Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.12.15n Burlingame, Cal-ifornia December 15, 1975 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Councit was held on the above date in the City HaI1 Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 8:02 p.m. by MayorIrving S. tunstrup. PLEDGE OF ALLEG]ANCE TO THE FI,AG:Led by Charles F. Schwalm, City t{anager. ROLL CALL COUNCIL I4EMBERS PRESENT: Amstrup-Crosby (appeared immediately fotlowing rotl caII) Cusi ck-Harrison-Mangini COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None BURIINGAME HIGH SCHOOL CHOIR Mayor Amstrup deferred to Vice-Mayor Mangini, Assistant principal at the HighSchool, who expressed great pleasure at the opportunity of presenting Mr. John Rando, Director, Fine Arts Department, Burlingame High School, and his studentsingers in their traditional Christmas appearance before the City Council. There was enthusiastic response from the audience to the variety of songs offered bythe choir. Mayor Amstrup conveyed the City Council's pleasure and good wishes. Councilman Harrison, member of the High School faculty, extended compliments andgreetings. RECONVENE Following a five minute recess, Mayor Amstrup calred the meeting toorder at 8:25 p.m. MTNUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of December 1, L9'15,mitted to the City Council, were approved and. adopted. previously sub- HEARINGS: FRED HAR\TEY - AIRPORT MARTNA HOTEL: APPEAL FROM PI,ANNING COMMISSfO}I DENTAL OF PERMIT FOR SIGN AT 866 BURLVIAY ROAD Mayor Amstrup announced that Mr.D. C. Johnson, Vice President, Ered Harvey, an Amfac company, filed a written appeal with the City Council following denial byPlanning Commission on November 10, L975, of a permit for an existing roof signat the above location. Acknowledging the detailed written report submitted to the City Council by the CityPlanner under date of November L4, L975, Mayor Amstrup asked the planner to review background for the benefit of the audience. The Planner noted that the owner ofthe building at 866 Burlway was issued a valid permit by the building departmentin l4ay, 7962' to construct a roof sign on the building for purposes of identifi-cation of his firm and its functions. Some years later, 1969 or thereabout, TiaMaria Restaurant, 1590 Bayshore Highway, negotiated with the owner of the buildingto lease the roof sign, presumably to gain freeway exposure; at the same time, TiaMaria leased office space in the building to satisfy code restrictions on "off-premise" ad.vertising. (Sign Code SectLon 22.20.010 (d)) Continuing, the planner advised that, most recently, Airport Marina Hote1 signed a lease to use the samesign to advertise its facilities on Bayshore Highway. The lease runs from octoberL, 1975 to September 30, L976. Concerning Airport Marina use of the sign, the Planner pointed out that (t) Because the current sign code prohibits roof signs, the sign at 866 Burl-way is non-conforming, (2) Airport Marina application to use the sign as a means of ad-vertising its facility poses a problem of change of copy on a non-conforming sign,(3) Airport Marina Hotel has leased space in the building for dead storage, (4) Presently, the sign is advertising food and services available at Airport Marina, approximately 900 feet distant from the sign structure. (5) The planner stated:that the Planning Commission, following a public hearing on November l0, L975, denied the application 6-O, one member absent for the reason that the sign does not reflect goods or services available at 866 Burlway Road and is a prohibited advertising display adjacent to a freeway in its present forrn. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments in favor of the appeal. Donald C. Johnson, resident of San Mateo and vice president with Fred Harvey organ- ization addressed the Council. He advised that Fred Harvey entered into a lease with the owner at 866 Burlway to use part of the building for storage and, along I L 2 a with the lease, to use the existing roof sign with the understanding that copy can be changed to advertise the products of Fred. Harvey-Airport Marina. He stated that the request from the building department to file an application with the Planning Commission for a sign permit came as a surprise. He advised that he received a catl from one of the members of the Planning Commission approximately one week before the Conunission's meeting of November 10 to the effect that Ered Harvey might encounter some problems in gaining approval of the sign. Mr. Johnson explained he was uninformed as to the City's sign regulations and attempted "crash research" during the week prior to the meeting. For the Council's consideration, he presented snapshots of existing signs of the east side of Bayshore Freeway, pointing out that the subject sign appears quite insignificant in comparison with many of the other signs that, in reality, are "off-premise" advertising. He stated his presentation to the Planning Conrnission was based on fairness, but he met with resistance because the sign did not conform to present code. He pointed out that signs shown in the snapshots do not meet code, some rising to a height of 40 feet, whereas the sign under discussion is 20 feet by l0 feet. Mr. Johnson declared that Airport Marina contributes much to the City of Burlingame, as a major taxpayer and employer. Because of the current recession, commercial travel has decreased rypreciably. Airport Marina, like other hotels, is seeking a new market; hence, the application for the sign. Stating he was being blunt, very frank, he asked coolness, a rational approach to approval of the sign permit. Councilman Crosby expressed interest in },lr. Johnson's references to attracting business from Local communities. Commenting he has been informed that business travel has declined, he asked Mr. Johnson if hotels oriented to that type of clientele, Airport Marina as an example, found this to be so. Mr. Johnson responded "yes." Councilman Crosby reasoned that the hotel is attempting to increase patronage from another market to offset the loss of commercial travelers; to do this on a local IeveI, it would appear that the sign is essential. Cogncilman Mangini asked Mr. Johnson, should the Council so decide, would he be amenable to a permit conditioned on the sign remaining only for the duration of the lease. l4x. Johnson responded "yes- " In response to Councilman Harrison, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the lease for 866 Burlway will expire on September 30, 1976- uJ. tslEt q;l* : <q" s:If.. \3r rs-] s ls \ s.