Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.04.04330 BURLINGAME, April 4, CALI FORN IA 197 7 CALL TO ORDER After an executive session commencing at 7:30 P.M. a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Councif was hel-d on the above date in the City Hal1 Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Mayor Harrison. PLEDGE OE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by JeTome F. Coleman, City Attorney. ROLL CALI Counc i I Coun ci l- Membe rs Membe rs Present: Absent: Ams trup , Crosby , Harri son , Mangj-ni , Marti-n None MINUTES : The minutes of the regular meeting of March 2l , 1977 were approved and adopted after correction of quotation under "Convention Center, " fast page of draft minutes, to "Councifman Martin asked would the amount of bond j-ssue be increased? Mr. Silverton replied, t No. r t' HEARING I DECLARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY CONDITION WfTHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAI\,IE ORDINANCE NO. 1101 - SECOND READING ''AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR A WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. " RESOLUTION,,DECI,ARING WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY CONDITION.'I Public Works Director reviewed his detailed memo of March 25, 1977 on water rationJ-ng plan to effect 25? reduction mand.ated by San Francisco Public Utilities Commiss j-on. Monthly reduction is 25?of comparable month in f976. Proposed ordinance j-s based on model ordinance prepared by Bay Area Water Users Association, put into context for the City of Burlingame. For the benefit of the audj-ence, Public Works Director reviewed ordinance regulations and restrictionssection. Restrj-ctions include prohibition of new irrigation servj-ces; fi11in9 of swimming pools and fountains; use of hose for washing of cars, buj-ldings, streets, tennis courts and thel-ike; and other regulations. Allocation section provides for a certain number of gallons per day per dwelling unit for single family residential and multiple unit dwellings. Suggested gallonage is 280 per day with addition of 100 gallons per day per meter for irrigation j-n summer months. Industrial customers using process water would reduce usage 10*. Industrial and comrrrercial customers using non-process water would reduce by 252, and a 50? re- duction is set for irrigation and outside water usage. Public works Director gave rationale for these proposed reductions and :r:eferred to ordinance section on exceptions. Applicationfor rexceptions must be written and will be granted only on criteria of hardship, health, and safety. ordinance also provides penalties for goinq over al-location rn the form of excess water use charge of $1.00 per water un.it, and the j-nstallation of flow restricting devices after one written warning. Install-ation and removal of the devices must Mayor Harrj-son announced consideration of this subject and requested report from Public Works Director. 331 be paid for by the water user. The Public works Director recommended that any penal-ties start \,7i th the .fune billing, since the next Aprj-I bil11ng would include part of February andthe rnonth of March. He suggested when ordinance is adopted there be immediate notification to every address in town, andthat allocations for the next billing period be noted on water biIls. Mayor Harrison questioned how allocation showing 25? reduction could be shown on water bills. Publi-c Works Director stated this woul-d have to be computed for each indj-vj-dual billing, comparing to correspondinq period in 1976. For that reason he recommended straight 280 gallons per day allocation. Mayor Harrison declared the meeting open for public cornment. The following people responded: Robert Gillespie, 2995 Trousdale Drivei Louis Starr, l.675 Escafante Wayi Anna Engstrom, 14 Bancroft Road; John Rolich, 1700 Hunt Drivei Chas. Mahnken, 2614 Summiti Geo. L. Parkhurst, 150 Valdeflores Drive; Lucienne Reagan, 10 Hillside Circle; Ed\,rin Taylor, 7Ol Burl-j-ngame Avenue; Mrs. Lester Gunther, 333 Chapin Lane; Robert J. Predovich, 1540 Drake Avenue; James Vopicka, 1909 Ray Drive. Comments and questions: 280 gallons is unrealistic for largefamily. What about people who took vacations last year -their percentage and allocation would be low for that period. lf 280 gallons is not all used, could it be banked for anothermonth? 