Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.01.0326L BURL I NGAME, CAL I FORN I A January 3, 1911 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at B:00 P.M. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:Led by Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney. Counci I Members Present: Counci I Members Absent: Amstrup, Crosby, Harrison, Mangini, Martin None N4I NUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of December 20, 1976 were approved and adopted; HEAR I NG REVOCATt0N 0F BUSTNESS LICENSE, D. C. MILEY, JR. D/B/A MILEY TRUCKING AND EXCAVAT I NG 2531 POPPY DRIVE The City Planner summarized his written report; He told Council that Mr. Mileyrs original application of July, 1973 contained a sfatement that he had read, understood, and would abide by the provisions of the business license code. ln the summer of 1976 it became apparent that Mr. l4iley was employing people for business purposes and too much traffic was being engendered. lnvestigation was conducted by staff which proved this to be the case. As further confirmation, City Planner reported he had this day visited the premises himself, finding several people working in the office and company cars parked on the street. He told Council that based on his findings this business I icense was subject to revocation. Mayor Mangini asked D. C. ltiley,2531 Poppy Drive, for comments. Mr. Miley told Council he had originally obeyed the code regulations, but his business had grown unusually, to the effect that for the last eight months he had been searching for another location. He had not been successful, and requested that an extension of his permit be granted, assuring Council that he would be abl6 to move within sixty days. Mayor Mangini questioned if he acknowledged that he had violated his agreement. Mr. Mi ley repl ied that he did. Mayor Mangini opened the meeting for publ ic comment. I ROLL CALL By memorandum of December 29, 1916 City Manager transmitted to Council letter of December 16, 1916 fron City Attorney notifying tt4r. Miley of this scheduled hearing, and detailed report of December 27, 1976 tron City Planner on this matter. Report cited violations of employment of three people on the premises for business purposes and excessive traffic and par:king of private and commercial vehicles for business use. Attachments to the report included petition by residents of the neighborhood requesting cessation of this business, the original application by Mr. Mi ley requesting'only an of f ice for phone cal ls, and various other correspondence and charts. At the request of Mayor Mangini,'City Attorney reported that under the City code home occupations are permitted under certain conditions. Upon thorough investigation it appeared to staff that Mr. Miley had violated these provisionsl hence the request for revocation of his I icense. 262 Emil Pafselr 2310 Poppy Drive, stated he had been a resident for over 50years. He did not think Mr. Miley should have a license to operate in a residential area. William Parke, 2348 ?oppy Drive, stated he had been a resident of this neighborhood for 14 years; the streets were narrow and some young people in the neighborhood had small children. Thus, the additional traffic was a danger. He confirmed that people went in and out of fhe Miley office constantly and that-the business was a hazard in this neighborhood. David Constantino,2512 Poppy Drive, noted the presence of twenty people fnom the Popfy Drive area at this meeting. He said Mr. Miley had told neighbors six months ago that he was going to move his business, and Mr. Constantino did not understand why he could not find a place. He thought six months was long enough, and extension of the permit would only cau5e further harassment of the neighborhood. Frank Moila,2561 Poppy Drive, announced his impatience with Mr. Miley and urged that Counci I not grant him an extension. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. At this point, Mr. Miley declared that Mr. Constantino had the opportunity to find him a place many months ago; and if he could find one now, Mr. Miley would be glad to move into it. Councilman Harrison considered that violations had taken place as evidenced by testimony and Mr. Mileyrs admission. He suggested Mr. Miley be given a delay of 50 days to relocate, after which his license would be revoked. Councilman Amstrup agreed there had been code violation, and urged immediate revocation of license since Mr. It4i ley had already had time to move. Counci lman Martin questioned City Attorney how long court proceedings would take if license were revoked tonight. The City Attorney indicated that would depend on certain processes, but it would be at least 50 days. The Councilman asked Mr. Miley if he had an accountant, a secretary and another person employed on the premises. Mr. Miley said he did. Councilman Martin then asked if the license were extended would lt4r. Miley agree to having no more fhan the three autos belonging to the employees parked there. Mr. Mi ley repl ied abruptly, ttNo, I wontt! Why should l?rr Councilman Martin informed Mr. Miley that he had just changed his mind completely. The Councilman moved that the business I icense permit be revoked. Second by Counci lman Amstrup, al I aye rol I cal i vote. ln reply to question from.Mayor Mangini, fhe Cify Attorney stated it may take a few days to put together a lawsuit, but that he would proceed as quickly as possible. ln view of Mr. Mileyrs lack of response to the Councilrs attempt at cooperation, both Councilman Crosby and Councilman Martin urged the City Attorney to expedite the process. STAFF MEMORANDA 1. CITY MANAGER TRANSMITTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS: WHEELCHAIR RAMPS FOR BROADWAY BUSINESS AREA (EL CAMINO REAL TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE) City Engineerrs memorandum of December 29, 1976 reported that 20 wheelchair ramps would be required for both sides of Broadway from El Camino to California Drive. He estimated a cost of $400.00 per ramp which involves a total cost of approximafely $8r000.00 plus inspection and administration cost. Money would be refundable from gas tax funds. "J. t r w-rF\rr^ '! 