Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1976.05.0310s Burlingame, California l,lay 3, 1976 A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Ha1I Council Chambers. The meeting wascalled to order bt 8:03 p.m. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:Led by !'Iayne M. Swan, City PIanner. ROLL CALL Counci.l Members Present : Council Members Absent : MINUTES Ams trup - Cros by -Harr i s on -Mangini -Mar t in None The minutes of the regular meeting of April 19, L976, previously submitted to the City Council , were approved and adopted. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Mangini proclaimed "NATIONAL NURSING HOME WEEK-Ii--EEe CiEy of Burlingemg beginning Mother's Day, May 9, through lf.ay L6, L976. Mr. Kantoff's letter of April 28, L976, appealed denial by the Planning Commission on April 26 of his application for special permit to sell clothing at retail in the industrial atea aE 27 Edwards CourE. A hearing before the City Council was scheduledfor the regular meeting of May L7, L976. 2. REQUEST OF C. E. YOI,]NG, IO1 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT OCCIDENTAL-BARROILHET INTERSECTION Mr. Young wrote to the City Council under date of April 1,9, L976,reciting two incidents of extensive damage he suffered when drivers, losing control of their vehicles, crashed into the Barroilhet side of his property at the northwest corner of Occ idental / Barroilhet intersecEion. fn his letter, Mr. Young stated there has been a steadily growing disregard of the four-way stop signs at the intet- section for the past 15 years; now, the very flagrant disregardof the majority of the drivers using the intersection must be dealt with. He urged "irnmedi.ate installation of a regulation stop-and-go traffic 1ight" at the i-nEersection, because the stop signs are ignored by a very large volume of traffic, residential property at the intersection is damaged repeatedly and children in the area endangered. In a memorandum dated Apr 7L 27, the City Manager reported the re- quest for signals will be referred to the Traffic Engineer fot in- vestigation and report. Council members agreed. COMMUNICATlONS I APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED AT REQUEST OF MARTIN KANTOFF, 1O9O CAROLAN AVENUE. 3. PROPOSED NEW STGN ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY PI.ANNING COMMISSION A letter dated April 28, L976, signed by Thomas ![. Sine and Thomas C. Taylor, Planning Connnission chairmen L975-76 atd' L976-77, respec-tively, forwarded for the City Council's review and adoption the /. CALL TO ORDER 2 final draft of the ordinance unanimous ly approved by the Commis s ion on April 26, L976, following a public hearing. The letter stated the Planning Conunission is prepared to meet with the City Councilat any time to discuss specific aspects of the proposal, to provide background information and oEher data considered necessary. Councilman Amstrup's recormendation that the material be reviewedfirst by the City Council in study session, and then with the Planning Commission, was accepted. A}.{USEMENT LICENSES 1. GOLDIE'S SALOON 24I CAL]FORNIA DRIVE An application to provide dancing and live music at the above estsablishment was filed under date of April 20, 1976 by Mrs.Irene Shea, 532 Alhambra Drive, San Mateo. In a subsequent com-munication dated May 3, 1976, Mrs. Shea asked for a continuanceto Ehe City Council meeting of May 17 in order to meet with fire department recournendat ions , letter of April 24, 1976. With con- currence of Council members, Mayor Mangini refer::ed the applica-tion Eo the meeting of May 17, L976. RENEWAL OF DANCE PERMIT PRIMROSE GARDENS, 1461 BURLINGAME AVENUE Upon receipt of a favorable report from the DepartmenE of Police under date of April 23, L976, the permit was renewed for a periodof one year on motion of Councilman llarrison, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote. 3. RENEWAL OF DANCE PERMIT AT BEARDSLEY'S 1445 BROADWAY STAT'F MEMORANDA 1. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY fn a memorandum dated April 29, L976, t]ne City Manager advised thatall applicants for the vacancy on the Planning Cormission were canvassed and asked to present additional information concerningqualifications and interest in serving. Attached to the City Manager's conmrunication were (1) Revised list of Planning Commis- sion nominees, (2) Note from Robert DeLzeLL, 1345 DeSoto Avenue, asking removal of his name from consideration for any corrnissionat this time, (3) Supplemental information forms from James L. Rhodes, Frank G. Pagliaro, Jr., Dewey Be11. I,trayor Mangini requested comrnent from Councilmen Crosby and Harrison, who were delegated to interview applicants and report Eo the Council. Councilman Harrison stated that, initially, it was agree Councilman Crosby and he would interview the people who d rhar had not e Cityto requests askingof that nd supple- been Coun theifr pro c ment 1n ci1cir hey edu a1 terviewed previously, or who were not known to th . However, it was decided, rather than do that,y Manager to send letters to all of the applicant wished to update material on fi1e. As a resultre, the Council now has all of the applications a informat ion . Councilman Harrison stated it was difficult to select one person from all the candidates, but he was prepared to offer a nomina- tion, an individual who was one of the candidates in the recent elecEion. He was one of the finalists, was not then, nor is he 106 The Department of Police, in a report dated April 23, L976, offered no objection to renewal. 