Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1999.06.07BI.JRLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Jwre 7, 1999 JOINT MEETING WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIQN Mayor Janney convened a joint meeting oi the five Ciry Council members and six of the Civil Service Commission members (Delia, Heffernan, Hipps, Kutner, Richmond and Schwartz) it City Hall Conference Room A at 6:30 p.m. on the above date. The Mayor noted Commissioner Lennon was away on a trip. Council and commission reviewed the merno from the Employment & Benefits Administrator regarding activity of the commission during the past year. Commissioners would like to have more regular meetings, perhaps every other month or quarterly; like to have some training on discipline and on hearings; could visit other civil service commissions and personnel departments to observe procedures; need to review employee benefits; think commission is underutilaed; would like to meet with managers after a hiring to know who is hired; would like to see just what a job entails, don't know what a tree trimmer does. Everyone expressed satisfaction with the reorgarization of the personnel division. Discussed concerns about diversity and- violence in workplace. Mayor Janney adjourned to the regular city council meeting at 6:59 p.m. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at7:03 p.m. by Mayor Mary Janney. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by former council member Bud Harrison. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COUNCIL ABSENT: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NONE MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May t7, 1999 were approved after an addition on page 3 by Councilman Galligan to note that Councilwoman O'Mahony also mentiorrcd "leasing afacility for teen activities in a transit corridor was a possibilitlt" and on page 7 under council committee report that Councilwoman O'Mahony also attended the retirement party for Marci Saunders. Councilman Spinelli abstained from the vote because he was absent from that meeting. Mayor lanney changed the order of the agenda to accommodate the students who were present to speak on the teen center issue. PLANS AND TO DIRECT STUDY OF POSSIBLE TEEN CENTER SITES Parks & Recreation Director recommencied council hear the presentation from representatives of the Burlingame Together Teen Center Study Committee regarding the development of conceptual plans 532 for a possible teen center and determine whether to allocate $4000 from reserves for the development of plans and coordinate a review of possible sites in Burlingame. For the past four years there has been discussion of a possible teen center in Burlingame by Burlingame Together, Park & Recreation Commission and City Council. It has been determined the heavy use of the Recreation Center and parking and neighbor problems restrict the ability to dedicate any major area there for teen use. The Depot has been mentioned as a possible "coffee house" site for young people but the limited size of the building, inability to add any major facilities and the heavy traffic on California have been cited as problems with that site. At the March 6, 1999, Teen Summit hosted by Burlingame Together, a committee of youth and adults was formed to study options for a teen center. The study committee would like to request an architect be hired to refine the committee's work and provide visual representations of what is berng suggested. Three students, Leah Bellshaw, Tong Zhao and Meagan Rafferty reviewed the discussions and needs of the teen facility group. Council discussed: attended a kague workshop about teen centers, asked what age group the center would serve, who would staff it; middle school and high school students have different needs; putting the cart before the horse, should find a location first and define the age group, then architect has something to work with; thanked all the young people who worked on these committees, this work will not go to waste, it good beginning; observed other teen centers, San Mateo and Redwood City, hours of operation and staffing and number of clients; should be thinking about leasing a place along transit corridor. Councilman Galligan noted his family has both middle and high school age students and sometimes they get along great; committee would like to have drawings to be able to envision needs and desires and then find a place; really think we need a teen center. Vice Mayor Knight thought the depot should be considered; talking about spending $4000 on ideas, when we have this site ready now, don't see anything on wish list that we can't do in the depot. Councilman Spinelli said we can spend $4000 on this plan or spend it on the depot with some of the things the kids want, if it doesn't work then we are no worse off than now. Mayor Janney agreed the depot is a good starting point but we need to help these young people who have been working for years for a facility. Councilman Galligan moved to approve spending $4000 on architectural concept plans for a teen center. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Further discussion ensued; noted an architect needs a site in order to make plans; find a facility and then hire the architect; use the depot site for a coffee shop and see how it's used. The motion failed on2-3 vote, Vice Mayor Knight, Councilman Spinelli and Councilwoman O'Mahony voting no. