Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.01.20317 Burlingame, California January 20, 1975 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council date in tire City HalI Council Chambers. Meeting 8:05 P.M. by Mayor William J. Crosby. was held on the called to order above at PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Gerald A. Nordstrorn, Chief of Police. ROLL CALL Present: Absent : Councilmen: Councilmen: Ams trup-Crosby -Cu s ick-Harr i son-Mangi ni None i"IINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of January 6, submitted to the City Council, were approved and Mayor Crosby announced this was the time and place a public hearing and to consider the appeal of San Airport Company from Planning Commission denial of sigrrs B feet high by 60 feet long. 1975, previously adopted.. Ii'iTiIODUCf ION: l,iayor Crosby def erred to Vice-Mayor Amstrup, of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau, rvho John Steen, the Bureaurs Executive Director. HEARING 1. SHERATOI{ INN ROOF SIGN APPROVED President introduced schedulecl to conduct Francisco Sheratonpermit for 2 roof i'layor Crosby announced ground ru1es, then declared the hearing open. iit his request, the City Planner initiated the discussion. Irl reviewing events leading to Sheraton's appeal, the Planner recalled that a resolution passed by the Planning Commission in JuIy, L974, recommencleci to the Cit,y Council consideration of amendments to zoning and sign cocles prohibiting roof signs, that, subsequently, Ord.inances L{os. 1023 and 1025 were approved and adopted by the City Council and became effective January 2 ancl 16, L975, respectively, wherel:y sign anci zonj.ng cocles were amended to prohibit roof signs. The Planner statecl that staff was working witfr Sheraton on its sign displays tluring the ti-me the code amendments were being considered. App1i- cations were filed for sign permits in November, L974, reviewed by Planning Commission at its study meeting on December 9 and, following a public hearing on December 30, L974, 3 of the proposed signs were approveci. A motion to approve roof signs, Nos. 4 and 5, failed on a voLe of 3 in favor to 4 opposed, resulting in Sheraton's appeal to City Council to overrule Commission actj.on. rrlayor Crosby recognized Cyrus J. I"tcl,Iil1an, attorney representing Richard Schubot and Mr. Laks, owners of the franchise from Sheraton. iYr. Mci,lillan atnounced his intention of submitting matters of equity for the Council's consideration before discussing details of the sign. l{e recalled that (1) The hotel was buitt under a special permit issued by the City Council in December, 1968, that the permit was extended for various times until 1972 when the present applicant applied for and was issued a foundation permit. The hotel is now virtually complete. (Z) AIl of the material submitted in the prior application was for a i{oward Johnson development, and all of the plans and sketches siiowed a large roof sign. The motion granting the special permit referred to approval of the project in accordance with plans and sketches submitted. This, the City Council should bear in mind. Tire present applicant macle changes whereby building height was reduced sorne 24 feet, building face surface reduced 252, floor area reduced about 1 acre, and total sign area modifiecl from 2500 squarefeet to 1500 sguare feet. 318 Mr. flcltlillan contended that the application, in all fairness, shouldnot be considered under the ordinances that very recently becameeffective, but under the terms of ordinances in effect when thespecial permit was issued to Howard Johnson, for the reason that theapplicant purchased the site and built the building in reliance uponthe special permit. Furthermore, all plans submitted by Sheraton have shown roof signs. These were subsequently reduced in area after discussion with staff and Planning Commission and color changed fromred to blue with resultant less visibility. Because of the changein color, perhaps the signs will be less objectionable to the com-munity than some other existing signs. Mr. I,lcMillan ref erred to liyatt House and Ramada f nn roof signs andcited Airport i'tarina roof sign as the primary example of hotel-motel identification permitted in this city. Sheraton Inn neecls equalidentification to compete. Airport Marina has a sign with lights L2 feet in height above the waIl, facing the freeway and with exposureto residential areas. Sheraton's building is perpendicular to the free- w&y, roof signs will be perpendicular to the city without anywhere near the degree of visibility Airport i.