100 gallons extra is not enough for landscaping duringcertain months. What about guests in the household for certainperiods - alfowance for them? Landscaping takes as much waterfor a famj-ly of two as for a family of eight. Peopl-e who hadvoluntarily cut back over the past year would be penalized by a percentage system. Sma1l families would use most of 280gallons for landscaping - others could not. Allotment should be based on number of people in conjunction with square footageof 1ot or garden. Storing water in containers would breed mosquitos. John Chiapelone, Burlingame carden Center, made a plea for adequate water for landscaping so that home owners might notlose the property value of their investment in landscaping. Thomas Taylor, Chaj-rman of the Planning Commission, suggested that persons having illegal dwellings j-n an R-1 zone be deniedadditional water for such dwellings. These i1lega1 units area long standing problem of Burlingame. He approved a setallocation because a percentage reduction would penalize people who have been voluntarily saving water. He further suggestedthat economic hardship not be accepted as a means to an exception. To this, Mayor Harrison replied he sympathized with the to$/ard the il]egal dwellings, but j-t shoufd be handleddifferent manner- att itudeina There were no further comments declared closed. and the public hearing was Councilman Amstrup, addressing the audience, stated the Cityis considering ways of reclaiming wastewater. The salt i^rater lagoon near the Bay could be dammed and reclaimed water storedthere. Also, there is a possibility of reclaiming sewage \^rater and storing that there also. He urged citizen cooperation in this necessary cutback, suggesting that from his own experience with reduced water j-n landscaping it may not be so difficult. a Mayor Harrison acknowledged l-etter from John Kowalski, Kays 332 Launderette, requesting an exception on grounds his business is necessary to the hea]th and welfare of citizens. Another communication was acknowfedged from Dr. and Mrs. Robert Jacobs opposing a flat household allotment. Councilman Martin noted that Public Works Director's review of ordinance had not pointed out that initial instaflation of flow restricti-on device would be for three days at a cost of $50.00for instatlation and removal; and for seconil offence, an installation for 10 days at the same cost. He questioned staff report recommend.ation of allocation of gallonage per day because of "l-j-mitations of water billing system. " The Councilman considered that since citizens wifl be inconvenienced by rationing, the City could likewise bear inconvenience and additionaf personnel. He added he had compared his own water bil1ings and found he used twice as much water in the summer as in the winter. The effect of gallonage allocation would cut his personal use 118, but would cut his irrigation use 668. Since the mandated reductj-on is 258, he did not consider this alfocation equitable. He pointed out that one person living in an apartment and using a laundromat would get the same gallonage as a larger household. He recommended a straight 258 reduction as the most equitable for all citizens. He al-so noted Council- had last year requested correction of error in sewer tax for the City and questioned when staff would get this done. uayor Harrison questioned if Councilman Martin meant the 258 to be applied to industrial users such as laundries and car washes. The Councilman replj-ed he did, Councilman Mangini stated that after and hearing comments this evening he reduction. personal investigation tended to favor the 258 Mayor Harrison concurred in favor of a percentage reduction. Public Works Director indicated cooperation of Water Department with whatever method Council chooses. Speaking to the suggested commercial reduction of 252, however, he noted that if certain types of businesses reduce water consumpt.ion that much, they must reduce production by the same amount. This woufd have an economic impact on the community. He suggested that ordinance could be amended and prepared for Council actj-on at the April 6 study meeting. Councilman Martin stated he had no intention of damaging industrial enterprises. He was suggesting they be given the 258 reduction but come in for an exception. City Attorney suggested it would be preferabl-e to reword the ordj-nance and adopt at the April 6 meeting. Ivlayor Harrison summarized the feeling of the Council as favoring the 25? reduction. He had no objection to adjourninqr this meeting to the Wednesday night, April 6 meeting. Councj-lman Amstrup thought "Irrigation and Outside Water Usaqe Customers" should remain at 50? reductj-on. Mayor Harrison concurre il. Councilman Martin suggested staff be given leeway from 25% 30% in establishing reduction percentage. Cj-ty Attorney suggested that "life1ine" concept be incorporated into the ordinance - that anyone using less than 4,000 gallons should not be penalized for overuse. Councilman Amstrup questioned why the cost of install-ation of restrictive devices was so high. Publ-ic Works Director replied 2 total- cost of labor and fittings for j-nstallation or removal would be approximately $18.00. However, Bay Area Water Users Association recommended a standard fee of $25.00. He requested Council direction on who would make determination on restrictions, suggesting either City Manager or Council; and also asked direction on ord.inance provision for discontinuance of water service. Councj-fman Amstrup suggested City Manager be the determiningofficial. Mayor