Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1976.05.171tB Burlingame, California I"lay L7 , 197 6 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the abovedate in the City HaII Council Chambers. The meeting was ca11ed toorder at B:05 P. M. by Mayor Victor A. Mangini. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:Led by Wayne M. Swan, City Planner. ROLL CALL Council Members Council Members Present: Absent: of the regular meetingCouncil, were approved Cro sby-Harri son-Mangini -MartinAmstrup (excused, business) MINUTES The minutesto the City of May 3, 1976, previously submitted and adopted. HEAR]NG MARTIN KANTOFF, 1O9O CAROLAN AVENUE: APPEAL DENIAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL CLOTHING AT AREA AT 27 EDWARDS COURT. FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RETAIL IN INDUSTRIAL The City Council- received an appeal from Mr. Kantoff dated 4/28/76and scheduled hearing at this meeting. Material received by thecouncir incl-uded consent of property owner to this application,dated 4/L/76; petition, undated, containing 116 signatures urgj-ngCouncil approval of permit; fetter dated 5/LO/76 requesting approvalfrom David Keyston, Anza Pacific; letter of approval dted 5/13/76from Ann Spans; memo report dated 5/12/76 from City planner. Declarj-ng the hearing open to the floor, Mayor Mangini invited Howard J. Solomon, 1060 Carolan Avenue told Council he approved comment. thisthe area. part retail use because: I. There2. ft would bring added taxesretailers in the Broadway areaof the City. retail businesses already inthe City. 3. It would aidbringing more traffic to this are to by At this juncture, Mayor Mangini queried City Attorneythe decision in the event of a tie vote of Counci1.replied that in this case the appeal would be deniedof the Planning Commission upheld. Coleman as to The City Attorney and the decision Ms. Rosemary Santonicola, 1015 Cadillac Way, a former resident of New York City, was in favor, statJ-ng there are many such businessesin the warehouse areas of metropolitan areas such as New York, andnone here. James C. Back, 825 Paloma, noted the presence of other retail usesin this area such as sale of boats and automobile accessories, andthe fact that there are many empty warehouses. He too noted thatsuburban areas of Los Angeles and New York have uses of this typewhich do not seem to take business away from the retail areas ofthese cities. Ms. Julie Brandt, 1090 Carolan, spoke i-n favor, comparing itrecent opening of Loehmann's in Daly City; and stating Lherea need for a discount clothing outlet for designer clothingBurlingame. Ms. Elayne Cudmore, 1025 Cadillac Way, managerNorthpark Apartments, noted that many residents of Northparkfavor of this establishment. to the wasinofare r_n ryffir- 119 There were no further conments declared cl-osed. from the f1oor. The hearing was Councilman Crosby requested that the City Planner review pertinent facts of this application for the information of the public present. The City Planner quoted M-I District regufatj-ons as being ". . toestablish and maintain all areas designated as M-I district for the purposes of products manufacturing, warehousing and distribution and such other auxiliary and accessory uses . . .; to provide areasfor commercial and public recreation uses whose space or other requirements preclude establishment of such uses in any other part ofthe city; and to prohibit uses, buildings and structures which are incompatible with the intended character of the district. " He r^tent on to state some retail uses have been granted in this area,but many are auto related uses serving occupants of the industrialpark area. Other permits such as a recent one for a deli service, and others for recreational facilities, also serve businesses in thearea. He noted the permit for sale of boats was a short-term temporary use permit, and emphasized the Planning Commissionrsopinion that any such proposed uses should be consistent with thepurposes of the M-I area. Councilman llarrison stated he was sympathetic vrith the intent anddesire of Mr. Kantoff. However, he thought that since the Council charges the Planning Corurission with carrying out and maintaining the zon.ing code of the City, their action should be sustai,ned. Councilman Martin also voiced sympathy with the applicant and the people who want this business in Burlingame, but he did not thinkthis was the area for it. He considered that zoning integrity shou]d be maintained; and \^rhile he approved some uses as sustaining thearea, he did not consider that a retail dress shop did. He stated he would vote to uphold the