263 The City Engineer presented alternatives of: 1. Partial program annually with informal bid envision completion of B - 10 ramps per year. 2. FormaT-:bid for whdle project. 3. Project budgeted for next year. I imit of $3,500.00.This would Councilman Amstrup stated he fhought this project was a necessity and long overdue. He moved formal bids be taken for completion of the entire project. Second by Councilman Harrison. All aye roll cdll vote. 2. SLUDGE HANDLING AND DECHLORINATION PROCEEDINGS City Mamagerrs memo of December 30, 1976 on this project noted that South San Francisco as lead agency has been requested by the Water Ouality Control Agency tc continue into the design phase, and recommended that the City concur in the City Engineerrs recommendation to czirll for proposals for Step ll, design work. Memo aftached-extensive report from City Engineer. At the request of Mayor Mangini, City Engineer reviewed his report. He noted that reports prepared under Step I are now complete and will be filed this month with the State Water Qualify Control Board. He gave particluar attention to the time element on these projects because construction of the golf course should not proceed ahead of the sludge handling project; also there is no guarantee of State participation for projects approved after September 30, 1971 and the City could be liable for 25/" of the money above the Federal 75f,. Councilman Harrison, commenting that the City seemed to be committed, moved that the City proceed with proposals for Step ll, design for these projects. Second by Counci lman Amstrup. Counci lman Crosby asked if money was avai lable under this project. City Engineer repl ied that dechlorination cost of approximately $10,000.00 and sludge handl ing cost of approximately $186,000.00 would be avai lable upon complefion of the sewage outfal I project. Motion carried on al I aye voice vote. 3. CITY MANAGER TRANSMITTING CONRAD ASSOCIATES SCHEMATIC PLANS AND PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPOSED MULTI LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, RETAIL STORES, POLICE STAT I ON. Mayor Mangini suggested this matter be considered at at special meeting Saturday morning, Jannuary 22, because of the detail to be discussed. Counci lman Martin commenfed the Counci I had not received a feasibi I ity report on this, and questioned if it would be better fo delay discussion until it is found whether it is feasible to finance it. Counci lman Harrison questioned how feasible obtaining the Post Office bui lding would be. Mayor Mangini commented he could not answer that question, and went on to say the present meeting seemed an inappropriate time to discuss these details. He questioned City Atforney if an acfion could be taken at the Saturday meefing. The City Attorney stated that it could. ln reply to question from the Mayor, the City Manager stated that proposals could be taken for a feasibility study, .so that the City dii-*d finance'revenue bonds.. The City already has a proposal from Stone-Youngberg, Municipal Fi nanci ng Counsu I tants. Councilman Harrison approved the idea of the January 22 neeting for discussion of different plans and determination whether to go ahead with the feasibility study. 3, -r --.4.J.-16{- [ d 261 Councilman Martin considered that unless the City knew how it was going to finance different plans, it could not make efficient comparisons. Councilman Harrison pointed out that at the Saturday session it could be determined whether it was feasible to put a police station in a parking structure. lf it were not, it would be a waste of time and energy to proceed with a feasibi I ity study. Councilman Martin replied that the City must look at the whole picture, and the question of the parking structure has to do with how much the City is able to finance. Councilman Crosby questioned how long it would fake to get a feasibility study. The City Manager commented that if it is determined that the parking structure and police station should be combined, that type of feasibility study could be made. lf not, then there could be a feasibility study of the parking structure and the retail stores. He thought the Council had enough information to decide this with the figures they had from Conrad and Associates. Councilman Amstrup wanted a feasibility study since these present figures seem confusing. For example, they seem to show that the cost of a police station on Carolan would be the same as the police station on Howard. Mayor Mangini stated he was basing his suggestion for discussion at the Saturday meeting on the Conrad report. He suggested a decision to let a feasibi I ity study be made at this eveningrs meeting. Councilman Crosby questioned if this were done, would the study be ready for the Saturday meeting. He considered it would be helpful. The City Manager stated that proposals for the feasibility study could be available by the regular study meeting of January 12. After further discussion, Counci I agreed to consider feasibi I ity study proposals at the study meeting of January 12 and to hold a special meeting on Saturday, January 22, 1911. 