Harrison announced to audience that action on ordinance would be taken on Wednesday night, April 6, 1977, percentage of reduction would be between 25 - 302; and the City Manager would determire installations of restrictors and their removal . Resolution would also be adopted determining vrater shortage emergency condition. RECESS After short recess at 9:15 P.M., meeting reconvened. COMMUNICATIONS 1 THOMAS C. TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION: PERMITTED USES IN C-3 ZONES Mayor Harrison acknowledged receipt of letter of March 3\, 1977 from Planning Commission Chairman Taylor attaching Planning Commission Resol-ution No. 4-77 and findings. Chairman Taylorstated the Planning Commission had deliberated this matter,relative to Emergency Ordinance 1100 declaring a moratorium onthe construction of apartments in the C-3 district. While the Commission unanimously adopted the resolution findings, it was unabfe to develop a majority consensus as to a recommendation. City Attorney confirmed this emergency measure must be set forpublic hearing, since it involves possible amendment of a zoning ordinance. Mayor Harrison announced public hearing at April L8, 1977 meeting. Attorney Hugh F. Connolly, 1450 Chapin Avenue, addressed Council as representative of Terence O'Nei11, 1586 l-5th Avenue, San Francisco, who proposes to build an apartment at 1860 OgdenDrive. He said this moratorium places his client in a difficul-tpositi-on and it is urgent to resolve the matter. He questioned if Council could make a decision tonight. City Attorney statedthat Cj-ty would be liable for lahrsuit if public hearing were not heard on the ordinance. 2. MARVTN I. SHAPIRO, 1816 MONTECITO WAY, APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION GRAN T OF VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1835 LOYOLA DRIVE Mayor Harrison acknowledged letter from Iqr. Shapiro of March30, 1977 appealing this decision. Mr. Shapiro then addressed Council, stating that since he hadwritten the letter he had decided to attempt negotiation with the owners of this property. He requested Council defer hearing. Mayor Harrison set heari.ng on this appeal for May 2, 1977. 3. DAVID C. CARR FOR 2OO PARK ROAD COMPANY, 2].6 PARK APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING SPECIAL PERMIT PARK ROAD ROAD, A't 200 /216 1977Mayor Harrison acknowledged corununication of April 1, from Mr. Carr and set hearing for April L8, 1977. v-ffi.'l6.-eF\{r 333 .) 6) Aoo:r 4. HUGH F. CONNOLLY, ATTORNEY, PETTTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COI'NCIL RECENT DECISION CONCERNING USE OF COOLIDGE SCHOOL. Councj-l had received letter of March 28, 1977 from Attorney Hugh F. Connolly, of Anderson, McMiflan & Conno1ly, 1450 Chapin Avenue, on behalf of his cl-ient, Ms.Diane dePeralta, requesting Council recons j.deratj-on of their recent denial of permit for Country Club Day Care Center at Coolidge School. City Attorney informed Council that their action tonight should be merely a decj-sion as to $rhether or not to rehear. If they decide to rehear, date must be set and heari-ng re-noticed. Counci1man Mangini questioned if Council prerogative to call matter up applied in this case. City Attorney informed him it dj-d not, since action has already been taken. Mr. Connol]y addressed the Council, stating his client had made changes in her application which could eliminate Councj-I's previous disapproval . He also noted there had been no public objection to this use at the hearing meeting. noted Council objections had been on the following points: Quality of ownership - profit or non-profit. 2. Parking. Exclusive or non-exclusive use of playground. Speaking to the non-profit aspect, Mr. Connol-ly said thatoriginally Ms. dePeralta had, as a non-profit organization, intendedto form a stock corporation because she was anticipating using Smal1 Business Administration financing and they wil-I notlenil to a non-profit organization. However, no contract had been signed with this profj-t organization and there will now benone. The lessee and operator of the school, the 1ega1 entity,will be the non-profit organization. He 1. ? Mayor Harrison questioned if this is a franchise operation. Connolly replied it was not. In response to the Mayorrs further question, he stated that originally the non-profit organization was to be the lessee and the profit organization was to be the operator. That is now out. Mr. Mr. Connofly spoke to the problem of parking, saying hours had originally been planned from 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. They will be cut back to 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., which cuts out adult evening cfasses. There will be no students at the school over the age of 14, and they will be brought by parents or bus. Thiswill eliminate parking problem. Concerning the non-exclusive use of the playground, Mr. Conno]1y stated that Ms.dePeralta now proposes to fence off a playground area