{arina has. Mr. McMillan malntained it is quite unfair from a competitive stand-point to say that others can be identified but Sheraton cannot because the city is considering or has adopted roof sign legislation. Should t,he City Council see fit to adopt a reasonable amortization scheduleto remove all roof signs, Sheraton will conformi everyone, then, wi-II be in the same posit,ion. As a matter of equity, the permit should be granted. From a t.echnical standpoint, I1r. I,IcI,IiIIan submitted that the roof was designed for a sj-gn, all the plans reflected this. Lights would be beLow I feet in height, perpendicular to the freeway. This is not the steel skeleton sign structure projecting above the roof that exists at Airport Marina, Bekins and California Trucking. Mr. McMillan stressed that drivers on the freeway must be alerted to the sign in sufficient time to take the proper exit. Identifi- cation is essential to a project of this nature in the earlier years of operation if it is to be successful. This is a multi-milliondollar development which will bring revenue to the city, probably $100,000 annuatly in room tax. He submitted t,hat the sign permit should be granted from the standpoint of fairness and design. Councihrian Harrison asked if the reduction in building size from Howard Johnson's plan was done voluntarily by Sheraton for eonomic reasons. Philip Wasserstrom, project architect, reported that decisions were made in conjunction with the building department, that it was felt as goocl a design as Howard Johnson's could be accomplished by consolidating the building into a more workable entity, and that a desire to improve architectural design motivated the changes. Mayor Crosby invitecl comments from the floor in favor of the appli- cation. There were none. In opposition, Mr. Arnold Rodman, 905 I'{orrell Avenue, stated that the Planning Commissj-on and Cit.y Council have adopted a good ordinance which, ir his opinion, will materially affect aesthetics of the city; to approve a roof sign just when the ink is dry on the ordinance will be a step backwards. He suggested a wal1 sign in smaller letters as an alternative. The hearing was declared closed. The Council was furnished photographs and an architectural by the City Planner to clarify location and design of roof Councilman Mangini asked if the City Council is completely telling anybody that they cannot identify their business. if this might not be in restraint of trade or violation of amendment. rendering sign. legal in He asked the l4th 'I'he City Attorney indicate<l not, explaining that other signs h/ere .3 l9 approved for the building. Councilman Mangini asked the cost of the roof sign. .He was informed $28,000. Mr. McMiIIan stated there will be metal shields focusing the light straigirt ahead, thereby reducing side visibility. In response to adiitional questions from Councilman Mangini, members of the Sheraton staff cliscuJsed minimum room rate and advised that transit trade might well be about 7? because of the Sheraton name with 303 to 408 of patrons booked through airlines. Councilman Amstrup raised the issue of amortization presently under consid.eration uy ifre City Council. He asked if Sheraton would be willing to remove its sign at the same time all others were ordered removed. Mr. Mcltillan conf irmed this would be clone provided the law applied equally to all of the other motels and hotels in the area. Councilman Amstrup stated the amortization factor has not been decided. If a S-year plan ilere selected, this would not allow much time to write off a $2S,OO-0 investment. Mr. McMiIIan mentioned that a standard time comparable to I.R.S. would probably be 7 years in this situation. Councilmin Amstrup asked if Sheraton would agree willingIy to amor- tization in less ifr.rr T years. r'Ir. McMillan repeated there would be no problems if ev6ryone were treated equaIly. Councilman Ilarrison asked if Sheraton has considered other alternatives should the appeal be denied, wall signs as an example. Mr. McMillan repliecl that Lwo alternatives have been explored; neit,her is desirable belause the letters would be so much smaller than other signs in the irnmediate area; however, if the wall si-gn is Council's decision, Sheraton will be disappointecl but will conform. Another alternative submitt,ed to the Planiri"g Commission was a sign on the parapet beginning at the edge nearest the ireeway with 4 foot blue letters. This is not nearly as desirable a sign. Councilman Harrison suggested, since the Council is discussing amorti- zation and Sheraton contemplating a $28r0O0 expenditure, a wall sign may be the solution for economic reasons. Removal of the roof sign Au6 to amortization will result in total loss of identity; a wall sign will publicize the theraton name to the public. Mr. McMillan again stressed the need for identification during