4. CITY N4ANAGER SUBMITTING CONSULTANTIS REQUEST FOR INCREASED FEES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IN4PACT REPORT PROPOSED CONVENTION CENTER. City Managerrs memo of December 50, 1976 attached letter from HKS dated December 28, 1976 presenting a request for contract renegotiation due to the increased scope of the project, in particular the addition of 10!'acres of airport-related parking. City Manager reported he had contacted HKS -regarding the additional fee they would require and was informed it would be $1,000 additional for the Phase I portion and $1,800 additional for the Phase ll portion. Mayor Mangini requested comment from the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that when the parking lot was discussedr-it came up a few weeks before the Council meeting. The participants in the conference had asked Mr. Silverton if he knew if the parking lot would affect the consultant costs. The City Attorneyrs recollection was that Mr. Silverton said it would not. However, it now seems there is a problem with the consultant. Councilman Crosby questioned if Mr. Silverton knew about the additional amount. The City Attorney stated he had contacted Silvertonrs attorney who has been in touch with Mr. Silverton. However, there has as yet been no response. He went on to say that Mr. Silvertonrs cost would be increased $11000 for the first phase, for which he is responsible; and the Cityrs cost would be increased $1r800 on the second phase. Mr. Silverton would have to be informed that he would have to pay the $irOOO. He added that Mr. Silverton knew the Counci I was going to discuss this. 4, 26s Councilman Amstrup protested that the addition of the parking lot was known to the principals before the Council and staff knew of it and-there was no reason it could not have been taken care of with the consultants. He thought Mr. Si lverton should pay for the addition, Councilman Martin quesfioned who set up the criteria for HKS. The City Attorney stated that bond counsel had framed the outline of what was fo be in the ElR. The parking lot had been added subsequent to this. The Councilman asked why staff had not informed HKS and was informed that City representatives had been told by Mr. Silverton that it was all right with HKS, thaf it would not increase their cost. Staff had not checked this statement, since they relied on bond counsel at this point. Councilman Martin remarked that he expected the City to be in an adversary position to Mr. Silverton. Since the Cityrs interests had not been protected, his position was that Mr. Silverton should pay the entire $21800. HKS has a signed contract and they have a problem, not the City. Mayor Mangini questioned the Cityrs alternatives in-the matter. The City Attorney stated the City could give HKS a flat denial; tell them the additional fee was the sole responsibility of Mr. Silverton; or ask Mr. Silverton to pay the $1,000, with the City paying $1,800. Councilman Crosby suggested that Mr. Silverton be invited to the January 12 study meeting so that the Counci I could have his views. Councilman Martin declared he thought it was up to Silverton and HKS, and he did not care to ask Mr. Si lverton for his opinion. Counci lman Amstrup reaffirmed that'he expected'Si lverton to pay the entire amount, stating he knew this parking lot addition was discussed with Anza Pacific long before the Council meeting. Counci lman Harrison approved of inviting Si lverton to the study meeting, appraising him of the Councilrs fedlings, and getting his opinion as to the course of action. Mayor Mangini announced this matter would be continued to the study meeting of January 12r 1977. The City Attorney said he would contact Silvertonrs counsel with the request that Mr. Silverton be present at this meeting. Councilman Amstrup asked the City Attorney to determine from Mr. Silverton how long he had known of the addition of the parking lot to the scope of the ElR. 5. CITY MANAGER SUBMITTING REQUEST FROM CITY 0F |4ENLO PARK: APPOINTMENT 0F COUNCIL MEMBER TO PROPOSED I'WATCHDOG COMMITTEEII ON HARBOR DISTRICT City Manager transmitted letter of December 16,1916 trom Michael A. Bedwell, City Manager of Mehlo Park, requesting Council volunteer to serve on a rrWatchdog Committeerr in the matter of the proposed dissolution of the Harbor District. Mr. Bedwell noted that this dissolution will not come before the voters unti I November of 1917. Meanwhile, the Harbor District has a permit pending before the Corps of Engineers which might wel I be granted unless vigi lance is exercised. Councilman Harrison commented he thought the concern of this Council was the operation of the District, not the effect of the proposed project. He noted there are elements in the County who do want the Harbor District diss<b'lvdd; and added that if the County did take it over, thdy would be able to priorifize projects. He questioned that a itWatchdog Committeerr was desiiable. Councilman Martin stated he did not agree. He thought it was the possibility of the effect of the project on the taxpayers the Council was against. 