Pl-annj-ng Commission. Mr. Kantoff expfained that he had a IL year lease at his present address and was engaged in the wholesale distribution of auto parts. He had tried to get out of the l-ease but was unsuccessful. I{e went on to say that his business needs the additional income and he had deliberately chosen the weekend hours j-n order not to j-ncrease traffic. He stated that if a permit were given for the lL years, it would give him time to look for a more suitabfe location. Withoutthe permit he would have to close down his business, which is going badIy. He stated he had much former experience in the clothingbusiness, and could use it to keep his other business going. He commented he had made application because boating sales and autoparts sales are permitted in the area, and he considered his retail business would not be more inconsistent with the zoning than these. Councilman Crosby noted that Cor:ncil had not granted these otheruses, hras considering his case on an appeal , and needed definitesubstantiation that it should be allowed. Mr. Kantoff pointed out that this type of business served thefunction of allowing people to buy fine clothing at reasonable prices, and for this reason, the store could offer no standard amenities andmust be in this type of 1or4r rent focation. He stated he had lookedat two other locations, the Encore theatre and an office building onE1 Camino, neither of which was suitable. Mayor Mangini reported that he had visited the areaparking. He did not think it would interfere withand considered he would support this applicatj-on. and it had ampleother businesses He requested Council-man Crosby was inclined to agree with Councilmen Harrison and Martin. He was sympathetic but did not consider the use was consistent with the purpose of the M-1 district. He questioned theapplicant if he had Looked in any other area to establish his business. a 120 confi.rmation that refusal ofout of his present business. permit would force Mr. KantoffKantoff replied that it woufd. thi s Mr. Councilman Harrison declared he did not wish to drj-ve anyone outof busj-ness. He remarked that the City has a policy of amortizationof undesirable uses, and he woufd be agreeable to the lj-mited periodof 1! years. Council-man Martin questioned Mr. Kantoff closely as to what he would do after this 1L year period. Mr. Kantoff replied he would either move or apply for a continuation of the permit. fn reply to the Council-manrs further questj-on, he stated he had not informed thePlanning Commission he would be wilting to be out in 1| years. Counci1man Crosby questioned why his present business was in jeopardy, and Mr. Kantoff cited the increase in the sales of new automobiles and fewer car owners repairing their o1d cars. Councilman Harrison suggested the condition that the permit not be renewed after l\ years. Mr. Kantoff indicated this would be satis-factory since this would altow him time to find another tocation. Councilman Crosby broached the subject of precedent, and the possibilityof others applying for short term permits. Mayor Mangini remarkedhe was not concerned about matters of precedent; but rather consideredeach case should be heard on its own merits. Mr. Kantoff pointedout anyone starting in business would not want a permit for onlyl! years. However, he was already there and considered. this areasonable request. After receiving confirmation that Mr. Kantoff's lease expired on December l, 1977, Councilman Harrison moved that this permit beapproved until December ),, ),977, with the condition of the hoursbeing Fridays: 4 p,m. to 10 p.m.i Saturdays and Sundays: 9 a.m. to5 p. m.seconded the motion.\\s\6!{o\)ry'".. On the question, Councilman Crosby asked who would police thisoperation. There followed discussion, with Chief Nordstrom indicatingcooperation of the Police Department if the Council so directed. Councilman Martin questioned that it \^ras the City's responsibilityto subsidize a failing business i and, whil-e he did see some com-patibility in an auto parts business, again stated he saw none j-n adress shop. Mayor Mangini received confirmation from Mr. Kantoff that he wouldnot be engaging in both businesses at the same time perj-ods. The motion fail-ed on the following rof.I call vote: AYES: NAYES: IpqFNT.F. COI]NCILMEN: COI]NCILMEN: COI]NCILMEN: Mr. Kantoff was informed APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT MANGINI, HARRISON MARTIN, CROSBY AMSTRUP his appeal was denied. LI CENSE 1. MRS. IRENE SHEA FOR GOLDIE I S SALOON, 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. Mayor Mangini acknowledged receipt of Pofice Department