the first 2 Eo 3 years; ifter that, travelers will be familiar with the general location. The parapet sign was considered not large enough to be seen in ti:ne for northbound traffic to move into the proper lane for exit to O1d Bayshore. Sheraton considered alternatives but would much prefer the B foot sign with amortization. Councilman Amstrup reiterated his opposition to roof signs and stated ttris would be the last consideration of roof signs as far as he was concerned. He pointed out that the building was in progress when t5e Council undertook the mattersof prohibition and amortization. Amortization has not been resolved. It would appear this Project has been caught in a web of circumstances. He suggested two matters for considerition: 1. The hotel exists, there will be signs, whether on the roof or the parapet. Which will be worse is debatable. 2. During these trying times, the city wants the hotel to be a success from the st,andpoint of employment, for the community and revenue to the city. l,{ayor Crosby stated he was on the Council when the project was planned .n& approved by the city for Howard Johnson. There was no particular objection to the sign at that time. He noted that the Sheraton people have worked with staff to reduce density, and that the sign will not have the same impact as far as visibility throughout the city as does Airport. Marina's sign. He felt the project should have identification, that a sign off to the side will not offer identification, and, further- more, the principals have agreed to abide by amortization. In response to Councilman Mangini, Mf,. Wasserstrom reaffirmed that Sheraton will accept amortization without hesitation when adopted. t W 320 Councilman llarrison moved that the City Council sustain the action ofthe Pranning commission in denying roof signs for the project. Motj"on seconded by Councilman Cusick and carried on ro11 call:AYES: COUNCILMEN: Cusick-llarrison-Mangini NOES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Crosby Mr. IilcMillan askecl if the City Council would consider 6 foot lettersinstead of B, commenting that the project needs identification andhas none as the result of Council's decision. The City Attorney advised that the City Council can reconsider itsmotion and proceed to discuss modification of Planning Commissionaction. There followed a lengthy period of discussion during which the Councilheard argument,s from Mr. I'IcMiIIan and Mr. Schubot to support claimsthat identification was crucial and cri-tical in the first 2 to 3years, that the roof sign will give necessary exposure to freewaytraffic, whereas a sign perpendicular to the freeway will have exposureto residentiaL areas in the westerly section of the city, that Sheraton came to the city in good faith and worked with staff, that every print from 1968 on showed a roof sign, and now at zero hour the City Council , , . -decides there cannot be a roof sign because of new laws./r:, (:, Councilman Cusick pointed out that some of the members of the present Council were not on the Council when Howard Johnson plans were approved.This Council cannot be tied into what was approved years ago. The City Attorney advised there can be no further consideration of the application unless the City Council votes to reconsider its motion. A motion by Councilman Mangini to reconsider was seconded by Council- man Amstrup and unanimously carried on ro11 call. at 9:I5 P.FI., the Chair call-ed theRECONVENE: Following a recessneeffig Eo order at 9:25 P.M. Councilman Harrison announced he will withdraw his motion if the second will withdraw. LIe explained it was not the intent to indicate vacil- Iation nor change of mind but second thoughtsf, perhaps, in view of all of the conversation that took place after the hearing was closed and some of the comments during the hearing with respect to fairness in terms of compet,ition and life span of roof signs with amortization. Councilman Cusick withdrew her second. Councilman Amstrup moved to overrule Planning Commission denial of in this case. In doing sor he reiterated personal dislike of roof but felt this was the only fair thing to do because of extenuating cumstances. Motion seconded by Councilman tlangini and carried on following ro11 call: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Crosby-Harrison(reluctantly) -Mangini NOES: COUNCILMAN: Cusick ABSENT COUNCILMEN: None permit signscir- 2. VARIANCE TO ALLOW NON-CONFORMING CARPORT,22AO POPPY DRIVE DENIED Mayor Crosby announced this was the time and place scheduled to con- duct a public hearing and to consider the appeal of Mr. and i'Irs. Eclward S. Goetze from Planning Commission denial of variance "to allow carport as now constructed" at the above address. Following an announcement of ground ruIes, Mayor Crosby invited the City Planner to comment. IIe explained that the Building Inspector stopped construction on the job when he noticed there was no building permit. The property owner was advised to submit application for variance in hopes that the Planning Commission might consider the application and a11ow the carport to rernain. The structure is connected to the resiclence and existing garage. The Planner read from Section 25.28.050 of the Municipal Code Builcling regulations in R-1 District- i+:? 