Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.01.17277 BURLINGAME, CAT,IFORNIA January L7, 197 7 CALL TO ORDER A regul-ar meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaII Council Chambers, The meeting was calIed to order at 8:05 P.M. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Gera]d A. Nordstrom, Chief of Po1 .LCe. ROLL CALL Counc i I Counci 1 Membe rs Membe rs Pre sent : Absent: MINUTE S The minutes of and adopted. the regular meeting of January 3,1977 were approved LIONS CLIJB II TREES OF BURLINGAME '' BOOKLET Mayor Mangj-ni recognized Mr. Don Stanaway, president Lions Cl-ub, and invited him to the podium to discuss proj ect . of the Burlingame a Lions Club Mr. Stanaway presented each Council member with a copy of bookletentitled rrTrees of Burl ingame , " published by the Burlingame Beautifj-cation Commission with the financial- support of the Lions C1ub. This bookletlists afl heritage trees and heritage groves in the City. I{e explained that the Lions Club J-s organizing a sales group whichwill market these booklets, at $3.00 each, and money from the proceeds will be put in the community fund. Mr. Stanaway introduced Mrs. Martha Benson, "Lioness", who coordinated this effort; and Lions Club members present stood for recognition. Mayor Mangini presented Mrs. Benson with an inscribed copy of "Trees of Burlingame" in recognition of her efforts, noting she isa member of the Burlingame Beautification Commission. He praised the Lions Club as an outstanding service group which makes constant and valuable contributj-on to the City. 1. DICK BULLIS CHEVROLET, SIGN PERMIT - PAINTED WALL 10O CALIFORNIA DRIVE . SIGN. APPLICATION FOR Mayor Mangini announced this was the time and place the sign application for outsize waII sign for Dick He requested Mr. Bullis to come forward. for hearing onBul-lis Chevrolet. Mr. BuIlis, identifying himself as a "carpetbagger" who lives outsidethe city, stated he has been in business in Burlingame since 1948. He distiibuted snapshots of hj-s business site, and neighboring businesses. Mr. Bullis professed to abhor signs, noting his chaj-rmanship ofthe planning commission in a small town \"/here they were forbidden. He stated he understood he was in violation of the sign ordinance and duly apologized. The violation, he said, was unintentional ,resulting from painting a needed sign on an available wal-l becausehe had his name in only a coupl-e of places in the city block areaof his establishment. I{owever, he was willing to do anything withthe sign in contention that the City wj-shed. He noted that the Ams trup , Cro sby , H arri son , Mangini , Plartin None. HEARING Councj-l would be considering a sign ordinance later j-n the meeti.ng, and seriously considered that this ordinance did not go far enoughin sign limj-tations for a city of the type of Burlingame. He suggested Burlingame could be unique in this county by restrictingsigns to a bare minj-mum. This could be accomplished by the outrightpurchase by the City of all signs, or by giving owners a tax rebate. The City could then, by means of a design committee,set up a standardsize sign that woufd be approved for a1l- busj-nesses. He also suggested the abolition of pennants on auto dealerships as has been done in San Mateo. Mr. Bullis declared that if the City would do athorough job on the sign ordinance, he would be one of the first tocomply. Meanwhile, he reguested his wal-I sign be alfowed. Mayor Mangini requested comment from the City Attorney. The Cj-ty Attorney reviewed that Mr. Bullis on December L5, 1975 had appealed Planning Commission stipulation that signage on thiswall be limited to 208 of the area. Planning Commission decision was upheld by Council. However, in Septer ler, 1976 this outsizesign had appeared on this wal1. Abatement notice was sent, with noresponse. Subsequentlyr Mr. Bulfis was informed he must either remove the sign or apply for a new sign permit. Sign permit appli-cation was made on November 8, L976. Mayor Mangini announced meeting open for public comment. There was no response and public hearing was decfared closed. Council-man Harrison acknowledged that Mr. Butlis had presented some interesting concepts, but pointed out that the issue before theCouncil v/as one particul-ar sign, He received staff confirmationthat this sign was part of a complete signage program agreed utronfor Bul1is Chevrofet, and that it exceeded the 208 coverage stipulation. Councilman Harrison suggested the possibilj-ty that Mr. Bul1is'sign firm v/as not aware of this limitation. He questioned if they had been given carte blanche. Mayor Mangj-ni agreed M r: Bullis had done an outstanding job of beauti-fication, but said his concern was that an agreement i"/ith the City had been violated. Councilman Martin questioned if this hearing was a method to helpthe City's court case against Mr. Bu11is or if this was an