report datedllay 6, 1976 recommending this permit be approved for a six-monthperiod. He requested Council discussion. Councilman Crosby questioned if there had been compliance with theFire Department reguirements. Mr. James Shea Jr. addressed the Council and stated that needed corrections had been completed with the ex-ception of taping the ceiling and installation of a Class A flue.Fire Chief Moorby indicated to Council that these corrections had been specified before a business license coul,d be issued; that it was L2L not the i s s uance intent of the Fire Department that they be required for theof the amusement license. City Manager Schwalm questioned if the applicant had a restaurant li-cense from the County Heal-th Department yet. Ivlr. Shea indicated the County Health Department had contacted him with a list of requirements, most of which he had fulfi1led. The City Manager suggested permit be conditioned upon receipt of this license. On Mayor Mangini'squestion, Mr. Shea said this condition would be satisfactory. Councilman Martin requested cl-arification of the comment in thePolice Department letter that if the cfj-ent capacity of the restaurant reaches more than 50 people, the owners wiII hire a security patrol.Police Chief Nordstrom confirmed that the owner intends to do thisif the patrons number 50 or more. He added he did not know the capacityof the restaurant. Fire Chief Moorby commented that if there are more than 50 patrons, panic hardware will be required. CouncilmanMartin considered the Police Department should have @ntro1 of when asecurity patrol \"ras hiredi for example, if they begin to receivecomplaints. He suggested that if the Police Department thinks theestablishment needs security personnel they should ask the owner tohire, and he would have to do it. Mr. Shea stated he understood. 1. PURCHASE OF EIRE ALARM AERIAL PLATFORM In a memorandum dated t'lay 13, 1976 City Manager Schwalm recommendedthe purchase of a repfacement fire alarm aeriaf platform from theFire Department Equipment Sinking Fund. Attached to this memorandum was correspondence dated May ll, L976 from Fire Chief Moorby qiving reasons for the necessity of this purchase and listing three bids from the suppliers of this equipment. He recommended purchase fromthe Pac-Power Company, concurred in by the City Manager. Mayor Mangini requested Cor:ncil co(urent. Councilman Martin specified that cognizance be taken of the factthat Pac-Power is not the low bidder. The City Manager's recommen-dation was accepted by the City Council with this stipulation. 2. PROPOSALS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CONSULTATION. City Manager Schr4,a1m reviewed his memorandum of 5/13/76 recommend.ingCouncil approval of contacting municipal finance consultants toobtain proposals for their services in the areas of accounting,budgeting, and cost accounting systems; organization review; personnel utilizationi and others. Attached to his memo was a sample letterto be used in contacting these organizations. The City Councilvoiced no objection, and the City Manager was instructed to proceed with obtaining these proposals. 3 REMOVAL OF ON-STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS, LANG ROAD AND IlOO BLOCK OF SANCHEZ AVENUE . City Manager Schr^ralm recommended. by endorsement of 5/13/16 on memorandum of 5/4/76 from Assistant City Engineer Rebarchik thatparking restrictions be removed in certain sections of Lang Road andin the 1l-00 block of Sanchez. Attached to this nremo was report fromTraffic Engineer Moore on the shrouding of parking signs in theseareas on an experimental basis, and the favorable reaction of citizens. The City Manager noted this experiment had been at Council request. Councilman Crosby moved this license be granted for a period ofsix months subject to permit from the County Heafth Department, andsubject to Police Department determj-nation if additional securityis needed. Councilman Harrison seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roII call vote, Councilman Amstrup absent. (Renewal subject to Council review. ) STAFF MEMORANDA L22 Mayor Mangini suggested this recor[IEndation be referred to the Traffic,Safety and Parking Commission for input. City Manager Schwalm stated this would be done and, with the concurrence of the commission, proper legislation forwarded for the Council-rs consideration. 