Amstrup for adoption. Second by Councilman Mangini, all aye ro11 call vote of members present. CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager's endorsement of April 28, 1977 recommended approval. 1 361 Thi- s vacation was set May J-6, 1977. for hearing at the Council meeting of In response to question from Councilman Martin, City Attorneyconfirmed amount to be paid for preliminary plans was 92,500.00.Councilman Martin requested statement, Page 3, 6(c) "services ofprofessional consultants at a multiple of one time the amountbill-ed to Architect for such services. " be rephrased for claritybefore signature. Motion carried on unanimous rol-1 call- vote of members present. ORDINANCES - SECOND READING - HEARTNG ORDINANCE NO. 110 4 "AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE \,ras presented for Council TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY consideration andTAX TO SIX PER CENT. " hear ing. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Harrj-son pointed out thatthis ordinance raises the hotel tax to 68 from its present 5?. Under present agreement wj-th the San Mateo County Convention andVisitors Bureau, l2Z of transient occupancy tax goes to themfor services. City Attorney noted pending resolution before Council which wj-I1provide for l5B to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, andstated that most cities have gone to 6? hotel tax. Mayor Harrison declared the meeting open for publj-c comment. There was no comment from the audience, and the public hearingwas declared closed. On motion of Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini, Ordj-nance No. 1I04 passed its second reading and was adopted on unanimous ro11 call of members present. To accommodate hotel accounting systems, Councilman Amstrup moved.that this ordj-nance become effective as of Jufy 1, L977. Secondby Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote of members present. City Attorney was directed to add this provision. Councilman Martin referred to pending resolution authoriz.ingexecution of agreement with San Mateo County Convention and VisitorsBureau, and stated he would like comparative figures on othercities' contributions before considering this agreement. Mayor Harrison continued consideration of this resolution to themeeting of May 16, 7977 so that more data could be provided. Councilman Amstrup comrnented that while the City would be spendj-ng more money for the Bureau, the results would be more business income for the City. ORDINANCE S INTRODUCTI ON 1. ORDINANCE NO. I1O5 "ORDINANCE PROHIBITING AUTOMATIC LINES" was introduced CONNECT IONSfor firstTO PUBLIC PRIMARY TELEPHONE TRUNKreading by Councilman Mangini . 2. ORDINANCE NO. IfO6"ORDINANCE REGARDTNG DOGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY" was introd.uced for first reading by Councilman Mangini. Mayor Harrison announced hearj-ngs on both the above ordinances F-.Er:r-Etn,trntr'lrnr rn--!EE*i t-rtY{-. ^sr.pF Frii-r'Irf 1lFrF.. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 38-77 ''RESOLUTTON AUTHORIZING EXECUTTON OF AGREEMENT WITH HOOD CHA'I'HAM FOR DESIGN SERVICES - PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE BRIDGE" was introduced by Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Amstrup. 362 at the Council meeting of May L6, 1977. Mayor Harrison requested that if this ordinance is passed, copies be delivered to Burlingame High School . T]NFINISHED BUSINESS WELLS kr response to question from Councilman Mangini, Director ofPublic Works stated studies are progressing on wells in the City. BURLINGAI4E CIVIC ARTS COUNCIL Councj-lman Mangini questioned Council wishes in the matter of the request dated March 25, l-977 of the Burlingame Civic Arts Council to have the o1d American Legj-on Eall at 990 Burlingame Avenue decfared an historj-caI monument, to be used as a cuftural center for Burlingame. Mayor Harrison noted that Council had previously discussed bringing building up to code, but this would cost around $25,000.Council agreed only action at this point should be acknowledgment of letter. City Manager was so directed. SAN MATEO COI]NTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE Councj-lman Martin pointed out that in the past the Mayor had usually conferred with Council before his appointments on this committee. He noted recent selections made without Council suggestion and questioned present policy. Mayor Harrison stated he had not been aware of the past policy but would abide by Council direction. Councilman Amstrup commented past policy had been that the Mayor conferred with Council before taking action on matters brought to him; and questioned why panel discussion on parking with Chamber of Commerce had been cancelled. I,layor Harrison stated there had not been a request for a panel. He and the Finance Director had been asked to be on a Chamber program on this subject. Subsequently, the Business and Professional Association