321 "No accessory building shall be erected closer than four feet to any other building on the same lot or parcel of land. " He advised that the Planning Commission denied the application on a unanimous vote. Referring to the sketch filed by the applicant, the City Planner pointed out that a fire in one of the structures would spread to a1I. Probably that is one of the primary reasons for the required 4 feet between dwelling and accessory l:uilding. A suggestion from the Planning Com- mi"ssion that the structure can be made to conform with a few minor changes was not considered by the applicant. The Council was handed copies of a memorandum dated December 9, 1974, from Fire Inspector Howard Pearson to the City Planner wherein the following statements were made: "The Fire Department has al.ways favored set-back and the spacing between buildings as this allows us to conduct fire f ightj.ng and rescue oPeratj.ons from all sides. I befieve that we could carry out these functions more effectively if the four foot space as required by Section 25.28.050 of the Municipal Code is provided. " I.layor Crosby recognized Mrs. Goetze. She explained that a building peimit. was not obiained because there had been practj.cally an j-dentical structure on the property for 30 years. Due to age and water damage, the structure began to tilt, a carpenter was cal1ed in, but.a portion of the carport collapsed during attempted repairs. Apparently the carpenter was not familiar with the regulations because he felt a building permit was not necessary for the new structure. Mrs. Goetze stated the carport is essential for protection to the cars, it is nothing more than a roof supported by posts. If the neighbor thought the structure i"rould harm his property, he would not have supported the application, nor would other neighbors, who would be affected. i,lrs. Goetze informed the Council that the steps at the front of the carport will be removed, leaving a space of 38" instead of 48" bet\"reen houie and carport. Removing the steps will preserve the line of the back steps and stoop and the carport. There were no coflunents from the floor in response to the Chair. The hearing was declared closed. Assistant Fire Chief Herrera, responding to Mayor Crosby' explained that the 4 foot clearance facilitates placement of ladders and equipment, whereas the structure being attached to the main buil-ding would act as a hindrance to carrying ladders and proceeding through the area. He stated that, if the stairs at the front of the carPort and the support beam were removed, 10" will not make that much difference. Councilman Cusick felt there were unusual circumstances in because of the shape of the lot, and that a variance of I0" appear to be significant, especially when the neighbors do the propertv?*-.:, did not L./t/z ".not ob)ect)/r-- ., . Councilman }larrison cormented that something occurred here contrary to existing ordinances. The building can be made to conform; furthermore, there appears to be nonexistence of a condition for variance grant. Councilman I"tangini reported he drove by the property and looked down the driveway; it appears that the required 48" can be provided without creating liardship. lte fe1t, too. that the. Fire Departmentrs preference for the 4 feet should be supported. At the Chair's request, the City Attorney read from the Municipal Code condition "a." with respect to variance grants (Section 25.54.020) and advised that the ruling in recent months has been that there has to be a condition that distinguishes one property from other Properties in the neighborhood so that it is unusual and does not have the same benefiti they do. The burden is on the applicant to prove hardship. I,layor Crosby agreed with Councilman Cusick. He suggested this: aPpears to be a case of splitting hairs on 10", even though a violation of the code . t2f,3zL s tated Councilman Amstrup/this was a non-conforming building in the first place that has been rebuilt and wiIl remain non-conforming. The Council' has been cliscussing non-conforming uses and, if there is a decision that ]0" should not make any difference, then, perhaps, 10' should not make a difference. There