0n motion of Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Harrison, all aye voice vote, the permit was renewedfor a period of one year. now, a member of any comnission; he has attended many City Council and Planning Commission meetings and, at the Mayor's request, attended a meeting of the San Mateo Scenic Roads Cornnittee and,later, volunteered his services to that Cormrittee. CouncilmanHarrison offered Ehe name of Robert Fisse, 3035 Trousdale Drive. Councilman Martin pointed out there is an application on file from Frank Cistu1li, a former member of the Planning Corrnission. Cotrmenting that procedure followed this evening in selecting a new cormissioner will establish a policy for all future comnissioner appointments, Councilman Martin suggested it would be to the advantage of the Council to vote by written ba11ot. In response to Mayor Mangini's inquiry on procedure, the CityAttorney advised the vote may be oral or written. Wri.tten ballots resulted in a vote of 4 for Frank Cistulli, 1 for Robert Fisse. Mr. Cistulli arrived later and washis appointment. informed by Mayor Mangini of 2. SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQTIEST FOR. FORMAL PROPOSAL ON PARAMED]CAL/TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Material on this subject from David M. Thoene, Emergency Medical Services Administrator for San Mateo County, was forwarded to the Council by the City Manager under date of Apr|1- 29, L976. Mayor Mangini announced that the material was forwarded by theCity Manager solely for informat ion. The Council heard presenta- tions from the City Manager and Fire Chief at the meeting ofApril 19, 1976, and declated its posiuion aE that time not to enter into the program. 3. WASTEI^IATER TREATMENT PLANT WORK Under date of April 29, L976, the City Manager forwarded a request from the Assistant City Engineer for approval to authorize struc-tural engineering design and constructsion of an access manhole in the side of the digester at the Treatment Plant at an estimated cost of $400 for engineering and $3,500 for construction. In his memorandum, the City Manager advised that the Director of Public Works/City Engineer recomended Jenks & Adamson for the design work as it is a technical problem and expertise is not available on City staff. The City Manager advised also that money is avail- able in lhe treatment plant budget if the cost is under $3,500. Councilman Harrison's motion authorizing the work was seconded by Councilman Amstrup, all aye voice vote. 4. MUNICIPAL CODE REVISIONS Under date of April L9, L976, the City Engineer/ Director of Public Works reconmended the following code amendments to the City Manager. I. "Section Ll .L2.010 height of trees, hedges, walls, etc., atintersections: Change four feet height limit to three feeE, soit will not be in conflict with Section 25.78.040. 2. Section 12.04.060 location and width of driveways: Add paragraph as follows: D. Abaodoned Driveways. No driveway curb cuts sha1l be all owed to remain oncE the driveway use is aban doned. The City Engineer sha1l require the adjacent property or^mer to restore thefull height curb and gutter across the driveway opening and restorethe sidewalk to its normal grade. The City Engineer shall use Eheprovisions of Section L2.12 of this Chapter, when necessary, toinsure compliance with the provision." -) 107 108 In an addendnm to the communication dated April 29, L976, the City Manager recomended necessary legislation be prepared. Counc ilman Martin asked what will be done about buildings that have been built over driveways and the curb cut remains, elimin- ating a parking space. The City Attorney advised he will confer with Public Works staff about any such buildings nor47 existing and prepare the ordinance to provide for restoration in those situations also. 5. MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCTATION INTERNATIONAL CON- FERENCE ON PUBLIC FINANCE Acknowledgement was made of a corrnunication dated Apr tL 29, L976, from the City Manager concerning the above to be held in San Francisco May 2-6 at the Hilton Hotel. In his communication, the City Manager noted these will be informative sessions on public finance and an opportunity not usually so readily available. 