authen-tic sign application. The City Attorney confirmed this was alegitimate sign application. Councilman Martin then stated he 272 Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner to inspect snapshots ofsites adjacent to the Bu11is property and to determine if their signs were within the 20* limit. The City Planner stated, after a briefreview, that they all appeared to be under the 208 limit. The Cj-ty Planner then displayed "before and after" photos of the wa11 inquestj-on which demonstrated the large amount of signage added. Councilman Amstrup remarked that at the time of the original appeall{r. Buflis had agreed to the 208 ]imitation. The City Attorney confirmed this. Mr. Bul1is replied that at the time of the appeal they had thoughtthat the condition of removing the roof sign was all. Many things had happened rapidly in the development of the site, and they werenot aware of this particular problem. He stated his sign contractor had presented the idea of the wafl sign, with no intention or aware- ness of violating codes. He went on to describe how he had improvedhis site with many trees and plartings in an effort to beautify hisarea, and he was proud of this. Again, he offered cooperation in anyCity decisj-on on his waIl sign. a. thought Mr. Bullis had done something wrong, but the appearance ofthe sign was not so bad, and it would face the railroad track. He remarked if it would help Mr. Bu]l-isr business, that is the purposeof signs; and Burlingame needs good business, He noted. one Burlingame estabfishment that has an American flag painted on the entire wa11, and questioned what constitutes a sign. He was inclined to approvethis application. Councilman Amstrup was incredulous that Mr. Buflisr organizationdid not know of this restriction which had been thoroughly discusseda year ago. Now that it j-s done, the Council is asked to legalizeit on the grounds of being good for business. He was annoyed that agreements are made with the City and disregarded later. Councilman Harrison thought if this sign were al-l-owed in violationof the agreement it would set a precedent for others to petition for change after agreements have been made. He moved the signapplication be denied, second by Councilman Amstrup. Motioncarried on the following roIl call vote: AYES: COIJNCILMEN: AMSTRUP,HARRISON,MANGINI NAYES: COLINCILMEN: CROSBY,MARTIN The City Attorney stated he would write a letter to Mr. Bullisformally advising him of this denial. STAFF MEMORAN DA 1. CITY MANAGE R FORWARDING REQUEST TO AND PROPERTY LINE, ].452 CORTEZ AVENUE. PAVE AREA BETWEEN SIDEWALK J. KUDROFF , PETITIONER City Manager memo of January L3, 1971 transmitting this requestpresented Council with options of granting permits only in hardship cases, granting permits subject to width limitations, or alfowing such paving where desired, City Engineer showed Council photo of this site, commenting it is wide enough to be easily planted. He requested that if Council approves this as policy, they also approve the paving application. Council had no objections toward policy of approval in such cases. Councilman Harrison moved this permit be approved, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye rol-1 call vote. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. WAY PARCEL MAP RECOMI4ENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSfON z 122l-1281 WHITETHORN FOR NICHOLAS CRISAFI City Engineerrs memo of January Lt, ).9'77 transmitted copy of thisfinal parcel map, a resubdivj-sion of Parcel 65 and 0.686 Ac. MOLportion of Parcel 55, Assessorrs Map 816, with a recornmendation forapproval and notation that no dedications or improvements are required. By endorsement of January 73, 1977 thereon, City Manager also recommen- ded approval. 3 273 City Engineer memo of January ll , 1977 reviewed this request. Mr.Kudroff wishes to pave this 2L-3r wide area between the sidewafk and his fence for easier c1eanup of debris. He had submitted listof properties in his area where such paving had been done. TheCity Engineer pointed out that ordinarily such permits are issuedfor narrow areas of Ir or less. He requested policy decision fromCity Council since paving would require an encroachment permit. 