268 It4ayor Mangini considered the Council was not against the project but against the Harbor District. Councilman Amstrup suggested that Mr. Bedwell be requested to inform the Cityof any developments of interest. City Manager was so instructed. 6. CITY MANAGER: CONT I NUE. clvlL SERVlcE COMMlsst0N VACANCtES, TNCUMBENTS WtLLtNG T0 City Manager memo of December 28, 1916 informed Council that incumbents Dorothea Hughes and Michael Nave are willing to serve another term on the Civi I Service Commission. Mayor Mangini ascertained that there were no other applicants for this commission. Counci lman Amstrup moved Dorothea Hughes and Michael Nave be reappointed. Second by Counci lman Harrison. Counci lman Martin indicated he would approve these appointments since the incumbents would be only on fheir second term. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote. The City Manager was instructed to inform the incumbents of their reappointment. l. CITY ATTORNEY: ESTABLISHMENT 0F PARTIALLY SELF-INSURED LIABI LITY PROGRAM. City Attorneyrs memo of December 29r 1976 noted Councilrs prior approval of the establ ishment of a partial ly self-insured I iabi I ity insurance program, and transmitted documents to formal ize this approval along with explanation of thei r purpose. RESOLUTION NO. 1.77 'IAUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BURLINGAME AND R. L. KAUTZ & COMPANY FOR SELF-INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SERVICESTT was introduced by Counci lman Harrison who moved its adoption. Second by Counci lman Amstrup, al I aye rol I cal I "vote. RESOLUTION NO.2-11 IIESTABLISHING A LOSS RESERVE FUND AND PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT FROM THE FUNDfrwas introduced by Councilman Crosby who moved its adoption. Second by Counci lman Harrison, al I aye rol I cal I vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1O9B IIORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.14 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE T0 ESTABLISH RESERVE FUNDS FOR SELF-INSURANCE FUNDS|' was introduced for first reading by Counci lman Harrison. Councilman Martin commented that he voted against the program of self-insurance, but he was not going to vote against resolutions on a decision already made. The City Attorney further explained to Council that most insurance companies are pul I ing out of municipal business, and ours is not a unique situation. He indicated that this could actually be an advantage to the City over a period of years in terms of money saved on premiums. ORDINANCES - SECOND READING HEARING 1. ORDtNANCE N0. 1096 "ADOprtNG RULES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATI0N, LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE 0F SlGNS.rr was given its second reading. Mayor Mangini declared the hearing open. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was declared closed. Comments f rom Counci I were invited by the lt4ayor. Councilman Martin declared he considered the ordinance too complicated and that (. - a,pl L-, t-!td, 267 merchants are not being treated fairly under this code. He cited an inspection trip of signs in the city which he had made wifh the Assistant City Planner, and displayed photos of signs in the business areas which he stated would be illegal under the new sign code.. He noted that most of the signs on Broadway would nof be allowed, along with fhe Hamerslag sign and even the Anza Pacific flag. He noted dificulties in determining what was properly window advertising, and the instance of a roof sign which was legal because it was supported by poles on one side. Counci lman Martin considered that under this code'too many existing signs would be illegal. He thought this a flaw.in the code; and stated that merchants should not have to go to the Planning Commis$ion for decisions on signs for their business, noting that there are no merchants on the Planning Commissi6n. He thought a sign code should be very general and that this one would create more admin istrative work. Mayor Mangini questioned if staff could function well with this ordinance. He questioned if it would help, and would not inhibit progress. The City Planner assured Council he knew the ordinance would work, adding that the Planning Commission had thoroughly studied it and recommended if unanimously. Counci lman Crosby stated he agreed essential ly with Counci lman Martin; that the ordinance was too complicated and would cause many problems. He thought the merchants must be given consideration, noting their contribution to the city in taxes. The City Attorney stated existing signs would become legal non-conforming signs; not illegal signs. He reminded Council that some months ago they had adopted an interim ordinance which relates to this revised code. Since that time only one sign has appeared before the Planning Commission, because there was no need for appeals with the liberality of the code. He noted that merchants in the city had had an opportunity to see the code and that there were-no merchants who objected in the audience at this meeting. He categorized the present sign ordinance with limits ol 32 SF as archaic and impossible to work with, noting it had put signs before