6. FIVE DOLI.AR GOLD PIECE FROM OLD CITY HALL CORNERSTONE Communications f 1976, concerning procedures followithin Ehe Burli approval of theof the applicat i and considered a submitted to Cit rom the City Manager dated April 28 and April 30, the above were discussed in connection with wed on two recent permits for new construction ngame Avenue Area Parking District. Following special peroits by the Planning Cormnission, one ons (Gel1er's) was forwarded to the City Councilt length; the other application (Rorke's) was noty Council. The City Planner, invited by Mayor Mangini to comnent, reconunended review of the zor.,ir,g code by the City Attorney from the stand-point of amendments required to clarify procedures on special permit applications. The City Attorney advised that zoning code amendments are presented to the Planning Cormission for study, hearing and recornnendationto the City Council . The Council, then, conducts its hearings. He stated he would like to see a complete revision of Title 25- ZonLng at some time in the future; for the present, he will prepare legislation providing for all special permit applications to be acted upon by Ehe Planning Conrnission with the appeal process to the CiEy Council . Councilman MarEin stated, with respect to appeals by the City Council of Planning Cormnis s ion actions, the Council is working under a handicap because it is not receiving full Planning Commission minutes by the time of the next Council meeting. It was his position that full minutes should be made available to the Council by Thursday or Friday following the Coumission meeting so that the Council would have sufficient information to judge whether or not an item should be called up for review. The time pre- scribed by the code for the Council to do this is the regular Council meering following the Planning Cormtission meeting. All of the members of the City Council, commenting individually, preferred to have compleEe minutes, rather than the sr:rnmary of Cormnission actions, by the next Council meeting. tl In a memorandr:m dated Apr iL 22, 1976, the City Manager reportedthat the coin was placed in the cornerstone in 1912 by EdwardV. Chevalier who was a councilman and that Mr. Chevalier's son stated it was placed there for good luck. The City Manager's reconrnendat ion, considering historical significance, that the coin be kept in the City's vault unEil a decision can be made as to eventual use, nTas accepted by the City Council. 7. TITLE 25 ZONING - SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESSES 109 8. PROPOSED MERGER OF THE BAY AREA SEWAGE SERVICES AGENCY (BASSA) AB 3041WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERN}MNTS (ABAG) -- In a cormnunication dated April 29, 1976, the CiEy Manager reportedthat a representative of ABAG has apparently been canvassing muni-cipalities to ask each city's position on the legislative bill which would incorporate BASSA into ABAG and provide for the latterto assume most of BASSA's obligations. The City Manager asked theCity Council's desires with respect to establishing a position onthd matter. Councilman Martin, City's representative to ABAG, advised that theBill (AB 3041) proposing consolidation, has been in process in Sacramento for some months. Recently, amendments offered by As s emblyman Knox, one of the authors of the BiIl, eliminatedseveral objectionable provisions, including BASSA's current taxingpotr7er. This will have the effect of substantial savings to the taxpayers; also, the Bill creates no new functions for ABAG. Councilman Amstrup, at one time a director of BASSA and presently an alternate, cotrmented that most of the people in San Mateo Countyactive on BASSA would like to see it dissolved. Stating he had no objection to the merger, and that it will eliminate BASSA's taxing authority, he expressed the hope that ABAG's planningactivities will be reduced, that it will not be given anotherfunction nor more tax dollars. Councilman Harrison's motion to support AB 3041 was seconded by Councilman Martin, unanimously carried on voice vote. The City Manager \"ras requested to inform the appropriate legislators of Ehe Council's action. 9. APPLICATION OF SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT FOR NOISE VARIANCE Under date of April 27, 1976, the City Planner forwarded to theCity Manager material on the above subject, including copy ofCity of San Bruno letter of March 26, L976, to the Department of Transportation, Sacramento, advising of its decision to requestthe status of intervener should Ehere be a hearing on the Airport Conmission application. The City Planner reconmended that theCity of Burlingame consider requesting similar status for the reason that, if this is not done, there will be little justifica- tion to complain about airport noise and the North County Aircraft Noise Abatement Task Force efforts would be of litt1e or no avai1. In an addendum to the coununicat ion, dated April 29, L976, t}:.e City Manager stated the advantages and possibilities of