* R>'>.r>qr' l"FT'$c'<}. -l ) r'tr- Councilman Crosby asked !"tr. Johnson i tt-arfti -non-csnro:m+ngr-uaa-+i+pert--[aa:+i.na-*e3se&-"""""o i, t, " ] ",g5rffi:R1ffil}.*\:S-i. :\, fS S*I$;\ --\ .'\:* \ .\s, .\ \ . ri EJibnse-to the ctrair's inquiry, there were no further cormnents from the floor in favor of the appeal. Cormnents in opposition were invited. Mrs. Ruth E. Jacobs, member of the Planning Conunission, commenting on the argument that the sign is needed in the interests of attracting Iocal business, asked if anyone believed that the existing Airport Marina sign is not visible to Burlingame and surrounding communities? Councilman Crosby pointed out that that sign is not the subject of the application before the Council- There were no further conunents from the floor- During a period of Council discussion, Councilman Harrison indicated he would be in favor of sustaining Planning Commission, as did Mayor Amstrup, because the sign is in violation of code; it is clearly a case of "off-premise" advertising, advertising adjacent to a freeway, and it is a roof sign (Code Sections 22.l'2.040, 22.2O.0I0d, 22.24.O2O) . Councilman Crosby agreed with Councilman Harrison and Mayor Amstrup, but pointed out that the Tia Maria sign also violated the code with respect to "off-premise" advertising and it remained on the 866 Burlway building for several years. Stating he faited to understand the rationale that would permit Tia Maria a sign but not Airport Marina, he pointed out that the loca1 hotels are a vital part of this Cityts economy. He endorsed Councilman Mangini,s recorunendation that the sign be permitted until expiration of the lease on September 30, L976. Councilman Cusick stated she was opposed to the idea of the sign, but she atso opposed allowing a building that had six iIlegal apartment units within a single family dwelling to be granted amortization over a period of ten yearsi 3 f 2 that was approved by the other members of the Council. She felt that Airport Marina had acted in good faith in negotiating for the sign; furthermore, this hotelis a primary commercial establishment contributing much to the economy of the City. She announced her intention of voting for the sign permit on the condition that thesign structure is removed from the building at the end of Airport Marina's lease. Mayor Amstrup asked the City Attorney what assurance the Council has that the signwill be abated concurrent with the termination of the lease if it is approved now. The City Attorney explained that the Council must give consideration to apparent good faith on the part of the applicant and allow the sign to remain to the endof the lease with the understanding it will be abated. The City Attorney advised he expects the property owner may not agree to the stipulation. Councilman Harrison stated he was inctined to agree with councilman Cusick despite his initial reaction to sustain Planning Commission. He moved to overrule planning Commission and to allow the roof sign at 866 Burl-way Road advertising Airport MarinaHotel to remain until September 30, 1976 when the present lease between Airport Marina and landlord expires; immediately after expiration of said lease. sign shall be removed. from building. Motion seconded by councilman crosby. Mayor Amstrup pointed out that, if the motion is approved, Mr. Johnson will have no further authority beyond September 30, 1976 with respect to the sign. The City Attorney explained that the sign has been illegaI for a number of years. The property owner will be informed of the City Council's decision. If the signis not removed as ordered by the Council, the City must pursue 1egal action to cause abatement. Mayor Amstrup agreed to vote for the permit on the condition abatement is pursued The motion thereafter carried unanimously on roll_ call. APPEAL FROM BEATIIIFICATfON COMMISSION DENIAL OF PERMIT TO REIVIOVE EUCALYPTUS TREE FROM 1207 PAIOMA AVENUE ANNA V. ROSS, APPELI,A\TT Mayor Amstrup announced that a conununication was received from Marshall Threefoot, agent for Mrs. Ross, requesting a continuance of the appeal hearing for one month. There were no objections from the Council. Mayor Amstrup rescheduled the hearing to the meeting of January 19, 1976. 