271 Councilman Crosby moved consent calend.ar be approved, second by Councilman Harrison, all aye voice vote. RESOLIITIONS !. RESOLUTION NO. 3-77 ''RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDI4ENT EXTENDING COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THIRD PROGRAM YEAR (1977-1978) was presented for consideration. The City Treasurer tol-d Council members that the State legislature has authorized individual locaf agencies to have the opportunityof pooling their surplus funds in a general pool created by theState for investment purposes. This is completely voluntary and doesnot require any specific amount of funds to be invested. The plan has certain advantages since the State iS able to buy large quantities of securities at lower cost. He considered it particularly advantage- ous for short term j-nvestments, al-though he did not envision usingit for substantial amounts at this time. This resolution was introduced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption with the addit*:n that the easement document provide that the telephone company should bear the cost of any future moves if desired by the City. Second by Councj-1man Crosby, motion carried on unanimousrofl caff vote. Ll Mayor Mangini asked for cfarification from the City Planner. TheCity Planner told Councif that on January 13, 1977 the Board of Supervisors had approved the application of the County for HUD funds which includes $67,000 for Burlingame for the year beginningJuIy 1, 1977. One of the prerequisites is the continuation of thiscooperative agreement with the County, which the County planning staff must process short]y. City Planner recommended approval. This resolution was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who movedits adoption, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye rof l- call vote. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 4-77 ''RESOLUTf ON AUTHORIZING CITY TREASURER TO DEPOSIT FIJNDS II\r THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND" was considered by Counc i 1 . This resolution was introduced by Councilman Martin who moved itsadoption, second by Councilman l{arrison, a}1 aye ro11 call vote. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 5-77 ''AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF' EASEMENT TO THEpacrffiEGRAPHCo}4PANYFoRPUBLICUTILITYPURPoSES. was considered by Council. In response to Council direction at meeting of Decenrer 20, L976,the City Engineer reported on specifics relative to thj-s easementin City parking lot adjacent to Chapin Avenue. He told CouncilPacific Telephone needs this easement to move a pole to a more convenient location for traffic. This was reguested by the merchant adjacent to the pole location. The move will provide f - 2 moreparking spaces and will- entail extending the conduit from the newlocation to the existing location. City Engineer stated that sincethe move is at a property owner's request and the telephone company has had a line in this location for over 40 years, it dj-d not seem appropriate to charge for the easement. The phone company is not charging the property owner for this relocation. In response to question from Councilman Harrison, the Cj-ty Engineer agreed he would recommend that the telephone company bear the costif the City had any future need to move the pole. ORDINANCES SECOND READING HEARING 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1096 ''ADOPTING RULES, REGULATTONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION, LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS. '' 27s Mr. Harry Graham, 1555 Alturas, addressed the Council, stating he was not opposed to the ordinance but wished to make two points. He thought that tlre maxiJngm of 50 SF of signage (per first 50'of froniage)/Hf8 EtggAEeLt a maximum closer to 1oo sF. second, the roof sign prohibition will pose a problem in some sites where a roof sign would be more suj-tab1e than a wal-I sign. Otherwise, he thought the ordinance was an improvement over the past sign code. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Mayor Mangini announced public hearing on this the meetinqf open for public comment. ordinance and declared Councilman Amstrup noted this hearing had been continued from the last meeting so that merchants could be advised by letter that a new sign ordinance was being considered. Notification had been accomplished and no businessman at this eveningrs meeting had said that he did not like the ordinance. Councilman Crosby stated he had asked that every businessman be sent a letter. However, letters had been sent only to the Chamber of Commerce and merchants I organizations so they could inform their members. He stil1 di-d not think that alL businessmen knew about this ordinance. Council-man Martin noted the David Keyston. letter of objection received from Mr. Mayor Mangini asked that this fetter of January 11, 1977 from Anza Shareholders Liquidating Trust be made part of these minutes. Mr. David Keyston of that organization was asked to comment. M.r. Keyston defined three sections of the ordinance which he thought would produce hardship. 1. Definition of roof sign is unfair, and would cause too many signs in downtown Burlingame to become non-conforming, with their subsequent abatement on change of tenancyor ownership. He suggested the additbn of the following to thepresent definition: "The foregoing notwithstanding no signsattached to the side or face of the building existing as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance will be considered roof signs. " 2. Requirement that new tenant or owner must get a permitfor an exj-sting sign not substantia]Iy changed in size, color, etc. should not be included. 