the statusof intervener will be investigated if Council- agrees. The City Planner reported to the Council it was his understandingthat the Mayor of San Bruno intends to \^7rite to other north countycities requesting they participate as interveners so they can take part in the hearings. The City Manager informed the Council he has heard nothing from the City of San Bruno but will call there to discuss the advantagesof interve.ntion. There were no objections from the Counc iI . Ms. Eleanor Ragsdale, 1105 Oxford Road, addressed the Council,advising she has received pertinent correspondence from Gary Mondfrans, Vice Mayor of San Bruno, indicating that City has already intervened. Ms. Ragsdale handed the docr:ments to theCity Manag er for information. 110 PROPOSED LEGISIATION (AB 3785-KNOX) TO DIVERT SAN MATEO COT'NTY GAX TAX REVENUES TO SUBSIDIZE BART 2, MONTHLY LEASING OF MA]L ROOM FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT RESOLUTIONS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1410 ROLLINS ROAD In a comunication dated April 29, L976, the City Manager reported that this is a lease/purchase agreement wherein the monthly pay- ments are applied to the purchase price. Item /11 : Approval withheld until ptrans have been presentsed to the City Engineer to assure that improvements can be accom- plished. Item 112: No obj ection. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 38-76 "A Resolution DirecEing Making of Amended Asseffissessment Districts Within The City 0f Burlingame" (1915 Improvement Bond Act, Series 45, 46, 47) was introduced by Councilman Martin, who moved adopti,on, second by Councilman Crosby, unanimously carried on ro11 ca11. In a corEnunication dated April 28, L976, the City Attorney ad- vised that, following completion of the new assessment diagrams by the City Engineer, the matter will be noEiced by the City Clerk and a hearing held to confirm the new assessments. Councilman Ams trup announced that, apropos to Ehe topic of regional goverrunent, he wished to discuss an article that aP- F#reZ-a5-E6-Sen Mateo Times edition of May L, L976, conceining the above legislation. Councilman Amstrup stated that, in allof his experience, this is one of the "most underhanded political tricks" he has encountered. If the BiIl passes, San Mateo CounEy will pay $1.6 million from its gas Eax monies to bail out debt-ridden BART. The CiEy of Burlingame would lose an estimated $85,800 annually. Justification advanced by Mr. Knox for his Bill is that San Mateo County residents use BART. Councilman Amstrup stated the City must act quickly. He re- conunended that Assemblyman Dixon ArneEt be informed of thisCity's strong opposition Eo the Bill and also that the City Attorney attend the Assembly Committee's meeting on l'lednesday, May 5 in Sacramento. Councilman Harrison recormnended that all of the members of the Assembly Transportation Connnittee be informed by telegram or mailagram of the Council's position in opposition. Councilman Martin suggested that the City Attorney confer with Assemblyman Victor Calvo of Mountain View, a member of the Assembly subcormnittee who opposed the Bi1l. The City Attorney reported he has talked with some members of County staff andwill try to reach As s emblyman Calvo. The AtEorney Tras authorized to represent the City at the hearing on May 5. CONSEM CALENDAR Under date of April 29, L976, the Assistant City Engineer re- ported !o the City Manager that the above map for Hatrmett & Edison Real Estate was approved by the Planning Commission on AprtL 26, 1976, subjecE to a series of conditions. (The con- ditions were recited in the coumunication. ) \D lLL 2. RESOLUTION N0. 39-76 "Resolution Re questing Corridor And tion, second by Councilman Harrison, unanimously carried on ro11 cal1. ORDINANCES Second reading 1. ORDINANCE N0. 1070 "An Ordinance Of The City Council 0f Highway Facility Study For Route Highway" was introduced by Counci The eiEi Of-Bui11n[ame Authorizing An Am Between The City Council And The Board 0 The California Public Employees' Retirem 280 As An Official Scenic lman Amstrup, who moved adop- endment To The ContracEf Administration Of ent System" (2% at 50 benefit for safety members ) was given its second reading. Declaring the hearing open to the floor, Mayor Mangini invited comnent. There was none. The hearing was declared closed. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, the Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on ro11 call. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1071 "Ordinance Re pealing One -Way Street Designation On HIgEl an d Avenue " was given its second reading. Declaring the hearing open to tshe f1oor, Mayor Mangini invited cornment, - There was none. The hearing was declared closed. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, the Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on ro11 call. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1072 "0rdinance Establishing Stop Intersection 0n OccidenEal Avenue Approac hing Howard Avenue From The South" was given its second reading. Declaring the hearing open to the floor, Mayor Mangini invited cotrmerit . Opposed: Rich Massey, 2LL9 Forest View Avenue, stated he has lived near the inEersection all of his life and that he has never witnessed an accident. He drives it frequenEly, there is clear view in a1l directions and he considers a stop sign there a waste of time and money. Support: Mrs. Kent P. Ainsworth, L29 Occidental Avenue, advised she moved into the area jusE t\^7o months ago. Because traffic moves at an exceedingty- high speed along Occidental , it is diffieult for elderly peofle to-cross the street. The new park at Occidental and Ralston Avenues will attraet children and senior citizens. It would be tragic to have someone hurt because a stop sign was not installed at a heavily traveled intersection. Mrs. Roy Muetzenberg, 128 Occidental Avenue, stated she initiated the petition for the stop sign. Most of the neighbors are con- cerned about heavy traffic and speeders. Occidental Avenue is beginning to resemble a freeway. Residents believe the stop sign is needed, they want it, they are especially concerned for the safety of their children. Douglas Boralus, 136 Occidental Avenue, stated he had a child struck at Occidental and Howard Avenue. Mr. Bowlus referred to comnunications to the City Cor:nci1 from the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer, dated April 13 and April 14, tespectively, concerning traffic counts and stop sign warrants at the inter- section of Occidental and Howard. LTz This material was before the Council when the Ordinance wasintroduced. Mr. Bowlus referred to excerpts from the Traffic Manual attached to the Traffic Engineer's conmunication, firstpage, first-paragraph after Item 5, i.e., "A STOP sign is nota 'cure-alI' and is not a substitute for other traffic controldevices. Many times the need for a STOP sign can be eliminatedif the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions."Mr. Bowlus sEated that at the meeting of April 5, the CityEngineer informed the Council of discussions in progress withthe owner of the property at the northeasterly corner ofOccidental and Howard where there is an oversi2gd hedge. Mr. Bowlus agreed that reduction of hedge height will help on theright-hand side of the intersection; unfortunaEely, to theleft, sight distance is poor because of trees and parked cars.Mr. Bowlus stated thaE theL4, L976, titled occidenral Traffic Engineer's report of April Howard Intersection indicates a min imum of 500 ve c es per ur to sat ePredicated on that criterion,the traffic flow tvolume war rant would require 8-1/3 vehicles per one vehicl e every 14 seconds. This appears to b heavy flow of traffic on r,rhat is supposed to be a residentialstreet, not an arterial. Mr, Bowlus conmented that a doctorwill practice defensive medicine; why cannot the same theoryor practice be applied in traffic engineering? Mr. Bowlus cormented the residents need the stop sign. There were no further comnents from the floor. was declared closed. The hearing A motion by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Harrison,presented Ordinance 1072 for Council action. On the question, Councilman Martin referred Eo the domnents of Robert M. David-son, in his memorandum to the City Manager dated April 14, L976, concerning "Stop Sign Warrants - Occidental and Howard." In support of Mr. Davidson's comments, Councilman Martin offeredthe following: If Che City is to operate a traffic engineering system, the State's standards must be observed; if the Chiefof Police were asked, he would probably confirm that a stopsign is not warranEed at this intersection; vTarrants for stopsigns are observed throughout the nation; Eechnicians do not approve of stop signs to stop traffi.c; the City created ahorror on Trousdale Drive with signs; the same situation should not be created on Occi-dental Avenue because the residenEs believe that a stop sign will slow traffic; Mr, Davidson'sletter is a prime example of the way the City Council should approach stop signs. Councilman Harrison stated he was able to accept CouncilmanMartin's cotrments in terms of State criteria. However, theCity Council must deal with each situation as it develops. He did not believe he would favor blanket approval of stopsigns as a method of slowing traffic, but in the presentsituation appreciated the feelings of the people and intendedto support the ordinance. Councilman Amstrup stated he has heard much about State criteria. The speed limit on residential streets in this City is 25 mph. The state says that the speed limit should be increased wherethere is evidence that everyone is violating the posted limit. Despite StaEe criteria for establishing speed limits, it does not necessarily follow that Ehat limit is the safe limit forthat particular street; the State's criteria