3 APPEAL OF RICHARD S. BULLIS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECTSTON REGARDING SIGNS AT IOO CALIEORNIA DRIVE Mayor Amstrup announced that the formal appeal filed by I,Ir. Bullis under date of November 26, 1975 will be heard this evening. The Mayor acknowledged the comprehen- sive report on signs existing and proposed at the Bullis plant submitted by the City Planner under date of December Il, 1975, including coflunents on sign regulations currently in effect. At Mayor tunstrup's request, the City Planner discussed the application before the Council, explaining that Mr. Bullis was granted a permit by the Planning Commission for three illuminaterl pole signs conditioned upon "removal of sign 'D' (Exhibit D, Plannerrs report), removal of all graphics on the outside of the building at Bayswater and California Drive, and no adrlit-ional waII signs to be allowed on the property.rr The three pole signs were restricted in height to 27 feet 6 inches for signs 'A' and 'C' and 31 feet for sign'Brper Exhibit E of Planner's report. Councilman Harrison stated there is an illuminated Chevrolet sign on the buildingt wall facing Bayswater Avenue just easterly of California Drive. He asked if that was one of the signs discussed by the Planning Cornrnission to be abated. The Planner recommended that Mr. Bullis or his representative answer. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited cormrents from the proponents. Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney at Law, represented the applicant. He announced that the appeal was filed primarity because of what were considered by the applicant to be harsh con<litions i:nposerl by the Planning Commission in approving the three new pote signs, i.e., removal of non-conforming roof sign, removal of graphics on exist- ing building, no additional painted waII signs. Mr. McMillan pointed out that I,Ir. a \- ml|4l,t."rrwr-lryr 4 Bullis recently purchased the oId Borden Dairy Company property on California Drive at Howard Avenue and has undertaken extensive beautification. He referred to a comment in the City Planner's report of December 11, 1975, concerning the existing roof sign and the Planner's suggestion that the Council consider re- quiring the sign to conform with existing codes on or before January 1, L982. He explained that, as representative of Mr. Bullis, he was asking only that his client receive the same treatment from the Council as aI1 other automobile dealers. He asked if the January date was intended as the date for amortization of all roof signs on "automobile row. " Pointing out there was no argranent with the general concept of amortization, he stated when an ordinance has been adopted by City Council requiring all automobile dealers to remove such signs, Mr. Bullis will remove his. If that is L982, the sign will be removed. For the present, he will remove the words "Dick Bu11is" at the top of the sign. trlith respect to painting the entire building, Mr. Mcuillan expressed reluctance to concede to a suggestion by the City Planner requiring Planning Commission approval prior to repainting, stating this raises a question of dangerous pre- cedent. He advised that I{r. Bullis agreed to repainting probably in one year and will accept a condition that there be neither advertising nor figures. Councilman Harrison referred to the two Chevrolet signs on the south sign of the building, inquiring if their removal had not been discussed at a prior time when Mr. Bullis appeared before the Planning Conmrission. The City Planner stated there was an application for three pole signs exceeding 20 feet in height approved by the Planning Cormnission in 1974 conditioned upon removal of the graphics on the building at 100 California Drive. In response to conunent from Councilman Harrison that it would appear there has been "reasonable" time in which to remove the graphics, Mr. I,lcMillan agreed his client will accept any reasonable "time" condition for repainting the building. !lr. McMillan suggested one year. With reference to the prior application, Councitman Crosby asked did Mr. Bullis not proceed with the approved pole signs because he did not want to paint the building? I{r. McMillan stated the signs were not installed nor the building painted because Mr. Bul1is was thinking about a new location. Upon determination by the Chair that there \,rere to be no further comments from the floor, the hearing was declared closed. There followed a period of Council discussion. Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner to explain why l,lr. Bullis must remove his name from the top of the roof sign. The Planner referred to two ordinances passed by the City Council, Nos. LO23 and 1025, to prohibit roof signs and to require review of any structure more than 35 feet in height. At the Planning Commission hearing, there was discussion about removal of the complete sign. At that time, Mr. Bullis agreed to remove the upper portion. Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner to comment on Mr. McMillan's query about all auto dealers being required to remove roof signs by January, 1-982. The Planner explained this was an attempt by the Planning Conunission to amortize roof signs where possible when an application is made for new signs on a property. Councilman Harrison stated the Planning Comnission, upon receipt of an application for a sign, considers all existing signs in order to arrive at the amount of sign space being utilized on that specific property. Apparently, the existing non-conforming roof sign falls within the current application because the owner wishes to redo the overall sign display. Councilman Crosby man attempting to new signs but, on characteristic of how long the roof stated there appears to be a basic unfairness where a business- enlarge his operation is given approval to install three the other hand, is required to remove a roof sign that is his particular type of business. Councilman Crosby asked sign had been in place. Mr. McMillan advised since 1956. Councilman Mangini stated that Mr. Bullis appears to be wi11in9 to remove the top portion of the sign and to repaint the building with no advertising. Mayor Amstrup referred to a comment by the City Planner in his written report to the Council indicating some concern that the building might be repainted in a striped