of 4,000 SF for the use of the children in the school. Therest of tl:re 27,000 SF playground would be available for neighbor- hood use. His cfient had discussed this $/ith the School District Administrator, who foresaw no problem. However, it must be put on the agenda of the Schoo] Board, and there has not been time to do this. Mr. Connolly stated he would accept as a conditionthe fencj-ng of this playground area, if permit is granted. Mr. Connolly noted the City's concern at acting on this application before issuance of State license. He termed this a "Catch 22" situation in that the State will not l-icense until the City permj-ts the use. He stated his client would accept a conditionin the use permit that State licensing must be obtained. He reviewed hours and operation which are 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. day care school (2:30 to 5:00 P.M. after school care for school age children. ) 5:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. cultural center with classes in art, drama, dancing. He stressed maximum age was 14 years and the school is ideally situated for day care. 3 Mayor Harrison questioned the removing of gates on the school 335 Councilman Mangini moved reconsideration of this previous denial . Mayor Harrison seconded. Councilman Amstrup asked if it were usual for f4 years olds tobe in a day care center. Mr. Connolly stated 14 years v/as the maximum for children who could be attending the cultural centerfrom 5:00 - 7:00 P.M., and again reviewed ages and hours forspecific purposes. The Councilman stated he was sti11 concernedabout encouragement of business in a residential area. Councilman Crosby concurred, saying that possibly thisschool would be fine, but if they moved out, others might comein. Mr. Connolty questioned why this school- would be termed abusiness and other schools, such as the Peninsul-a Conservatoryof Music is not a business. He pointed out that many non-profitentities, such as the City government, do transact busj-ness, andother schools transact busj-ness, collect fees, etc. He emphasizedthat this is a school-, not a business. Councilman Martin stated that because this is not the sameapplication as before he would be willing to rehear. I,lotion to reconsider carried on voice vote, CounCilman Amstrup di-ssenting. Mayor Harrison announced reconsideration of this appficationon April 18t 1977 - City Attorney asked that School Districtspecifically be noticed and that all area notices be sent as be fore . STAFF MEMORANDA 1. CITY MANAGER/ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: VACATION OF EASEMENT EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2. Assistant City Engineer's memo of March 30, 1977 stated that Lots7 through 9, portion of 10, Btock 5, East Millsdale rndustrialPark No. 2 were resubdivided into a single parcel. Owner nowasks that an easement cutting through this parcel be vacated..No utj-lities are in the easement, and no indication is found thatthe City needs thj-s easement. Pacific cas & Electrj-c and pacific Telephone & Telegraph have indicated they have no need for theeasement. Assistant City Engineer recommended that easementbe vacated. City Manager, by endorsement of March 3l , 1977,endorsed this recommendation. Director of Public Works stated easement r4,as ori-ginaIly forthe use of Lot 7 whose only frontage was on Bayshore Highway.City Attorney noted that after Council approved abatement of easementit will be referred to the Planning Commission. Councilman Crosby moved approval of the easement abatement,second by Councilman Amstrup, all aye voice vote. 2. CITY MANAGER: WATER CONSERVATION r4.El''lE( 1t!n?rFq"\.6rGFrr'tt-yrlTr'-'r,r''Erar''7rrr-o'F-Fnr' @ grounds and the tiability for the school yard on weekends. Mr.Connolly replied the day care school would have the fenced inarea for itself. The rest of the playground would be open. CityAttorney noted the liability for use on weekends would be theSchool District' s. City Managerrs memo of March 3I , L977 attached report of Directorof Public Works dated March 17, 1977 on water conservationproblem, with suggestions as to j-ts implementation. Alsoattached was memo of March 30, 7977 from Finance Director withsuggestion of a CETA position for the Water Department to aid inenforcement and informational aspects of the program. CityManager suggested that an amount not to exceed $6r200 be approvedfor the implementation of the \"7ater conservatj_on program toal-low water conservation devices, direct maj_1ing, advertising ) 336 and outside field work to be undertaken. Councilman Martin suggested that even more personnel might be involved, and that this be considered at the adjourned meeting along with the water ordinance. I{ayor Harrison announced continuation to meeting of April 6, 1977. 