should not be applied indis criminately withouE regard for 1ocal conditions. Ordinance 1072 passed its second reading and was adopted on the following ro11 call: Council Members Aye: Amstrup-Harrison-Mangini ,:Council Members No: Crosby, Martin S yt volume warrant .o satisfy minute and e an exceedingly 113 1 RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:07 p.m., Mayor Mangini reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS from 4-L9-76) on ouE 11er he Mayor Mangini announced that the Council, at the last meeting, reviewed Mr. Geller's proposal for an office building on a site within the boundaiiei of the Burlingame Avenue Area Parking DisErict. The discussion was cont inued from that meeting to the present; Mr. Geller and Councilman Martin were to meet in tire interim to attempt resolution of the dollar amount that t'Ir. Geller would contriLute to Ehe Parking District as a condi- tion to approval of his use permit. At Mayor Mangini's invitation, Councilman Martin req the mleting, stating that he and Mr. Geller talked f an hour and 45 minuies, and nothing was resolved. M did not make an offer; he stated he was bluffing and should initiate legal action against the CiEy to prove once- and for all that t6e Ordinance regulating construction in the Parking District is invalid (Ordinance 1003). Tt was his opinion :-t wouid Bdvantageous for the City to kno\.r that. Councilman Martin sLated he"proposed to Mr' Gell-er, since he was asking for permission to cover too% of a lot when the law restricts coverage to 75%, and, since that excess coverage approximates -2,600-squarefeet oi floor area in his building, Mr. Ge11er should pay into the Parking District an amount eqtal to one year's rent on-the additional-space, or $15,600. (50C per foot per month on 2,600 square feet = $1,300 monthly = $15,600 full year). This payment would be made Eo the City for the privilege of exceeding per-mitted 1ot coverage. lk. Geller did not agree withthe proposal. Councilman Martin stated he personally considered $2C,000 areasonable contribution. ortedor abr. Ge that Referring to the minutes of April L9, L976, Councilman Marrin read, "Councilman Martin asked Mr. Ge11er his intentions as far as impact on the Parking District. Councilman l4artin pointed outthat the EIR makes several statements relating to impact -removal of two trees, decrease in light and air to existing apartment units at 137 Lorton Avenue, visual change and possibleloss of sight distance with a building constructed to theproperty line along Lorton Avenue, additional pedestrian andvehicular traffic, all-day parking by employees of rhe proposedbuilding having significant impact on the Parking District. " Councilman Martin recornnended that Ge11er be refused the additionallot coverage for the reasons stated in the EIR - the projeccwill have harmful impact on the Parking District and on adjoiningresidenEial property. If Mr. Geller chooses to go into court,this will establish whether or not Ehe Ordinance is va1id. The Ordinance was prepared and adopted for the purpose of regulatingbuilding size wibhin the Parking Dj.strict to lessen, among otherthings, traffic and parking. Itr. Geller addressed the Council , stating, first, Ehere was noappeal from any source on the special permit granted by thePlanning Conmission; in fact, he asked at the April 19 meeting why his project appeared on the Council's agenda. Mr. Gellermaintained that he was entitled to the permit, there was noappeal, it was not called up by the City Council, and accordingto City ordinances, in the absence of an appeal, Planning Conrnj-s -sion decision stands. JOSEPH GELLER APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING, 1203 HOWARD AVENUE (continued LL1 Mr. Ge1ler stated he considered the Ordinance regulating con-struction within the Parking District, and the manner in which rhe City has sought contributions to the District, invalid. He indicated willingness to negotiate but did not know whatto propose to Ehe Council . He confirmed that, during the meeting with Councilman Martin, the latter did propose the $I5,600 payment wiEh a comrent that it was not a negotiablefigure. Mr. Geller stated he informed the Councilman that thefigure was arbitrary, it was not based on a reasonable stan- dard, guideline or comparison, that it amounted to a penaltsy, and that if there should be a court decision requiring him topay, at leasE the court would establish a formula. I{e statedthat Councilman Martin simply stated that was the amount,that it was not intended to be equitable but was consistentwith his desire to restrain development in the Parking Dis-trict until the District's general problems were resolved. Mr. Geller agreed there has been precedent for contributj-ons by developers, Safeway Stores, for one, but that is not acriterion that can be applied Eo establish his contribution. The situation was totally different. Safeway took credits against the