3. Size limitations on real estate signs - C-4 district should have the same size limitation as M-1,since C-4 lots are as large or larger than M-1. Mayor Mangini considered j-t reasonable that only a substantial changein a sign with new owner or tenant should bring it in for a permit. He tended to agree with the statement on the C-4 district. Beyondthat he considered the ordinance workable on a trial basis. Councilman Harrison approved the framehrork of this ordinance,pointing out that deterioration and the change of ownership policy on nonconforming signs would lead to eventual beautification ofthe c ity. 5 Councilman Crosby objected to the l-imitation of signage for merchants. He felt they needed more identity and he did not like the ordinance. 276 Councilman Martin termed the proposed ordinance a "bureaucrattsdream" and foresaw many problems in its administration. He wassatisfied, however, that the merchants had by now had sufficientopportunity to examine it as he requested. of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Amstrup, 1096 passed its second reading and was adopted on theroll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP , HARRI SON , MANGIN I NAYES: COUNCILMEN: CROSBY, MARTIN RE CE SS On motion Ordi nance fol lowing A short recess \^/as reconvened. declared at 9:00 P.M. after which the meeting 2. ORDINANCE NO. IO98 IIORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.f4 OF THE B URLIN GAME FUNDS '' MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH RESERVE FUNDS FOR SELF-INSURANCE Mayor Mangini announced this was the time and place for a pubtic hearing on this ordinance. The City Attorney explained this ordinance is simply to establishfunds necessary to create a reserve for payment of claims under theCityrs program of partial self-insurance for liability and r4,orkments compensat j-on. There was no response to the Mayorrs reguest for audience corunent and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Harrison approved of this ordinance as a necessary step. Councilman Crosby questioned if it were true the City cannot get any insurance except excess coverage from any j-nsurance company atall. The City Attorney stated that it was i the City is compelledto be self-insured. The only possibility was some firm such asLloyds of London, but this had not been explored. fn response toquestion from Councilman Martin he stated the assumption r^ras thatthe insurance companies woul-d have checked this out. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Amstrup, Ordinance 1098 passed j-ts second reading and was adopted on unanimous ro l1 calf vote . UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR POLICE STATION Council had received Cost Summary dated January 17, 1977 from Johnsonr/Gumbinger and Associates, DeWolf and Associates on plan A $1 ,478,450; PIan B - no figure, not considered feasible; and Pl-an C - Phase 1, $1,272,170; Phase 2, $1,310,712; Phase 3, $\,478,450. Counci lman Harrison initiated discussion with the following review;In July, 1973 a memo was sent to the City Manager from the thenPolice Chief Lo11in suggesting that Council look into a newfacility. In \Tanuary, 1974 Mayor Martin appointed a conBnittee toinvestigate possible courses of action. There were numerous meetingsof that committee and others. The matter of a new police stationwas discussed not only by this and other committees but also bythe Council over 32 times. He thought the time had. come for action.Council. had ]ooked at plans for putting a parking structure and policestation combination on the existing parking l-ot and the Post Office L &-laL.!a-rrr,]lla.ar*r*ihlAli-^ -.-...lin 277 property which is to be sold as surplus. However, City Uanager has indicated that the Federal Government says there will be a four- year delay in the sale of this property. In August, 1976, he (Council-man Harrison) had called General Services Administration and was told there would be a two-year delay. Based on that and other reasons, his feeling, and he thought that of others, is that this would be an inappropriate pl-ace to put such a facility. Adequate facilities are needed to protect Burlingame citizens. Council- has been studying this for some three years. An adequate site on Carolan has been acquired. Council has examined suggested sites and costs and has arrived at a decision to no longer delay this neededproject which has already cost the City thousands of do11ars. Because of these factors, he would make a subsequent motion to have architect proceed on Plan C, Phase 3, with the thought that once this is passed all officials and citizens of Burlingame and the Chamlcer of Conunerce and other organizations \,/ould cooperate in this project. Councilman