3. CITY MANAGER: PEDESTRIAN/BI CYCLE BRIDGE PRO.IECT City Manager's memo of March 3L, 1977 on this subject stated that Caltrans had confirmed that gas tax money can be used. for this project. In memo City Manager pointed out that Burlingame's share for this bridge, afong the shoreline from Benihana to the proposed bike path at Charley Brownrs restaurant, would be $2I,000 with major funding from County and private funds of $61,000. An alternate, shorter, bridge, near the highway, would not share in contributions, and would possibly cost the City the same because a fonger pathway would have to be constructed. City Manager recommended original project be supported. City Planner memo of March 23, ]-977 stated progress on theproject had stopped pending assurance of funding from the City. Revised cost estimate was attached and present status of project detailed. Mayor Harrison received confirmation that this bridge would connect a walkway along the bayfront with fj-ve restaurants. He questioned how much was in the gas tax fund. Public Works Director estimated about $1, 000,000. Councilman Amstrup questioned technicality for which Benihana must provide compliance. City Planner stated Benihana mustprovide public access around the property. Their property ends where this bridge would begin. Council would have to q.ive approval for use of City property to receive the pathway. Councilman Martin questioned ownership of land along side of Benihana Restaurant shown as bike path, and land across which bridge would be built, City Planner stated City owned bike path area, and the bridge would cross City property and property of the Cj-ty and County of San Francisco. Verbal approval has been received for the use of this latter. He answered the Council- man's other questions on details of the drawing. City Planner stated he had conferred with Mr. Hood Chatham, consulting architect for Benihana of Tokyo, and his proposal for design services woul-d be $6,250.00. This would require a City Council resolution. Councilman Mangini moved that the City proceed with this project with a maximum of $21,000 from gas tax as the City's share, City Attorney to prepare contract with architect in accordance withplan presented at Council meeting of March 2l , L97'7. Second by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote. 1. DENTAL OF CLAIM, HARTNETT V. CITY OF BURI,INGAME City Attorney memo of l{arch 30, 7977 informed Council that Kautz and Company, City claims manager, have informed City that they have not been successful in communicating with the claimant. They have asked that this claim formally be denied so that 1ega1 processes and better communication can result. v sv 1{C,rT .,/r fr-r \-r CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Crosby was surprised the insurance company coul-d not contact the claimant since Mr. Hartnett had cal-Ied him many times .).)-DO{ about this. He was informed by City company wished the claim denied only response from the cl-aimant. Attorney that insurancefor the purpose of getting 2. PARCEL MAPS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP 77-5 RESUBDIVISION COMBINING LANDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSOUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT WITH ADJOIN]NG LAND ON ROLLINS ROAD INTO A SINGLE PARCEL B TENTATIVE AND FINAI PARCEL MAP 77-9 19 - BLOCK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK NO. ANZA INTO THREE PARCELS A Councilman Crosby moved approval second. by Councilman Martin, aff 2 . 'I RESOLUTION THE APPLICATION P ROJECT II RESUBDIVIDING LOTS 9 THROUGH 6 & ADJOINING LANDS OF Memo of March 30, !977 from Assistant City Engineer transmj-tted copies of these tentative and final parcel maps which had been approved at the Planning Commission hearing of March 28, L977. No improvements or conditions of approval are needed on either map, and the Assj-stant Cj-ty Engineer recommended. their approval. By endorsement of March 31, 1977 City Manager concurred in approval recornrnendation. RESOLUTI ONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 27-77 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF' AGREEI\,IENT WITH PEAK, MARWICK, MITCHELL & COMPANY EOR AUDITING SERVICES* was introduced by Councj-lman Martin who moved itsadoption, second by CounciLman Crosby, all aye ro11 call vote. of the consent calendar, aye voice vote. OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BURLINGAME, FOR T974 STATE GRANT MONEYS - WASHINGTON APPROVING PARK Council received City Manager memo of March 30, )-977 attachingresolution approving application tor 7974 State grant moneysfor this project. City Manager specified reasons for thisapplication as: l. Avoid further loss of purchasing power ofCityrs allocation. 2. This would be a small part of the costof developing a golf cour.se/driving range. The latter may haveto be developed with revenue bond funds anyrray. 