has to be a stopping place. I{e noted it was the Planning Commission's unanimous decision that the struc- ture be made to conform. Councilman Harrison moved to sustain Planning Commission denial of variance. Motion secondecl by Councilman Amstrup and declared carried on followj-ng ro11 call: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Harr i son-Mangini NoES: CoUNCILMEN: Crosby-Cusick ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Mayor CrOSby acknowledged the presence of the coach of-E6e -Eur 1-Ingame Youth soccer Tearft, l4r. Cefestino Romoli. xe modeled the tiaveling uniform to be worn by the team on its trip to viareggio, It.a1y, to participate in an international soccer tourna- ment. Ui] nomoli iead a letter from the Italian ceneral Consulate, san Francisco, asking the authorities in viareggio to give_courteous and concrete assistaice to the Burtingame team. trlr. Romoli informed the City Council that the team will leave on sunday, January 19' Mrs. Goetz was asked to appfy for a building the stlucture to provide the required 4 feet RECONVENE :Following a recess at 10:20 P.M order at 10:35 P.M.meeting to CO}4I4UNICATIONS I. SHOWER STALL REPAIRS FIRE STATION NO. 1 2. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVETOPMENT ACT OE 1974 3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OVER BROADWAY INTERCHANGE FREEWAY ACCESS TO ANZA MASTER PLAN PROJECT permit in order to modifYof clearance. l4ayor Crosby called the A letter dated January 16, 1975, fromthe Fire Chief to tlle City Manager concerned dry rot damage in the shower area' which can be repaired for $3000.00 with firemen doing the demolition work' Th; City Manager's recommendation that the work be authorized was approved by the Council. In a communication dated January 15, 1975, the Director of Pubfic Works intorm.O the City Manager of a State Department of Transportation proposal to provide pedestrian access on the existing overpass ;tructure at an approxj.mate cost of S200,000, minimum City-partici- pation to be 50*. The City t'lanager's recommendation t:tas further h"t.if= be obtained from t-he Staie for review at a study meeting i,ras accepted by the CitY Council. 4 In a letter dated January 15, 1975, the Director of Pub1ic Works reported that the above iubject was discussed in detail at a meeting in his office attended by the city Planner, the Assistant city Planner, David Keyston and representatives of the california Department of Transporiation. Sevlral alternative projects were discussed and the most ieaListic approach seemed to be pursuing access.to the Bayshore Freeway in a southbound direction in the area of Peninsula Avenue overpals. Befole the State witl make a study of this proposal , there under <late of January 16, L975, the city l,{anager submitted two drafts of a general letter 6f ,'coop"ration" to be forwarded to the Board of Superiisors in response to Lhe Boaralsr request that the-City execute . i'Coop.r.tion Agr6ement. " The Council approved the policy recited in "Dr;ft #1" and authorized its transmittaL to the Chairman of the Boarcl of Supervisors, as follows: "The Council indicated that we would like to cooperate in the planning, and that we have no projects that lve desire implemente<l under the act, and that we specifically do not desire tnat the county have any pohrer to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities within the City of Burlingame. " :t23 must be letters ofof San l,lateo. Under date of January 16, from Nancy E.Curtis, 1341 small greenhouse that was nent. The City l,lanager 'sat the next study meeting L975, the City Manager forwarded a request Bernal Avenue, for permit to complete a inadvertently conspg:gcted on a eity ease- recommendation thaE)hatter be discussed was accepted by the Council. request from both the City of Burlingame and the City In an addendum to the communication, the City Manager agreed that the study would be a logical step and, if San Mateo is agreeable, could be helpful in evaluating the traffic problems that will be created in the future. Councilman Amstrup reported he had an opportunity recently to discuss problems in connection with the transfer site with tlayor John Condon of San Mateo. The idea of a joint meeting of the two councils and repre- sentatives of the scavenger company was discussed. Councilman Amstrup suggestecl that abcess at Peninsula Avenue might also be a topic for discussion. Councj-lman Cusick requested that drawings of the proposal for Peninsula Avenue be made available to the Council. The City l"tanager was requested to pursue the meeting with San Mateo, also to determine their j-nterest in the proposal for Peninsula Avenue. 