Harrison then moved that the architect, Johnson Gumbinger and DeWoIf proceed with preliminary plans and costs on Plan C, Phase 3. Second by Counci.lman Crosby. In response to Councilman Martin, Councilman Harrison confirmedthat this is the Carolan Avenue site. Councilman Martin noted the cost of Plan C, Phase 3 is the same as the cost of the original Plan A. He did not think these were exactly the same plans and requested clarification. Alfred ,fohnson, of Johnson,/Gumbinger told Council that while there have been modifications j-n the p1ans, the project area is still the same, so the cost as a unit of Plan C, Phase 3 is stiI1 the same as Plan A. Plan C sti11 contains the training room, sauna, etc. butthe essential difference is in the detail area of the sa11y port and the exterior garage which was once a unit by itself. Otherinterior rodi ficationj[nclude changes in ]ocl<er rooms, coffee room, storage space, restrodms. These are modifications of an interior area without affecting the total area of the buiLding so the cost ofthe plans is the same. In response to question from Councilman Martin he agreed that modificatj-ons between the two plans wererelatively minimal. Mr. Dewolf revj-ewed the processes of considering and discarding these different plans which resulted in Phase 3 of Plan C. Hestated that in the area of cost analysj-s, there are certain featuresthat are in this plan which \"/ere not in the orj-ginaI plan such asthe ramp and enlargement of the roof area. Councilman Martin commented that the ramp was an added item on theoriginal plan which had been revised to $f,478,000i therefore themotion for Plan C-3 is basically the adoptj-on of the originalp1an. Mr. Johnson added that the $1,478,000 does include the exteriorlighting, the demolition work, landscaping and other items that were not incfuded in the Reel Grobman report, so the difference isessentially in site work, preliminary work, and in masonryperimeter waII around the site and other items that were notspecifically related to the building. In response to question from Councilman Martin he stated that the $1,478,450 does not includearchitect or engineer fees, nor do the figures for the other plans. At this point Councilman Amstrup read telephone message receivedthis date from a Mr. J. Specht, with the Federal covernment, relativeto the Post Office building. He advised the Real Estate Divisionis in the midst of a cost study that could take several months. They are considering possibiJ-ity of remodeling the annex for moreefficiencrz. They would like to keep a station open in downtown Burlingame, but whether it is to be at the same location is partof the study. The councilman commented this does not seem toindicate a time of 3-4 years, so he hoped that was not the main 1, 278 reason the Carol-an station was being proposed, this was not the sole reasoni thererespondedCouncilman Harrison were other factors. Councilman Martin reviewed work of the conmittee on revision ofthe original Carolan Avenue p1an, to the purpose of another plan for implementing in increments. Plan B was rejected as a poorplan, as was Phase 1of Plan C. Phase 2 had seemed reasonable, andPolice Department staff had considered it a reasonable compromise. The figure of nearly $168,000 saved as the difference between Phase 2 and Phase 3 seemed a reasonabLe saving of money. He went on tostate his concern about parking and his opinion that the City could not have both a parking structure and a new police station. However he had considered that by consolidating on Howard, the City could have both. Conrad Associates had been authorized to develop a plan for this, This plan and other plans all had problems butdid not come together. at one point in time, and Council could not make in-depth comparisons. At the study meeting of January L2, L977the Council would not authorize a feasibility study by Conrad. It seemed to him that the Council could not make an intelligent decision without having all the facts before them. Councilman Amstrup said he had hoped for the combination police station and parking structure on Howard by adding to the police station. rt had not been his idea that the City could have boththe parking structure and the police station on Carolan, and he hadnot considered adding the Shaffer property. He thought that figures presented did not support a logical conclusion, and woufd vote againstthe motion. Councilman Harrison commented that the majority of the Council befieves that sufficient evidence has been presented. Councilman Martin pointed out that no final figures have been presented - that the CaroLan site pl-us contract cost of $1,478,000plus architects' and other fees already would cost $2,000,000. Mayor Mangini declared he thought the police station had been gj-ven enough hearings and enough input. He thought to consj-der anything downtown would be foolish and he did not think feasibility study was needed for such a project. He noted the time already spent on this, and the fact that prices are going up with every delay. He urged action be taken. Councilman Crosby pointed out that in April of !976 the City was ready to go vrith the Carolan Avenue project. However, the Burlingame Business Association and the Ad Hoc Parking Committee \^ranted 90 days to consider alternatives. They were given 90 days and another 90 days in addition. Ee had not seen anything proposed to chanqe his mind on the original police station; the site was purchased; the City had the money to build; and he also urged immediate action. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: CROSBY , HARRISON, MANGINI NAYES: COUNCILMEN 3 AMSTRI,P (for reasons stated), MARTIN APP ROVALS CHAMBER OT' COMMERCE OUARTERLY REPORT - JANUARY 4, MARCH 31, 19 77 1977 THROUGH1 Council-man Harrison Councilman Amstrup, moved this report be approved, second by all aye voice vote . I 279 2. WARRANTS 4953 through 5218, duly audited, in the amount of $414,101. \2, were approved for payment on motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Martin, all aye voice vote. 3. PAYRoLL December, 1976, Check Nos. 1799 through 2482 in the amount of $346,257.57 approved for payment on motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Amstrup, all aye voice vote. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 City Manager report: Bayfront Landscaping. City Manager indicated portion of bayfront landscape in question was the responsibility of Anza Pacifj-c. Request will be made for them to assume their responsibility. Fire and Police Departments: Monthly Reports, December, 19762 3 Minutes: Planning Commission, December 13, \976;report of Planning Commission meeting, January 10 Recreation Commission, January 1\, 1977. City Planner L977; Park and COMMISSIONERS DINNER City Manaqer asked decision from Council- on Commj-ssionersr dinner.After some discuss.ion it was designated for Kee .foon's restaurant some time j-n February. Councifman Martin suggested as an on-going policy that all past Councilmen be invited. This year that would be Mrs. Dorothy Cusick,I4rs. Charlotte Johnson, and Mr. U. S. Simonds, Councif concurredin this suggestion. City Manager was directed to make necessary arrangements . SALES TAX ALLOCATION Councilman t4artin noted City's receipt of letter of December 28, 1976 from City of Compton, California attaching copy of resolutionpassed by this city opposing proposed legislation for redistributionof sales tax receipts on the basis of population. Council hadalso received copy of resolution from City of palm Desert opposingany change in the present distribution on a percentage of grossreceipts. He suggested legiblation be prepared by the City of Burlingamealso opposing this redistrj-bution. City Attorney stated such document would be prepared. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES City Planner cafled Council's attentj-on to list of prioritiestransmitted with his report of January 10, 1977 Eeeting. Hequestioned if there were any change desj-red. Mayor Mangini askedCouncil to communicate with the City Planner if they wanted anychange in these priorities. ABAG MEETINGS Councilman Amstrup commented on notice of ABAG general assemblymeeting at which budget is to be considered. This meeting will beheld in the daytime from 9:00 AM until 3:30 pM, and most membershipwould find it difficult to attend. Co unci lman one in the Exe cut ive Martin stated two such meetings are held a year; usuallyday and one at night. This is done by vote of theBoard. He agreed. the day meeting is difficult. Councilman Amstrup suggested that the Cj_ty, as a member, convey tothe Executive Board that day meetings are undesirable. CouncilmanMartin agreed to do so. At Councilman Amstrup's further suggestion, 1 2E0 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSfON Councilman Harrison noted E1j-zabeth J. Andersonrs letter of resig-nation from this conunission. Ci-ty Manager noted this commission isstil-l- in the process of attrition, and this does not representa vacancy. Mayor Mangini requested letter of thanks be sent toMrs. Anderson. IlO BLOOMFIELD ROAD Councilman llarrison poj-nted out delapidated condition of dwelling at this address and debris accumulated around it. He requested report from staff. SAN MATEO HARBOR DISTRICT City Attorney reported that while this date, January 17, was setfor trj-aI, argument will be set for March 15, 1977 so that trial judge will have time to peruse all the material. FROM THE FLOOR Mr. the the Harry Graham remarked that now the police station downtown merchants will look forward to the City'sparking problem. is resolved, purs ui ng ADJO URNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,6r;fu,7ftu City Clerk lo, City Manager stated he would write to other cities for their supportin this.