pattern. I4r. Mclvlillan stated that l,lr. Bullis concedes the building /r D should be repai-nted; his concern is that the planning commission and city councilnot dictate the color scheme. !,tr. McMillan stated that Mx. Burris concedes thereshal1 be no logos, no adverti,sing, and no ,'graphics,,, if that means advertising. counciLnan cusick stated when amortization of roof signs was being d.iscussealthere r,ras a rearization by the counciL of what this woulal do to automobile rowias a resurt, amortization has been derayeal. she stated that auto row is differentfrom other conmerciar districts in the city, that she recognizes its contributionto the cityrs economy, and wourd support the appear on the condition the buildingis repainted but no advertising included. Councilman crosby moved (1) Sustain Planning comnission approval of three illuminatedpole signs exceedinq 20 feet in height. (2) Top portion of roof sign 'D, r,rrithcopy rrDick Bul1is" to be removed. (3) guilding at IOO California Drive to berepainted vrithin one year free of advertising, logos, graphics (multiples of twoor more stripes). (4) 208 of surface of o1d dairy building watl facing southernPacific right of way may be covered with painteal sign limited to one word: "chevroret or "chevy. " !4otion seconded by councitman }4angini, all aye rorl calr. 4. AMENDMENT TO MI'NICIPA]- CODE (ZONING) - C-I DTSTRICT REGUI,ATIONS Mayor Amstrup announced this lras the time and. place schedured, pursuant to pubrished.notice, to conduct a public hearing on the above subject. He explained that theanendment. upon adoption, will have the effect of prohibiting theaters in c-rand C-2 (comercial) Districts. Since neither of the theaters in C-I and. C-2zoning districts are functioning, the city Attorney r^7as requested to prepare anordinance for the city councilts consideration. Mayor Amstrup stated there appearsto be a strong feeling among the people in Burlingame that these bui.lalings not become pornographic houses; rather than face this possibility, anal because theyare no ronger operating, they vrill not be considered theaters any longer. MayorAmstrup reported that a letter was received from the person who was granted a permitto operate the Fox Burringame Theater advising he does not intend. to proceed. Because of developments in other peninsula cities, it would appear that thislegislation is very definitely necessary. Acknowredgement !r,as made of materiat forwarded by the city planner, includingPlanning conunission Resolution No. 17-75 "Reconunending Against the Removal ofTheaters As A Permitted use rn The c-t and c-2 zones" adopted at a regular meetingheld on Novernber 24, L975. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comnents from the floor. There were none. The hearing \ras declared closed. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Mangini concerning procedure, the CityAttorney explained that, unlike other ordinances vrhere the public hearing isheld at the time of the second reading, the hearing on an ordinance proposj,ng anendment to the zoning code is held at the time the ordinance is introd.uced. ORDINANCE NO. 1058 "An Ord.inance Anend.i ng Section 25.36.020 Of The Municipal Code Concerning C-1 District Reg'utations" was introd.uced for first reaaling by Mayor Anstrup. RECONVENE: Following a recess at 9:20 p.m., the Chair called the neeting to orderat 9r35 p.m. PICNIC AREA TN WASHINGTON PARK Mayor Amstrup announced there was discussion at the last City Council Study meeting concerning a picnic area in the northeast sector of Washington Park. When residents in the area becane aware of the pJ-an, there was an outpouring of letters. Their concerns were with traffic, noise, influx of non-residents into washington Park. As a result, the Council has agreed that this type of facitity not be locateal inthat section of the park. Mayor Anstrup requested that staff attempt to find another location. Councilman Cusick recomlended that staff determine first !,rhether the need actually exists before new plans are drawn. Councilman Ilarrison stated that the idea was formulated. by the Burlingane Jaycees and the Burlingame Junior womenrs club and presented to the staff. He felt the two groups were to be conmended for their efforts. .< 6 councilman crosby renarked that all of the argunents are against the location. Later in the meeting, Arnold Rodman, mdnber of the Burlingame Jaycees, asked if another site in the park might be acceptable. councilman Harrison reported that the president of the Jaycees in a telePhone conversation expressed willingness to pursue other locations in the hope the project would not be abandoned. Mayor Anstrup mentioned that one of the protestants claimed there would be duptication of facilities being planned at coyote Point. The Mayor informed l,tr. Ro&nan that the Council will be most willinq to hear alternate proposals. COMMI'NICATIONS I. F'INAI REPORT SO],ID IIASTE MANAGEMENT PI,AN FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY Acknowledgement was made of a conmunication dated December L, L975, from S' H' Cantwelt, ,Jr., County Engineer and. Roaal comnissioner, forwar'ling the above document, together with a sumrary reporE. The colmunication aalvised that cities are required to either apProve or alisapprove the final plan within 60 tlays (prior to January 3I, 1976). councilman Mangj,ni, member of the san Mateo county solid waste Advisory comnittee, reconunended that council members alirect their attention to chapter x of the unabritlgecl report, or to the sunmary report. With Council concurrence, Mayor Amstrup requested the City Manager to Place the subject on the agenda of the ,fanuary, 1975 study meeting' 2. CTVIL SERVICE COMMISSfONERS REAPPOINTED In a cornmunication dated December 11, 1975, the City Manager advised that walter A. Hower and Archie L. offield are willing to serve another term on the commission. Mayor Arnstrup announced that the council has confirmed reappoint- ment of the two comnissioners for the full three-year term' 3. SAN MATEO COUNTY SCAVENGER COT'IPANY:RATE ADJUSTMENT The request fron the above firm dated Decembet 8, L975, concerning an adjustment in present garbage collection rates was acknowledged- The city Manager's recorunendation to refer the matter to the January stualy meeting for discussion with the scavenger comPany was accepted by the City Council. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUT]ON NO. 89-75 "ordering And calling A special Municipal Election To Be Heltl h The city of Burlingame On March 2, 1976:, Providing Voting Places Anal Designatinq Election officers" was introduced by councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, second by CounciLnan Crosby, unanimously carried on ro11 ca1l. 2. A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR T}IE POLICE STAT]ON. Mayor Amstrup initiatetl the discussion with the cortrnent he vrould like to point out a fe!, new and pertinent facts for the Council's consideration. Reatling from a prepared statement, he offered the following: As stated at the meeting when the Council interviewed the architects, he could not vote for securing architects because "I felt we were rushing this proj ect too fast. " Again at the December study meeting he brought out some new information to be considered before consumating any agreement, i.e., the possible availability in the near future of the entire main Post office property, representing about one acre in the middle of town and directly behind the present police station. If the Post Office property becomes availabJ-e, it opens up whole new vistas to be explored. ; 7 #1 Possibility of an aaldition to the police station at its present sitewith ample parking at a fraction of the price tag, #2 Possibility of using Carolan Avenue property for a corporation yard instead of new police station, #3 Possibility of using present corporation yard as a transfer station, #4 Probably most important, possibility of acquiring the much-discussed increase in parking - al,l of this in one package and for less money. A11 of this provides food for thought, lendling more credence to his appear to theCouncil to slow alown with the proj ect at this time. rf the Post office becomes availa-ble, there would be the opportunity to sorve theproblem of a rarger police station and centrarry locateal additional parking. He asked why hurry to spend approximately two mitlion dollars unnecessarily? His statement concruded with the declaration "r must remain consistent in this.r do not want to be locked in to an agreement we might wish to discard or alterin 1i9ht of these new developments. " (The statement is on file in the Office of the City C1erk.) councilrnan Mangini announced his intention of voting for the resolution. He re-called that the Council's subcormittee appointed in early Lg74 to study policestation needs came to the decision, after many meetings and in-depth aliscussions,that the existing facility i,s extremely inadequate and that attempting to remodel would be putting new money after bad, The committee met with the people retainedby the City Council to make the space utj.lization stualy. fn d.etemining police department needs, the ccmmittee had the benefit of the consultants, expertise.stating he did not berieve in deficit spending, council-nan Mangini naintained thatthe City is in sound financial cond.ition. He pointecl out that a new city hall was built, the main library building and recreation center substantialry expandedrlrithin the last five to six years and, recently, the bus system implerented. In the years he has been on the Council, he has seen the tax rate red.uced 25Q. He stated that rrevenue sharing monies will be used to finance the police station andthat the architects, because of experience and knorrledge r should be able to advise the City Council on availability of fealeral grant funds to further reduce the city'soutlay. He mentioned, too, the inflation factor - the longer the delay, the higher the costs and less purchasing power of the dollax. CoNnenting that ser.ious crimeis on the increase particularly in the suburbs, Councilman Mangini declared infavor of proper and adequate potice services, emphasizing that a new police station should not be considered a luxury iten but a necessity for the pr.otection of thecitizens. Councilman Cusick stated she \,ras having problems with respect to financing. page 8of the Capital Improvement Budget shows total appropriations to the project for 74-75 and 75-76 $1,011,149. Of that, close to g500,OOO has been spent on landacquisition. nrrthermore, in stualying the budget docrment, she was unable to de- termine the amount of revenue sharing for this year and next year. page 5 of the Capital Inprovement Budget. Estimatetl Revenue Sharing for Fy 75-76 shows 9219,424i whereas, on Page I "Allocations" Revenue Sharing 75-76 is shown at g5OO,0OO and the footnote indicates that the $500,OOO is not all revenue sharing but drawn from various funds. She agreed that the possibility of the Post Offi-ce property becoming available and providling the opportunity for expansion of the present police station without expenditure of close to $2 Million is worth further study. h.rrthermore, an election will be held next year for the City council. There have been comments about rushing trith the police station project. To rush into this now lrill be de- priving the new people on the Council the opportunj-ty of takinq a stand on an expenditure of $2 Million. Councilman Crosby stated that the Council was informed at a study session by two contractors and an estimator that to delay could cost the city $10,000 a month. 