5 ENCROACHMENT ON CITY EASEMENT RESOLUTIONS t. RITSOLUTION NO. 4-7 5 "Authorizing Execution Of Joint Exercise Of Powers Agreement Between C ity Of lolillbrae, City Of Burlingame And City And County Of San Francisco'l was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison and unani-mously carried on ro11 call. 2.of was by RESOLUTION NO. 5-75 "A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Burlingame Authorizing Exam inati-on Of Sa1es And Use Tax Records" introducecl by Councilman Mangini, who moved its adoption, second Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on ro11 caIl. 3. RBSOLUTION NO. 6-7 5 "Authorizing Execution Of Agreement For Consulting Services Councilman Iiarrison, Communicat ions Consolidation" was introduced by who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and carried on ro11 call: AYIIS: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Crosby-Harrison-l{angini NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT COUNCILMEN: None . )j';- AirsrAIN couNCILMAN: cusick (objected to expenditure,Sfl$3+?t[3fi=it""Yfl/fr::Jf-ttb'u..lr-, 4. RESOLUTION NO. 7-7 5 "Resolution Authorizing Execution Of Agreement For Sanitary nan Cusick, Sewer Collect ion System Study" was inLroduced by Council- who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on ro11 calI. 5. RESOLUTION NO. B-7 5 "Authorizing Execution Of Agreement For Estab- lishment Of Civic Art Ga 1lery And Offices." At the request of the City Manager, the agreement document was amended to provid,e "This agreement shall be effective on the lst day of April , L975, and shalI continue in effect until the 31st day of Decem- ber, 1975. " Resolution above-stated was introduced by Councilman Mangini, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on roII call. The City l,lanager announced that the Civic Arts Council is required to file in his office a report on a quarterly basis of projects seheduled for the next succeeding three months. 324 ORDINANCES : Second readi ng 1. ORDII.IANCE NO . LO?B ''An Ordinance Of The City Council of The City Of Burlingame Author izing An Amendment To The Contract Between The City Council And The Board Of Administration Of The CaliforniaPublic lJmployeesr RetiremenL System" (identification and communication personnel in the Police Department) was given its second reading. On motion of Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll caI1. ORDINANCES.: Introduction of 1. ORDINANCE NO. L029 "An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The city@orizingAnAmendmentToTheContractBetween The City Council And The Board Of Administration Of The California Public Employees' Retirement System" (one-half continuance miscel- Ianeous rnembers) was introduced for first reading by Councilman Mangini. 2 . ORDII']ANCE NO . 103 O "Ordinance Amending The Burlingame l4unicipal Code By Repealing Chapters 3.22 And 3.24 And Adding New Chapter 3.22, Traffic, Safety And Parking Commission" was introduced for first reacling by Councilman Harrison after instructions to the City Attorney to modify the language in Section 3 to provide that members shalI continue to hold office at theirs and the Council's mutual pleasure. Councitman Cusick stated it was not the Council's intent that merger of the two commissions would force any membet's removal, and that attrition will eventually result in a seven-member board. Council- man Amstrup explained that the Council felt there would be more effective use of the commission system by combining Hbalth, Safety & Traffic Commission and Parking Commission into a single body. UNFINISHED BUSINESS r A^.---:1*-- '.r-I . UIJ rlrru I lrrlclli l'lcl'ini Re ts: Ilaterial prepared by the County PIann partment concern ng propose d joint land use study of San Francisco International Airport was forwarded to the C ity Council for review. Comrnents the Council may wish to make will be relayecl to the Airport Land Use Commission. Councilman Mangini explained that ALUC has been attempting to get cooperation from the airport in sharing the burden of planning for, not only airport property, but off-aiiport property. At its last meeting, ALUC voted to demand some action from the airport. Hopefullyr-.e^Ill€€ting of two members of ALUC, two San Mateo County supervisorsf)" San Francisco supervisors, and two airport commissioners can be arranged. If there is no response, aiuC intends to ask the cities to exert pressure in an effort to activate the committee. As the City's representatj-ve to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Councilman Mangini advised that a solid waste resources management program is being prepared to be forwarded to the cities for approval- ile ieported that he is constantly seeking recommendations from the Commiltee to help resolve Burlingame's problem of imminent phasing out of the local fill area. There is some opposition in the county to the Ox Mountain site and to a long-term contract with one operator. 