4. ROOF SIGN AT 230 CALIFORNIA DRIVE City Attorney Coleman reviewed his memo of May 10, 1976 concernj.ng billboard on the roof of the buildinq aE 230 California Drive. Attached to City Attorney's memo was letter dated May 4, 1976 from Carl Anderson, owner of the premises and the billboard, which requested delay of proposed city amortization of the sign until July 1, 1978 unless tenants of the building desired to use the sign after that perj-od. Mr. Anderson's letter further stated that unless City action was delayed until that date, the Johnson Advertising Agency would contest the ordinance. The City Attorney stated he considered this anroof sign, and he was concerned that if it was tenants might then want to use it further. He from Counci 1. attempt to continue the continued until 1978, requested direction Mayor Mangini questioned if the concern was whether to abate the sign now or at the end of the lease. The City Attorney replied that the abatement date was at hand and a l-2 month notice had been given tothe owner. It was his position if the sign were alfowed to remainuntil 1978, owner would again appeal at that time. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Mangini explained this signis a roof sign - billboard - directly south of the SP station, whichcurrently carries a cigarette ad. He added he woul-d have no objectionto continuing the sign until 1978, with abatement to proceed then. In the following discussion, Councilman Crosby commented heobjection to this continuation if it were definite the sign taken do\"rn at the end o f it . had no should be Councilman Harrison moved the City Attorney be directed to abatethe roof sign. City Attorney Co]eman remarked he afready had thatdirection from the ordinance, unless the Council directed otherwise. The motion died for Iack of a second., Councilman Crosby moved that the sign be affowed until July 1, 1978 and then abated at that time. Mayor Mangini seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roII caff vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: CROSBY, MANGINI, MARTIN NAYES: COTINCILMEN: HARRISON ABSENT: COT]NCILMEN: AMSTRUP Mayor Mangini announced the sign would remaj-n until July 1, ).978 and would then come down. City Attorney Coleman stated he srouldwrite Mr. Anderson to this effect. 5. INTERVENTION IN AIRPORT NOISE PROCEEDINGS tlayor Mangini requested corunent from City Attorney Coleman. The City Attorney stated he had discussed this matter with the City Attorneyof a neighboring city who had suggested that intervention be seriously weighed, since there wil1, in any event, be a public hearing at whj-ch various cities can express opinions. If Burl-ingame shoul-d become a formal intervener, action would be indicated. The City Attorneystated he wished to make sure the City would not be committing itselfto an undesirable course. Mayor Mangini questioned if in his opinion the matter should be tabLed. The City Attorney stated this would be advisable, for further study. \ L23 F.T. McDonnell, 1436 CorLez, thought it would be in the best interest of the City to j-ntervene. This would not be taking a position against San Bruno, but rather would be to consider whether or not the Airport wil-I be granted further time to comply with noise standards in effect since 1970. Intervention would give the opportunity to determine why the airport is not complying at the present. Following these comments, Mayor Mangini announced this matter would be tabl-ed pending further information from the City Attorney. CONSENT CALENDAR I. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, 1516 IIOOVER AVENUE RESOLUT I ONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 40-76 ''ACCEPTING CITY SIDEWALK REPATR PROGRAM 1975-1976" was introduced by Councilman Harrison,moved adoption, second by Councilman Crosby, unanimously carried on roll call of members present. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 41-75 "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY DISSOLU-OF BURIINGAME, STATE OF CALIT'ORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE TION OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT.'' Mayor Mangini requested the City Attorney to comment on the impli- cations of this document. City Attorney Colemarlfommented that the City of Atherton probably had already made application, and this actlon by the Council would make Burlingame a party to the proceeding. Mayor Mangini questioned if in his opinion it should be delayed for further report. The City Attorney replied that no further report \i/as necessary, but the Council should realize that staff time would be involved. The resolution was introduced by Councilman Martin,\^,\ho moved adoption, secontl by Councilman Crosby. Councilman Harrison, afternate to Local Agency Formatj-on Cornmission (LAFCo) announced his intention of abstaining' The motion carrj-ed on the following