7 rf there is to be an economically hearthy environment, a vital shopping area with enough parking facilities to make shops and offices reasonably accessibre must bepromoted. He has asked the Traffic Engineer to pursue, in depth, type and nunber.of needed spaces' and the city Engineer to exprore types of avairable funding to accomplish the needs. 8 Councilman Crosby pointed out that the new police station was the top priority selected by the City Council. As Councilman Mangini mentioned, a study committee was appointed to explore the need for a new police station. It was the committee's recomnendation to proceed, land has been purchasedi now, suddenly there are questions being raised about available financing. Councilman Crosby asked the City Manager if funds were available to build. The City Manager stated the City is in good financial condition, there is revenue sharing and other reserves, the project can be financed. Councilman Crosby objected to a delay until after the election in March. Councilman Harrison, as a member of the special parking study committee, stated he was elated to learn that the Post Office property may become available within the next couple of years. This raises the possibility that, in place of a four or five story parking structure in the downtown area, a one or two- story structure may be feasible. He recommended that this be pursued in terms of second priority to satisfy the appeals of merchants and shoppers for in- creased parking in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. He stated he was not wholly prepared to agree with Councilman Cusick and Mayor Amstrup on the "go slow" poticy. The Post Office site would be available for parking, Iand has been acquired for the police station and taking into consideration the in- flation factor of $10,000 a month, he would prefer to proceed with the archi- tects. With respect to the agreement presented by the architects, he asked that the time schedule in Paragraph 7, Page 9 be changed to provide that the architect shall complete and deliver the services required under Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) in time for the City Council study meeting in Eebruary and action at the following regular meeting. He cormnented the longer the delay, the higher the cost. Councilman Cusick again expressed dissatisfaction with revenue sharing figures shown in the Capitat Improvement Budget. Stating that as a member of the budget committee, she recalled the day the budget was to be approved and the Council received a phone call asking that the Capital Improvement Budget not be adopted because the reserves were being depleted. Later, at a meeting in October, information was given to the Council indicating there was more than sufficient money available. She opposed proceeding with the architects at this time for the reason she was not satisfied the project can be financed without reducing the City's reserves to a dangerous level- In response to an inquiry from Mayor Amstrup, the City Attorney reported there are three different stages under the contract where the Council can stop the work and not proceed with the building. RESOLUTION NO. gO-75 "Authorizing Execution Of Aqreement For Architectural Services - Police Station" was introduced by Councilman Crosby,who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison, declared carried on the following roII call: COUNCIL MEMBERS AYE: Crosby-Harrison-Mangini COTNCIL I4EMBERS NO: Amstrup-Cusick (both for reasons given) 3. STANDARD MOMTHLY RATE OF COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES Mayor Amstrup explained that the agreement negotiated with miscellaneous employees and police and fire administrators' bargaining units (the latter unit included aII department heads) provided for the City Council to accept the findings of Cooperative Personnel Services, Sacramento. Findings folrr.rarded to the City CounciL are binding upon employee units and the Council. During the appeal process, a part of the contract with Sacramento, a question was raised with respect to the salary of the City Librarian. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Amstrup, the City Manager reported that Personnel Services erred in applying a formula to determine salary range in this classification. The Librarian's salary should be at Range 67 instead of 65. The Manager informed the Council this was the only mistake, to his knowledge, that occurred in the report. Further, in response to Mayor Amstrup concerning salary for the City Manager and City Attorney, the Manager reported that his salary is included in the survey, the City Attorney's is not. It was the Managerrs reconunendation, based on research, that the Attorney's salary be established at Range 78.r ffi Personnel Services be requested to not submrit their reconmendations at the last i minute. councilman cusick stated it appears that the councir has no arternative but to ,accept the report. she felt that much of the report was based on ++ie-?r€{Ri€.e-+}rat ' 'e+eqrone is'eatt'itl"ed to mor€ money-. The best departm€nt- tlGad is the one who appriese-eat&ve uqe of blrd a&i.ngt-.eos+€-,al*r+l!at. departlIlealt -hcai iE €he e1e lrh€ €t+fc.!.s:- she considered this basically unfair and recommendedthat it be recognized in future surveys. RESOLUTTON NO. 91- 75 "Fixing Anal Establishing Classifications, Salaries And Ratesof Pay of Administrative Andl Miscellaneous Enployees rn The city service of TheCity of Bur1ingame, " anended to provide for top step in Range 67 for the