had presented their resolution, and the program ulas then after the fact. Councilman Martin comrnented that had he known the facts on this he probably would have agreed hTith them, but asked that policy be established of compl-ete information to Council members. P ROCLAMATI ON Mayor Harrison proclaimed May 15 WOMEN I S WEEK. ' 2I , 1977 IINATIONAL INSURANCE ACKNOWLE DGMENTS 1. Mayor Harrison acknowledged letter of April 25, L977 from Local Agency Formation Commission scheduling for May L8' I977 consideration of speciat district representation on the Commission, and requesting expression of position regarding such expansion of the commission and representation of special districts. He explained that special districts include such as the Harbor District, Broadmoor Fire and PoIice Districts, Bel-mont Fire District, etc. City Attorney amplified therethe County. Apparently, they tation on LAFCO. However, if are about 15 special districts in have decided they would l-ike represen- they are represented, LAFCO has the power to control them. In response to question from CouncilmanMartin, he stated that if they do not have representation, LAFCO cannot control their activities within the District. Councilman Amstrup suggested that one jurisdiction, if it hadrepresentation on LAFCO, would then have more than one vote.City Attorney said this was true. Councilman Mangini suggested Council gj-ve the Mayor direction onvote on the issue, He commented that if districts are askingfor representation, they are asking for control, and he recommendedthe Mayor vote for this. Councilman Martin noted that if City Attorney's information iscorrect, this representation would put a definite rein on thepowers of the districts. City Attorney affirmed he was confidentof these facts. In response to Mayor Harrison, City Attorney agreed to speak tothis effect at the Cornmission hearing. 2. Mayor Harrison read in fu11 report of April 19, 1977 fromFinance Director on the subject of "Availability of money forparking expansion.'r and City Manager's attached comments ofAprLl 28, 1977. Councilman Martin, referring to City Manager's statement, notedthat the possibl-e $52,000 from the Carr Mcclellan project was atentative figure. He was not certain he agreed with the statementthat in the 1969 Parking District the City did not contrj-bute tothe offstreet parking, but emphasj-zed that the Cityrs contributionto the 1963 District. as he recalled, was around $840,000 whichincluded the lots, rather than contribution of "40* in the formof lots already purchased. " City Manager indicated he wouldcheck these figures. Councilman Amstrup suggested that the contribution of 9175,000from the sewer outfall fund, noted in Finance Director's report,be used to pay this yearrs payment on the sewer bonds and reducethe cost to the taxpayers. Money is still owed on the sewageplant, and the City had to tax its people for the bonds on thep1ant. He urged that Counci.l give carefut consideration toexpending money from the ceneral Fund, because if there is noneleft, the City vrould have to borrow money j.n the event of acatastrophe. 4. Letter from ,Joseph Ehrlich, architect for police Station,advising preliminary plans ready for inspection. Mayor Harrisonsuggested a special meeting on this subject to be hefd t4ay lg, 1977.Council concurred, pending check of prior commitments. 5. Letter of April 22, L977 from As sembl-yman Louis J. papan, subject SB 154 - compulsory and binding arbitration, suggestingsuch legislation might be insurance against iIIegal strikes.counci.f considered letter should be sent to Mr. iapan af fj_rmingthis City's consistent opposition to such measures. 6. Letter of April 2l , l.977 from Wm. J. Dwyer, Director ofAirports, in response to City of Millbraers expressed. concernabout increased use of Runway 1. Council_man Martin quoted. from 363 Councilman Martin thought direction should not be given, s j-nce in this case Mayor Harrison is representing an area, not the City. Mayor Harrison indicated he would like Council conments. 3. Letter of April 23, 1977 from Mrs. Helen M. Ryan, 1535 LosA]tos Drive, protesting water rationing. City Manager directedto answer. iFrFrFTtl.?,fir.rrlrrFrq|ll?rrl- a,'tn .rF T?r.rl1{!?rFirrr+\ rF "_@ f 364 l-etter: "Physically extending the runway into be approved by BCDC for noj-se abatement of such statement being made before the matter presented to BCDC. 7. City Planner report re Planning Commission 8. Treasurerrs Report March 31, 1977. the Bay would not and disapproved had actually been meetj-ng April 25, 1977. o ACKNOWLE DGMENT Mayor Harrison acknowledged the presence in the audience of Mrs. Charfotte ,f ohnson, former Mayor. ADJOURNMENT : Meeting regularly adjourned at l-0:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Minutes: Beautification Commission, April 14; Planning Commission, April 11, 7977 i Traffic, Safety, Parking, April 14 | \977. 6o4*l/ CitV Clerk vl /11/ \L.,x-\Hill