ro11 call vote: AYES : NAYES : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCI LMEN 3 COT]NClLMEN: CROSBY, MANGINl , MARTIN NONE HARRI SON AUSTRUP Councilman Martin explained he endorsed the resolution for the reason that, if Burlingame is going to become involved, it cannot expect other cities to carry the entire load. Burlingame has to do its share . Councj-lman Martin commented that on the surface intervention may seem an excelfent idda, but noted that Burlingame, San Bruno and South San Francisco may not be compatible in the matter of noise reduction. For example, a decrease in over-ffights for San Bruno could result in more noise for Burlingame. Change in runways could affect this city. Mrs. Dolores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue, speaking from the f1oor, told the Council she had been informed that F'A.A. rules are not being followed at San Francisco Airport. She urged action in the matter of noise abatement . In the absence of Councit objection and in accordance with estab- lished polj-cy, the Director of Public Works' approval of the encroach- ment was sustained. t t24 3. RESOLUTION NO. 42-76 ''RNSOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREI,IENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME" was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved adoption,second by Councilman Harrison, unanimously carried on roll call of members present. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 43-76 ''RESOLUTION AUTHORIZlNG EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR AMORTI ZATION OF APARTMENT DWELLINGS" Mayor Mangini requested comment from the City Attorney who stated this is amortization overa period of years of the apartment dwelling at 1516 Ralston Avenue.He noted that Council had already approved in substance. Thisresolution riyas introd.uced by Councilman Harrison, who moved itsadoption, Councilman Crosby seconded, and unanimously carried onro11 call of members present. 5. RESOLUTION 44-76 ''AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OE FTNAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS - SORENSON & I\,TARSH, INC. ET AL. '' COUNCiIMANCrosby introduced this resolution and moved its adoption. The motionwas seconded by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on ro11caff of members present. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 45-76 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OE LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT. " This resolution concerning the Tibbettsproperty, at Rhinette Avenue and Cali-fornia Drive, was introducedby Councilman Harrison who moved its adoption, second by CouncilmanCrosby and unanimously carried on rol-f call of members present. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 46-76 "RESOLUTTON AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MASTER DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT" was introduced by Councilman Martinwho moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby and unanimouslycarried on ro11 calt of members present. ORDINANCES Introduction. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1073 "ORDINANCE INCREASING TREASURERI S BOND AND ESTABLISHING BOND OF DEPUTY TRXASURER', was introduced for fi_rstreading by Councilman Harrison. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1074 ''ORDINANCE 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1075 ''ORDINANCE AMENDING HEIGHT OF WALLS, ETC. AT INTERSECTIONS" was introduced for firstCouncilman Martin. RESTORATION OF ABANDONED DRIVEWAYS ''by Councilman Crosby. oE T:25,396.91, approved for paynent on second by Councilman Martin, unanimously T]NFINISHED BUS INESS Hand-wate rin of fanters on Burlin ADDING SECTION 12.04.065 REQUIRING was introduced for first reading TREES, HEDGES, reading by through 18395 in the amount motion of Councilman Harri-son,carried on voice vote . ame Avenue: PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Mangini proclaimed "Twenty-one days to Honor America" starting.Iune 14 through July 4, 1976; and "BURLINGAME DAyS" in the City ofBurlingame beginning May 28, 1976 through June 6, 1976. APP ROVALS WARRANTS Nos. 2557 through 2837, duly audited, in the amount of.20 were approved for payment on motion of Council-man Harrison,545,03 second by Councifman Martin, unanimously carried on voice vote. PAYROLL Apri1, 1976, Checks Nos. f7705 na t aa ted d 1S CUS S l-On O f Paron this subject. This memo system - incorrect type and D .Irec tor Hoffman I s memo Councilman Crosbyof May 7, 197 6pointed out the inadequacies of theimpractical i nst-al.lation of sprinklers