911 Eme e Phone Number: Sixteen )urisdictions were Present at de wh (P sy fa bo legate ereby sAP) . stem b vor of und in comm ttee mee ng on , vote<l for Plan I--Ind each city would have it The State will not pay ut only costs imposed b Selectj.ve Routing but any way at this point. Plans II B and III B. anuary 16. B urlingame, through its iviclual Cities (Selective Routing) s ci,.r11 PuhIic Safety Answering Points costs of oper ating an existing y 9I1. The vo te was 10 to 5 in none of the jurisdictions are Public System, Inc., will continue to study NEW BUSINESS GOLF COURSE BAYSIDE PARI(: Councilman Harrison movecl that the council cate S ntent to presently eve the lop the remaining undeveloped area of Burlingame dump site, ds a golf course'.Bays j-de Park, 325 I'totion seconded by Councilman Amstrup, all aye on voice vote. PUBLICITY ON BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: COUNCiIMAN CUSiCK ASKEd if an insert could be included in the Recreat ion Department brochure that is distributed throughout the city informing the people of- :j-3 rules and regulations applying to building permits. The City Manager was requested to prepare material for review at the next study meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I. lJotice of Health, Safety a Traffic Commission adjourned meeting to be held January L6, L975, due to lack of quorum on January 9. 2. Notice of hearings on community development and housing needs in San Mateo County scheduled by Board of Supervisors for Monday, January 20 in Redwood City and Monday, February 10, Millbrae Community Center.3. Commendation of Mrs. John L. Cousins, L253 Paloma Avenue, to Public lrlorks Department personnel, Jim Smith, Dave Randall, Jon Barker, for assistance in a sewer system problem. 4. Copy of letter from Dale J. Perkins, Chairman, Beautification Commission to Award Selection Committee, The San Mateo Foundation, L204 Burlingame Avenue. 5. Copy of Cit,y Planner letter to City Manager, January 15, 1975, re "Policy Planning by the Planning Commission-January 13, 1975." 6. McRobert L. Stewart, Chairman, Council of Mayors, San Mateo County, request for written memorandum designating Mayor's voting repre- sentative when the Mayor expects to be absent from the Council of l{ayors meeting. The City C1erk was requested to forward the names of the other four memlrers of the City Council. 7. ltetropolitan Transportation Commission announcement of proposed L975 Revisions to the Regional Transportation PIan. 8. Patricia R. Ilartnett, 26L6 Hillside Drive, letter commending the City Council on renovation of Easton Branch Library. 9. lurs. Mike Spinelli , 725 Crossway Road, complaint re dogs. 10. Letter from Kee Joon's with respect to lack of street lighting and signs. Mr. David Keyston reported the State has agreed to include "Airport Boulevard" on the freeway signs north of Broadway and south of Peninsula Avenue. Kee: Joon wants an illuminated street sign- iclentifying Airport Boulevard, one at the Mobil service station and one at Coyote Point Drive. Mr. Keyston commented there could be a few more lights along the "so-called dump road." 11. Letter from. Frank B. Ingersoll, Jr., dated January 13, L975, concerning ,Burlingame -Avenue Area Parking referred to City Manager for reply. It was Council-man Amstrup's idea that the letter should be referred to the new traffic engineer who will be employed in February to do the necessary research. The City Manager reported the traffic engineer will meet regularly with the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. L2. City Attorney letter, January 16, re "In-Lieu sales tax payments by rental car agencies." The Attorney was requested to pursue the matter with the City of Millbrae and Assemblyman Papan. 13. Library Board minutes, December L7, L974 and Librarian's Report, January 2L, 1975.14. Blingum Inn Teen Club, Burlingame Recreation Department, Semi-Annual Financial Report, July I- December 31, 1974. PLAi{lgIi{G DEPARTMENT PROPOSED F.EE SCHBDULE: Referred to study meeting aE request of Councilman Cusick. j\PPROVALS: Warrants Nos. 8095 through 8401, $494,602.68, duly audited approved on i{nt ion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Amstrup, unanimously carried.Payroll, December, L974, Checks Nos. 5914 through 6644, $284 ,22L.69, approved on motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Council- man Amstrup and unanimously carried. ADJOURI.IMENT:acquffiffi APPROVED: et If :95'-P;M.--to an Executive Session to discuss property Williarn J. Crosby, I"Iayor Re c fu11 submi C l-L Clerk