bonds; then, desiring to expand its building, decided to buy back into the Dto make up for the credits. Hsituation is Ehe addiEion to t Bank building. Referring to tthird paragraph, he noted that contributed moniesat the only s imi larPacific National hat proj ect, Page 5,r the new addition istrict and e stated th he Security he EIR on t the EIR. The d contribute $9,0rking spaces to parking fo ccording to required tofor two pa was substandard by 10 spaces a velopers of that project wereto the Parking District to pay e- 00 be uponi1- 10 acquired by the City. That contribution was conditioned the money being refunded if such parking was noE made ava able within three years. He stated that the shortage of spaces was predicated upon an addition of 8,400 square feetof floor area Lo the building. Applying the same formula in his case, where he is adding 2,600 square feet of floor area over and above allowable coverage (2,500 being approximately one-third of 8,400) it would seem that his contribution should be one-Ehird of the $9,000 paid by Blumberg for his project, or $3,000. He indicated willingness to compromise and to pay some figure between $3,000 and $3,530 on the condition that the money be refunded to him if it is not spent for parking within a period of two years. Councilman Harrison cornnented Security Pacific National Bank provides its own parking, !1r. Geller will offer none. Councilman Martin, rebutting Mr. Ge11er's comlents concerning their discussion, stated that Lhe meeEing started with a stafe- ment by Mr. Geller that he (Martin) had a conflict of interest because he was a councilman when the addition to the bank build- ing was approved. Councilman Martin stated he explained to Mr. Geller that he made a very careful point of not discussing Ehat project with any councilman, nor did he sit on the rostrum when the matter was heard. He stated, wiEh respect to adamancy concerning the $15,000 amount, thaE the last figure men- tioned at the April 19 meeting was $22,500, and the $15,600 was proposed in support of that. He stated that, at one point, Mr. belier mentioned $3,000; when he was asked if that was a firm offer, llr. Geller stated he had not made an offer' The meeEing closed with the understanding that the $3,000 would not be mentioned and that Geller would be given the opportunity to make an offer to the City Council. Councilman Martin stated he was not adamant on the $15,600, and that the staEement he was unwilling to consider any other amount was untrue. Councilman Marrin stated he informed Mr. Geller that the Ordin- ance was adopted to stop or slow development in the Parking 115 District in order to reduce i.mpact in that area; restrictionson lot coverage, height and building bulk were imposed for thatspecific purpose. He stated that Mr, Geller also made somecomlents about certain miscalculations on parking requirementsappearing 1n lhe EIR on the bank building addition. He may becorrect, the figures \rere not available when this was discussed.Councilman Martin reiterated his position that $20,000 is areasonable and equitable contribution. Councilman Harrison stated he tended to disagree r^zith Mr. Geller'sclaim that there were no criteria for equita6le computation ofthe amount he should pay. Considering all factors l- maximr:m1ot covelage of 75%, the proposal to exceed that maximum, theamount of additional square footage of building and rent theapplicanE will realize -- it certainly would appear there arecri.teria for the $15,600. Furthermore, the City Council hasthe discretion to decide whether or not excess coverage shouldbe allowed; Mr. Gel1er is asking for something over and abovethat which is permitted by law, and for something he cannotdo unless the Council approves. Mayor Man-g ini stated he was concerned with what would be equit-able to the City Council and equitable to the applicant and hisproject. He stated he was undecided abour the $15,600, whetherthat, or an amount one-half of that, would be more equitable.He asked about legitimacy of the Ordinance. The City Attorney responded the Ordinance is perfectly defens-ible. There are limitations all over the city on buiiding con-struction. Councilman Martin has stated the reasons that-thelimits were placed on the Parking Districr. Councilman Crosby stated he has sat through many similar hear-ings and, of this moment, was not certain what representsequity-on any of the properties. The Council is ittemptingto arrive at something that will be fair to the City ana toa developer. He reminded Mr. Ge11er of their many tonversationson parking problems in the City. He suggested to-Mr. Gellerthat he knows his project will add to those problems. Council-man Crosby staled each time the Council is faced with an issueof this kind, the City alwals feels it did not receive enoughand the- other-party ahrays feels he paid too much. Mutuall!acceptable solutions do not come easily. Mr. Geller stated he has attempted to present