3. This lightingwill give more usability to the ball field. City Manager recom- mended allocation be sought without de1ay. Councilman Amstrup objected to the irunediacy of this resolution and asked if the project could be changed. City Manager stated his understanding was that the project couldbe changed up to the time the City actually requests the money. Recreation Director stated the project could be changed, butapplication would have to be re-submitted next year for the 1978-79 fiscal year. Mayor l{arrison commented this grant had come to the attentionof the Recreation Director when the Council was discussing the Convention Center. Thinking the finaL date was April 15, theDi-rector had checked rrrith the State Grants Division and foundthat the date was March 15. He commended the Recreation Directorfor discovering that the City could make such application. Replying to question from Councilman Amstrup, Recreation Directorstated the application had not been submitted but was awaitingthe resolution. It \"/as to have been made March 15, 1977 , butverbal assurance has been received from the State that it can be made at this time and it has been tentatively included inthe budget. He stated the specific appl-ication would be for Washington Park Improvements, but intended the use for a "iEr,rrrrft-}-{FfE-la.-r4-..rtE'aT!.7r,!!lqq.vi,Ffi<.IlFr!i'!.r,r ' !l'--'trt t.}tErynltet_!ry 'n+ "_- g, 338 mul Li-purpo s e soccer fie ld;lighting system for the baseball diamond and also security lighting for paths. Councilman Mangini commented he thought Council had talked about al-ternate uses. Recreation Director stated he had been advised by the State to say Washington Park so that application could be as ffexible as possible. Councilman Amstrup objected to \"/hat could be pressure on thepart of staff, noting that Council had discussed the fact that this money might be needed for other thj-ngs. He pointed out that stipulation was made to Mr. Silverton that if the Convention center was approved he was to build the baseball diamond and soccer field at Bayside before removing the o1d facilities. Council-man Mangini clarified that Mr. Silverton had been asked to have the park swap facilities, compfeted so Little League and soccer $rou1d not miss any gamesi but this is an interim measure so that facilities would be avaj-labl-e, if needed, for Little League and soccer if the Convention Center project was not completed in time. Councilman Martj-n stated he had tentatively approved this project but now was uncertain because it seemed a maneuver and staff might interpret it as a definite commitment to install lights in Washington Park. Councilman Crosby said he did not fear thisi that Council ten years ago decided to replace lighting in the park. He liked the idea of the mul-ti-purpose athletic lights and the security lights; and he considered this a good project. He received confirmation from the Recreation Director that lights are not being used at the present time because they are hazard.ous. Councilman Amstrup questj-oned if ordinance does not forbid loitering j-n the park after dark. City Attorney confirmed this was true except for recreational purposes. The councilman stated he had tonight supplied Councif with a report of financial status which in part deals with the Convention Center. He suggested this be on a study meeting agenda as a priority item, adding that Councj-.1- may wish to reconsider expenditures such as this when money will be needed for something else. He stated Council- had set this grant aside because it might be needed on the bayfront. Councilman Manqini questioned if this money could be used for other than park purposes. Recreation Director stated it can be used only for park or recreation purposes. He noted that last year Park and Recreatj-on Commission made recornmendation to the Council that this be used for multi-purpose lighting. At that time Council had said it was to be made available for thegolf course. The impetus here is to make the money available, which wilt be in August of this year. If the Convention Center does not go through, this money will not be used for WashingtonPark, but reallocated to the golf course. He pointed out that the City is not spending the money, but is requesting that it be avaiIable, and it will not be spent until Council allocates the expenditure. ff the present resolution does not pass, the City cannot use the money until 1978-79 State budget, as it would have to make apptication some time during the next fiscal year. The money must be used by 1980 or it is lost. Application must be made by September, 1979. Councilman Amstrup urged consideration of this resolution be delayed until Council had opportunity to review figures in his report. Councilman Mangini suggested it be delayed until adjourned meeting of April 6, 1977- Mayor Harrison so ordered. 