the Planning Commission continually. He thought this new ordinance a good one, not as complicated as it seemed; and repeated there had been no complaints by merchants. Mayor Mangini questioned if Councilman Martin was objecting to roof sign provisions. The Counci lman repl ied that his objection was to the definition of a wall mounted sign that extends above the roof as a roof sign, which makes it iltegal. Counci lman Amstrup considered the Planning Commission dedicated in their efforts, and thought the revised code should be approved. He emphasized that present non-conforming signs can be kept. He noted that Councilman Martin was not in office when the Council took their stand on roof signs. However, he voiced willingness to discuss the revised code at another study meeting if desired. Counci lman Harrison supportdd this revised sign ordinancei also emphasizing that non-conforming signs would remain unti I a change of {wnership. sion he hdd questioned if the City would be ordering non-conforming signs removed, and fhe Council had decided this would not be done. Councilman Crosby, relative to City Attorneyrs remark that no merchants had objected this evening, stated they did nof know about this meeting. Again, he pointed out that there should be more elasticity in sign permits and too much time is being spent in detail. He had no objections to the principles of the Planning Commission, but thought people affected had not had the opportun i ty to vo i ce the i r op i n ions. Councilman Amstrup commented that the City had been discu$sing signs for the past year, and it would be surprising if the mer:chants knfw no+hinq about the 17, lF@F .-Wr'7l'@.FrFri7'!4r'73rrrtrFrw"-7wrrr*---r--ryffi.qnlr,tlmf F,-r7zr Fryq tr-'_'n II 268 new code. However, he suggested that this matter be put over until the next meeting; that merchants be'informed of it, and be given until then.for theii written comments. City Attorney remarked that the Planning Commission had four public meetings on this code that the merchants were aware of. Counci lman Crosby questioned that most businessmen knew of the restrictionsof this ordinance. City Attorney remarked that the interim ordinance was not new and was presently in effect. Counci lman Amstrup suggested that fhe City contact merchantst associations and lef them inform their members. He then moved that this hearing be continued to the next regular Council meeting and that associations representing merchants be informed of this hearing with the request their members submit comments in writing to the City. Second by Councilman Harrison, who commented that if concern is present, such organizations as the Chamber of Commerce, Broadwa'i Merchants Association, and the Plaza merchants group would take action. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCI LMEN: AMSTRUP, HARRISON, MANGINI NAYES: COUNC I LN4EN: CROSBY, MART I N 2." ORDINANCE N0. 1097 PR0VIDING FOR INCREASE lN COUNCILMENTS SALARYiiwas given its second reading. Mayor Mangini declared the hearing open. Mrs. Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, questioned if the raise would represent more fhan 6/". Counci lman Harrison repl ied that it would be more than 6%, presenf salary of $150.00 per month ivas set 12 years ago. be $225.00 per month effective in March of 1918. adding that the The new salary would There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Councilman Amstrup declared he would take a stand against this as he had a year ago.. He considered that even $500.00 would not reimburse a Couhcil- member for his effort and time, but that Councilmen did not serve for rnonetary consideration. He added that at a time when the City is concerned about holding down costs, he felt the Council should set the example, and he was happy with. $150.00 per month Mayor Mangini stated he would support this ordinance, as did Councilman Harrison who noted that other cities and counties are raising salarie$ for: their elected officials. Counci lman Crosby indicated he had no objection to it. Councilman Martin stated that a year ago he had taken the same position - that he was not much interested in it. Before election was an odd time to introduce it. He would much prefer to put this ordinance over for a year until just before fhe next election. However, three Counci I members had indicated they would vote for it. He had changed his feelings somewhat in view of Council action on City employeesr raises and subsequent inclusion of City Manager and City Atforney in the increases. He stated he did not really care one way or the other, but that he would go along. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, the ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILN4EN: CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI NAYES: COUNC I LMEN: AMSTRUP ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEN: MARTIN G L*rd-- ..Lr.ur [r*{' -{L\J.&d Fraffi 269 2 UNF'INISHED BUSINESS 1. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - REIS DURELL - BY INDUSTRIAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM City Engineer in his memo of December 30, stated that this telephone company had agreed to install their lines underground, with an overhead line on a temporary basis unti I the underground system is commpleted. The City Engineer recommended this permit be granted on this basis. City Manager, in his endorsement of December 30, 1976, concurred in this recommendation. Counci I unanimously accepted staffrs recommendation. N4AYOR MANGINI REPORT: LUCKY LADY - CONDITIONS 0F OPERATION AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Council had received memo of December 23, 19-76 fron Mayor Victor A. Mangini outlining 16 points of agreement reached among Police Chief, Mayor, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Rossi for the operation of the !Lucky Ladyrf. Pursuant to this agreement, Police Chief and Mayor recommended issuance of a permif for 90 days subject to approval of Building and Fire Departments. The memo noted that any changes in the operation which has been previously approved by Council must be submitted to Counci I for add itiona I approva I . Councilman Amstrup said he disapproved of the wide age gap of 14 - 21 years for patrons. He did not like ltem 11 which provides for opening for rfspecial groupsrt, ltem 7, eventual serving of breakfast after 2:00 A.M., and ltem 16 with future 23-hour a day operafion, bait and tackle shop, etc. He commented that the selling of bait and tackle would make this a retail store, and asked if this were allowed in this district. The City Planner stated it might be considered a marina type ancillary facility. City Attorney nofed that the only hours mentioned in letter of application were from 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. Councilman Martin questioned if guests over 21 would be limited to parents. Mayor Mangini stated they would not be. ln response to the Councilmanrs question as to what rrf lying colorsrr were, the Mayor replied that these arerrpatchesrr on the back of jackets, etc. Councilman Martin suggested items 7 and 16 be deleted from the agreement in view of the restriction that changes must come before the Council. He had no objection to the rest of the agreement.. Mayor Mangini considered that rreventual lyrr in these two conditions seemed reasonable. The Pol ice Chief pointed out that entertainment and dancing would be permitted only up to 1:00 A.M. However, the City Attorney suggested these two items be struck for the sake of present clarity. Councilman Martin was concerned with ltem 11 (special groups) because of the possibility of all night parties. He suggested it be llmited to the hours of noon to 1:00 A.M. Mayor Mangini qualified limitation to be from noon to 6:00P.M. Councilman Harrison thought the changds were well taken, but stated he was against the whole thing because of the differences in age groups, and the fact that guests could be over 21. Counci lman Amstrup stated he definitely disapproved of the establ ishment, but would vote for it because there were now some controls which were not in the concept before. Councilman Crosby moved the permit be granted with the changes in the agreement as deletion of ltems 7 and 16,and hours in ltem 11 to be from noon to 6:00 P.M. Second by Councilman Martin, motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP (with comments as above), CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN NAYES: COUNCI LMEN: HARRISON (for reason stated) 7 270 q+(ry\, r@'trTi 'Etl CONVENTION CENTER City Planner stated he thought it important that recdipt of development program as understood by HKS be acknowledged. This development program, dated December 22, 19-76, is the basis for their evaluation of the project, and shows new figures for building areas for the convention center and guest hotel, and new acreage figures for the land coverage. The HKS report due on January 7, 1911 wi I I be based on these figures. Mayor Mangini acknowledged Counci I receipt of this documentation. NEW BUS I NESS Councilman Amstrup inquired if the State paid any money for their use of the Police Department lands on Carolan, noting that State vehicles are constantly parked there. City Manager informed him the State paid only for the use of the pump -. $50.00 a nronth. He was directed to investigate the matter of getting some rental from them for the use of the property. BAYFRONT LANDSCAPI NG Councilman Amstrup noted that while landscaping has been put in along the Bayfront going toward the convention site, there has apparently been no maintenance. It looks shabby and weeds are growing. The City Manager stated he would investigate the matter. ACKNOW LEDGN4ENTS City Manager memo of December 29, 1976 relative to applications for block grant recreation development funds, letter attachment from Assemblyman Papan with Burl ingamers el igibi I ity I isted as $19,171.00.' Letter of December 28, 1916 trom Dale Perkins, Chairman Bicentennial Committee, thanking Counci I for Committeers expenses to Bicentennial Dinner. 3. Treasurerrs Report of November 30, 1916. 4 Report of December 27, 1916 fron Park Director on dead eucalyptus trees in lndustrial area. Report of December 30, 1976 fron City Planner on proposed bicycle/pedestrian br:idge over Mills Creek. Mayor requested Council comments on this. 6. Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, December 9, 1916. J. Agenda for second meeting of Ad Hoc Committee for Housing Element for the Burl ingame General Plan. Mayor Mangini reminded Council thaf the North County Council of Cifies would meet on Thursday, January 6, 1911. ADJ OURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. to study meeting of January 12, 1911. Respectfu I I y submitted, 2 E) Z/ zltl \.O Erle lyn Hil I City Clerk /o, 1