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.