guidelines basedon the formula applied to the Blumberg- development; in thatcase, there was an addition of 8,400 square feet to the thirdstory.of an existing building that affected parking; thecontr ibut ioq, required !y the City was 99,000. His projectproposes 2,600 square feet over and above permitted- footagebut he is expected to contribute in excess- of $15,000. Councilman Martin stated that Mr. Geller made a point of mention-ing that no appeal was taken from the ruling of the planning Commission. Councilman Martin advised that no formal appealwas taken because the City Attorney ruled that the mattLi wasproperly before the City Council. Councilman Harrison asked I,Ir.Geller if he would agree to the $15,000 figure. Mr. Gellerresponded "no. " Mayor Mangini asked for his reaction to $7,500. Mr. GellercounEered that all of this was arbitrary. Ee explained he wasattempting to establish a relationship with othei contributionsthat were made in the past. If precedent shall be the basis ofasking for a contribution, let piecedent establish how thecontribution shal1 be settled. Councilman Amstrup stated that one ofstatements of two different criteria.ptoblems has beenstated he did not the He 116 know which was correcE, and did not recall the criteria appliedin the Bh:mberg project. Mr. Geller wants to build a building, he has mentioned an amount. Councilman Amstrup asked for cotrmentsin opposition to that figure, and further, was $15,000 a firmfigure to be cons idered. Councilman Martin stated he would rather not a1low 1007" coverage because of the potential for severe impact on the Parking Dis-trict and adjacent residential properEy. He stated Ehat Mr. Geller can build a building of. 75% lot coverage, which will have the effect of reducing possible impact on the ParkingDistrict. The Ordinance should not be ignored. Mr. Geller refused to consider the $15,000 figure. Councilman MarEin stated he would prefer that Mr. Geller's permit not be allowed and that he build within the requirements of the Ordinance and help the Parking District to that extent. Councilman Amstrup stated that the matter of a formal appeal is not important now. He agreed that the Council was concerned about problems in the Parking District and, for thaE reason, enacted the Ordinance; on the otsher hand, the same procedure used on another similar project approved by the Planning Com- mission should have been applied to the Geller project; it was noE. He stated there have been nurnerous references to the Blum- berg project and to the developer's contribution to the Parking Dislrict; whether or no! that represents a criterion may be debaEable. He suggested that the Council come to some decision on a lesser figure. Councilman Crosby moved to susEain Planning Connnission -approvalof the Ge11er sp-ecia1 pgrmit for office building use of the property located at 1203 Howard Avenue on the condition that i{r.-Gelier contribute the sum of $3,530 to the Parking District, the money to be paid when the building permit issues. The motion was seconded by Councilman Amstrup, carried on following ro11 call: Council Members Aye : Council Members No: Ams E rup - Cro sby-Mang in i Harri s on -Mart in UNFINISHED BUSINESS Hand-waterin of lanters on Burli ame Avenue : strup as w yE e exPens ve spr r-n I ng system used. He stated he has observed a man hand-water occasions. The CiEy Manager was requested to inv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conununications : Counc ilmanis not beinging on several estigate. 1. Bay Cities tr{holesale Hardware Company, 1761-ldrian Road, expresiion of appreciation for assistance of Police DePartment personnel in a recent burglarY. 2. James E. Balentine, Mayor, City of Newark, concerning oppo- sition voiced by some citiLs Eo replacement of Dr:mbarton Bridge as a meEhod of advancing public transit. 3. Daniel E. Whelan, 1541 Columbus Avenue, concerning advertis- ing in 1oca1 buses. 4. Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, 301 Burlingame Avenue, expressing thanks and appreciation for palm branches to be used in Palm Sunday WorshiP Services. 5. Jack D. Farrel1, City Clerk, Town of Atherton, concerning dissolution of San Mateo County Harbor District. / I 1/ v 4 _'<-rqlvrffi !.__--|-!-r. crr?_v!rE:F_FtrF,F,E?tr*rr|iFrr{'r L77 6. Report from City Planner concerning Planning Conrnission actions and recommendations , April 26, L976, meeting. 7. Minutes: Planning Corrnission, Apr iI L2, L976. Counc ilmanfourth par sqggeste4 cation of Avenue from C-l to C-2. Councilman Martin stated this was a directive to the Plannin g Cormnission, not a suggestion. ADJOURNMENT:At 10:20 p.m. to an Executive Session on personnel. Respectfully submitted, Z-"-L*- 2,1 zlzz Evely4r H. 8i11, City Clerk /, Martin noted that on Page 4 of the above minutes, agraph, the statemenc is made thac the Council the Cornrnis s ion and staff study possible reclassifi- a portion of California Drive south of Burlingame