Citylj"brarian and top step in Range 78 for the city Attorney, was introd.uced by council- man Harrison, who moved its aaloption, second by councilman crosby, unanimouslycarried on roll cal1. ORDINANCES (Second Reading) ORDINANCE NO. IO57 - AMENDI,IENT TO TIER]TAGE TREE ORDINANCE Mayor Amstrup deferred to councihan cusick, appointed by the l4ayor to select acornmittee charged with the duty of reviewing the Heritage Tree oralinance and recornmending amendments to the ci.ty councir to overcome citizensr objectionsto the Ordinance in its present form. councilman cusick reported that the members of the conmittee suhnitted theirideas and-*s5-+*th4her"-BeaE€-icirrattg[-€m+.s,i€nr- The result was a recormendationfrom the comnittee that the alistinctive tree portion of the Ordinance be excluded,lleritage Tree provi si-ons to remain on the condition that permission of a property orrmer be obtained before a tree shal1 be designated ,,Heritage Tree.,' rn response to a request from the floor for crarificati-on of requirements of thecurrent ord.inance. l,lrs. cusick explained that any tree over 19" in diameter issubject to approval of the Beautification comnission for pruning or any kind ofrrork. Under the new Ordinance that requirement will be deleteal. Mayor Amstrup invited comnents from the floor. Mrs. charles Harford, 112 crescent Avenue, spoke in favor of maintaining arl ofthe trees in Burl,ingame for their beauty and therapeutic values. R"D. l4core, 1535 Alturas Drive, considered the Heritage Tree ordinance in its present form far too restrictive and an imposition upon the rights of property owners. A resident of sr.nnmi.t Drive expressed the opinion that the amendment wilr be bene-ficial to horneowners rarho have a variety of trees on their property. There were no further connents from the f1oor. The hearing was aleclared closed. councilman cusick repoxted that Mrs. Arine 'L.,renz, member of the Beautificationis very unhappy that the Distinctive Tree portion is being removed from tbe ordinance.Councilman cusick expressed the opinion that the ordinance 1r.= 5u.rr$])lillrb'ductive.rt has been in effect for about one year and peopre have become anqry that theymust ask the Cityrs permission to do pruning. ORDINANCE NO. IO57 "Amending Chapter 11.05 of Title t1 Of The Municipal Code concerning Heritage Trees" was given its second reading. on motion of councirmancusick, second by councilman Harrison said ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adoptetl on roLl ca1l. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1059 "An Ordinance Aaljusting the Compensation Of The Clerkand Treasurer" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Harrison. 2.ORDINANCE NO. 1060 "Ordinance Adding Section 10.40.035 Concerning NoiseRegulation" was introduceal for first reaaling by counciLman crosby. rn a coverletter dated December 9 to the city council, the city Attorney explained that the 7 ORDINANCES (Introd.uction -\5{'.r.\S^e \A-*S^*\ \r5 \r\EJ- \'^,r r.c'. \). City Manager ) 10 ordinance will aalal to the Municipal Code a general section on noise regulation and establish standards which vriU enable staff to both assist the public anal prosecute violations in the many kinds of noise problems which come to the cityrs attention. STATF REPORTS 1. CMC ARTS COUNCIL QUARTERLY REPORI: Material forhrarded by the City I{anager under date of December 11, 1975, outlined the proposed program for January, February, March 1976. In recorunending approval, the City Manager ad.vised that the activity should be evaluated in full at next budget time. 2.IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTICIPATORY RECORDS AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (PR[SM) In a memorandum to the City Council dated December Ll, 1975,the City Manager discussed the above program, explaining that one of the major needs for im- provement of coordination of the various agencies in the justice systefi in san Mateo county is the need for information sharing between the numerous police agencies, the District Attorney, the courts and Probation. The crininal Justice Council has developed a program to meet this need which is itlentified as P. R.I. S.M. rt was the recommendation of the city Manager and the Chief of Police that the city indicate a desire that PRISM be started - that this city will palticipate with othef cities the second year with the option to withdraw if it is deter- nined that the program is of no benefit i'n the area of crime control and suppression. A motion by councilman Mangini to Participate as recom[ended Uy lne City Manager anal Chief of police was seconded by Councilman Harrison, all aye voice vote. 3. ENCROACHMSNT PERMITS: In a memorandrm to the city I'tanager dated Deceriber 1I, 1975, the city Engineer reported he h ment into city Riqht of wayr One at 9o0 ad approved two requests for Encroach- oak Grove Avenue to allow construction of a fence and the other to allovr three electroliers to encroach approximately 2 feet into Mills creek Drainage channel Right of way adljacent to driveway to Fisherman Restaurant. In an addendum to the comnunication, the City Manager commented the two encroachment permits appear minor anal unobj ectionable. There being no objections from the council, the encroachment permits were con- firmetl. 