1 339 3. RESOLUTION NO. 28-77 ''RESOLUT]ON AUTHORIZING CITY TO DEPOS]T RE\,'ENUE SHARING FUNDS IN THE LOCAL AGENCY FUND" was introduced by Councilman Mangini who moved Second by Councilman Crosby, all aye ro11 call vote. ORDINANCES SECOND READING - HEARING t. ORDINANCE No. ffo2 "AMENDING SECTIoN 3.52.010(a) THE POSITIONS OF ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CHIEF INSPECTOR TO THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE." Mayor Harrison declared meeting open for public hearing. There were no cornments from the public, and the hearing vzas declared closed. TREASURER INVESTMENT its adoption. ADDING F IRX 2 INTRODUCTI ON IIBANNING SALE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS IN T'IIE CITY OF BURLINGAIM II Mayor Harrison reported to City Council that he had checkedr,/ith the City Attorney and found that City of San Mateo had alreadyturned down such an ordinance, and he thought it would be inad-visable for Burlingame to proceed with one. He therefore withdrewhis request for this ordinance. There was no Council objection. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. REAPPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Council had received fetter written to City Manager by City Clerkindicating expj-ration date of Apr11 7, L977 for terms of planning Commissioners Thomas w. Sine and Thomas C. Tayl-or. Firstappointment date of December 2, L968 for Mr. Sine and December 18,1967 for Mr. Tayl-or. Councilman Amstrup suggested these peopfe be reappointed, commenting on the exceflent job they had done in past years. Councilman l{artin disapproved, on grounds that no comrnissionershould serve more than two terms. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NAYES: COUNCILMEN: 2. SISTER CITY DELEGATION AMSTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI MARTIN Mayor Harrison read from report, copy of which is on file inoffice of City C1erk, detailing activities of the Burlj_ngamedelegation to the Sister City of Cuernavaca. Highlights of thereport were the possibility of opening a student exchange programbeti,reen the two cities; possibility of training two Cuernivacafiremen in our firefighting methods; and the Interplast programwherein stanford Medical facility will perform two free reconstruc-tion operations for two indigent laexican children if theirairfare coul-d be paid by a service organization. Also exploredwas the possibility of Cuernavaca purchasing our used equipmentfor tradein vaIue. Rehabilitation Center for children wis - visited and list obtained of equipment needed. The reportconcluded, "If, after all this, only one child has plasticsurgery to improve his or her lj-fe; or two teenagers betterund.erstand each other's culture; or because of tiaining afilg is extinguished before lives are l-ost in Cuernavaca, then /o -t'-r- "'r''T1qs1r'npn!4F!?!ff?rr17Tri'!r!'.Ir+rFTdrF"'F rry_!-1'r On motion of Councilman Martin, second by Councilman Crosby, Ordinance No. 1102 passed its second reading and was adopted on unanimous rolf calf vote. Councifman Crosby moved reappointment of Messrs. Sine andTaylor, second by Councilman Amstrup. Ivtction carried on thefollowing ro11 call vote: 340 then this week has been one of incalculable success and time and energies well spent. " Councilman Crosby was especially impressed with the "bombero" program, noting that in this city of Cuernavaca with a population of 231000 there are only 24 firemen and three pieces of equipment. One is a 1950 pumper donated by Burlingame which has now worn out. He also found the rehabilitation center for children most interesting and thanked the City for a1lowing him this visit. Mayor Harrison added his thanks. COUNCIL COMMITTEES Mayor Harrison announced that during his term as Mayor, Council committee assignments would remain the same as during the prior term. PROCLAMATfON Mayor Harrison proclaimed the week of May 20, 1977 through May 25,1977 as "Burlingame Days, " April 17 through April 23, L977 as "National Library Week" and "A Commendation for George PauI Lechich" honoring the City Librarian upon his retirement. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Mayor Harrison Mrs. Charlotte acknowledged the presence in the audience of Johnson, former Mayor of Burlingame. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. Memo of March 31, 1977 from City Manager re June 30, 1977 expirati-on of Envirotech contract. 2. City Planner report L977. of Planning Commission meeting March 28, 3. Memo of March 30, L977 from City Attorney re San Mateo Harbor District vs. LAFCO, attaching memorandum decision. 4. Letter of March 25, L977 from Ms. Susan M. Mitchel1, 2858 Greenwich Street, San Francisco offering for sale the original 1866 agreement between William C. Ralston and Anson Burlingame. Staff was directed to ascertain price for possible purchase by service group. 5. Letter of March 29, 1977 from Darcy Scott, regarding additional recreational facilities. to answer. 1015 Laguna Avenue Staff was directed 6. Minutes: Beautification Commission, March 3; Planning Commission March 14, L977. ADJOURNMENT 50 P.M. to B:00 P.M., Wednesd.Y, APriI 6,,t Respectfully submitted, Meeting adjourned at 10: 1977, Conference Room B. 6*.8,^-7/ z/llEdelynfi. Hill VAl{.r rf" , J-t t'flilfnfug City Clerk lr. re@ f,rll?rtrr,q dfTil.rTm ryf rtftrlTF.rr-EFr*rE w+ :._* I ! I I