4. COMPIAINT OF HENRY WILKINSON REGARDING 1241 BERNA], AVENUE: UNdCT dAtE of Dece-nber 2, L975, the City Attorney reported "that the house at 1241 Bernal was built before the ordinance requiring a garage for every home and, as such, woulal be a non-conforming use." It was his opinion that any court would conclude that the house is a legal non-conforming use and that there is no possible way that the city could force the current owner to build a garage. Mr. wilkinson was present. He debated the Attorney's opinion, requesting the city council to make the decision whether or not the owner at 124I Bernal should be required to provide covered parking on his property. Follor,ring brief comnents from members of the council. councilman Harrison moved to accept the city Attorney's reconmendation that a copy of his (Attorney's) letter be forwarded to l,rr. wi"lkinson and thereby inform him that there is no further action which the city can take in this matter. I'totion seconded by councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote. 5. CITY vs. BEATIE, PRO SKI SHOP: A report dated Decembex L, L975 from the City Attorney to the City Council on the above matter was re ferred to the ,fanuary study meeting. 6.ANALYSIS OF APPOINTM CLERK AND TREASURER PROPOSITION: Under date of December 3, 1975, the City Attorney adv ised the city Council that the Elections @de (Section 5010.5) provides that the Council may direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of a measure on the city ballot. This is printed and sent out along with the arqrments on the proposition. /D On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote, an expenditure of $1,250 by the Civic Arts Council for the first three months of 19?6 was authorized in accordance with the statement dated Dece$ber A, L97 5 fited by Clarence Rusch, President. TI rn response to council-man cusick, the city Attorney confirmed that the analysiswill be made avaj-lable to the City Council for review before being sent to theprinter. Councilman Cusick inquired if i-t is possibte for members of the CityCouncil to prepare argrments on the proposition; if so, h,ould there be a fee? The Attorney advised there would be no fee. NEW BUSINESS BILTNGUA]- VOTING MATERTAL Mayor Amstrup referred to recent press articlesto the effect it will cost the County of San l4ateo ggO,OOO in postage alone tomail this material. He asked the City Council to support the County Clerk'sposition that the maiu,ng not be done indiscriminately but only to persons whorequest bilingual forms. A motion by l4ayor Amstrup, second by councilran cusick directing the city Managerto \,rrite I,Ir.. Church informing him that this Council supports his stand was unanimously carried on voice vote. PENINSULA WATER AGENCY: Mayor Amstrup reported that the first two phases of the water management study for san Mateo county contracted for by the peninsula water Agency have been completed. Phase TII. actual preparation of the study. is just beginning and proposals are being recei-ved from consultants. COUNCIL OF ELECTED OFFICIA]-S MEETING:Mayor Amstrup reported on his attendanceat the above meeting on Thursday evening, December 1l at the EaI} of Justice, ca11edby Chairman James fitzgeralal of the Board of Supervisors. T\ro cities were repre- sented as werl as 15 or 16 schoot districts. Another meeting is planned in January. Mayor Amstrup supported the ialea of taxing agencies convening and discussing mutualproblems and encouraged his colleagues to attempt to attend the January meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I. City Manager I s report of Decenber LL, L975, concerning "Reconciliati,on of Items in October 2, L975, Memo To Final Budget Documents Re: police Station Financing" was acknowleclged and referred to the January study meeting for review. 2. Letter from Virginia A. Stodalart, 1117 paloma Avenue, requesting that the ,,B" bus route along Old. Bayshore not be discontinued. In response to Councilman Cusickrs inquiry if there will be a change in the route, the TransportationOfficer stated a study is to be made to determine whether patronage can be increased east of Bayshore. He reported that three cities have had trouble with sirilar routes, but Burlingame does serve the Easter Seal Rehabititation Center on Stanton Road; if there is a change in that axea, it probably would be in the middle of the day. 3. Metropolitan Transportation Commis si.on comnunication of December 1 concerning "Proposed 1976 Regional Transportation Plan Revisions. " 4. Report from Traffic Engineer and City Engineer to City Manager dated DecemberlL, L975, concerning "Use of City parking Lot B for Car pool Only parking.,, In an ad.dendum to the comnunication, the City Manager sumnarized apparent problens and conmented that a car pool parking lot is an adrnirable project but administra-tively difficui.t. 5. Letter of appreciation from Flora H. Knight, City Treasurer, for commendations from City Council and City Manager on her 4oth anniversary as an employee of theCity of Burlingame. 6. Police and fire Departments I Monthly Reports, Beautification Commission minutes, December 4 anil Planning Conunission minutes Noveriber 24; synopsis of Department Head meeting, Decernber 3, City Council study meeting notations, December 3, 1975. COMMENDATION: Councilman Harrison asked that Mrs. Lois cast of the Recreation A motion by counci-lman Harrison directing the city Attorney to prepare the materiar was seconded by Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote. Depa.rtment be complimented on the excellent "Winter Faire" function held recently at the Recreation Center. // T2 APP ROVAIS WARRAMIS Nos. 1118 through 1359 in the amount of $464,818.13, aluly audited, rrere "ppr"""d for payment on motion of Councilnan Cusick, second by CounciLnan Harrison, unanimous 1y carried. PAYRoLL checks Nos. 13935 through 14739, November. L9'15. in the amount of $350,625.52 wEiE-approved on motion of councilman cusick, second by councilman Harrison, unanimous Iy carried. AATOURNMENT: At 1O:05 p.m. Respectfully submittetl, 1IERBERT K. WHITE, CITY CLERK By City Clerk /Z Z ,J/1.