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 535 ALMER ROAD City Planner reviewed her memo of May L9, 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. The applicant, Manoochehr Javaherian, submitted a request for a four story, seven unit residential condominium project with 17 on site parking spaces at 535 Almer Road. The lot is currently developed with a single family house. Because it is more than four units, a negative declaration was prepared by staff. The primary environmental issues were storm /sewer capacity and two trees of protected size on the site. Neither of the trees were planned for removal so mitigation was implementing protection during construction and on-going maintenance. The Planning Commission denied this request on January lL, 1999. A major issue at the hearing was the two protected trees. The resident in the ground floor unit at the rear of the adjacent condominium (525 Almer) was opposed to retention of the Black Acacia and Oak trees because of the mess and damage they were causing to his property. In response to these concerns, the applicant applied to the Burlingame City Council s33 Jwrc7, 1999 Beautification Commission to remove the Black Acacia at the rear of the lot. According to an arborist, the tree could be retained with cabling. The Beerrtification Commission granted this request and another neighbor appealed that decision. Action of the Beautification Commission is independent of the Planning Commission. The applicant wished to retain the Oak tree. On April 26 the Planning Commission voted to deny the project without prejudice. The applicant appealed. She responded to council questions. Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. Sandi Nichols, attorney for applicant, reviewed her letter of June 1, 1999; the project meets or exceeds all city requirements, some commissioners were on the fence regarding denial without prejudice; the project was redesigned once to meet commission's direction; reviewed size of project, number of units and comparison with neighboring projects; though trees at back were not scheduled for removal, the applicant applied for permission to remove the Acacia because of a neighbor's objection to it; she showed photographs of other buildings in area. The mayor asked for comments in support of the project. A woman in the audience said she supported the project but did not wish to speak. Elisabet Sahtouris, 1477 Floribunda, did not oppose the project but did not want to see the trees removed; also object to height of project, have few homes left in the neighborhood, condos are changing the area; hoped council would save the trees. The mayor then asked for comments in opposition to the project. Fredell Kulovich, 1477 Floribunda, objected to the size of the project and the loss of trees and increased traffic. Nancy Carpenter, resident in area, objected to the size of the project. Henry Sorensen, 525 Almer, rebutted the letter of June 1 from attorney Nichols and presented a paper listing those rebuttals. Sandi Nichols and the architect, Kamrom Ehsanipour, rebutted. They noted the tree at the front was only 8 inches in diameter and they will replace with rhree 24 inch box trees to provide more greenery than now to protect neighbors view; neighbors can participate in choice of tree; requested approval. The hearing was closed. The hearing was reopened for a r:esident of t477 Floribunda who wished to speak; wanted to protect the 8 inch tree which is actually 10 inches in diameter; without the tree the new building will be visible from every window in her condo; generally objected to all the large condos being built in area. The hearing was closed. Council discussed: concerns were for drainage, parking, trlffic, landscaping and bulk, all these concerns have been adequately addressed by this project; they are providing more parking than required, excellent landscaping and the bulk is no worse than other developments in area; our city needs to provide more housing units; attended the commission meeting where this project came up very late in the evening and three commissioners were on the fence; this project meets all code requirements and needs no variances; the State expects our city to provide housing and this area is zoned for high density residential use and was zoned for that a long time ago, people have to rcalize that any small houses are likely to be replaced by condos in this area; would like to see more open space at the front of project but the open space is at rear, aBree it is bulky looking; applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce size; the driveway on eaeh side (one for 530 El Camino) mitigates the bulk by providing more space between developments. Councilman Galligan moved to approve the Negative Declaration. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously. Councilman Galligan moved to overturn the Planning Commission and approve the project. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously by voice vote. City Attorney said he would prepare a resolution for approval for adoption at the next meeting. Iune 7, 1999 534 Burlingame City Council PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION ACTION ON A PRIVATE TREE REMOVAL AT 535 ALMER ROAD Senior Landscape Inspector reviewed his memo of May 27 , 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. In March 1999, Joan Lutz, owner of property at 535 Almer, applied for a permit to remove a 105 inch circumference Black Acacia as part of a new condominium project. Plans originally submitted indicated the tree would remain. The Beautification Commission heard this request at its May 6 meeting and voted to approve the request for removal. A neighbor, Elisabet Sahtouris, appealed the decision. Council asked if granted, are applicants required to remove the tree; can we direct that the tree must be removed. Staff noted that the permit only allows tree removal, does not require it; if tree remains it must be cabled to reinforce the split crotch. Council discussed: see no harm in giving the owner an option to remove the tree; tree is near the end of its life span; owner is planning excellent landscaping and planting five new trees; the commission does not take a tree removal lightly. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to uphold the Beautification Commission with hope that the tree is removed. Seconded by Councilman Galligan and carried unanimously 5-0 on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AT 330-340 BEACH ROAD - RESOLUTION 55-1999 APPROVING SAME City Planner reviewed her memo of May 12, 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. The applicant and property owner, Covalent, a medical technology firm, is proposing to convert the 11,787 SF warehouse/office tenant space at340 Beach Road to a high-tech laboratory with lab area, office and storage. The remaining 9,943 SF adjoining warehouse/office space at 330 Beach Road will remain unchanged. The number of parking spaces required will increase from 36 (19 currently provided) to 40 with the intensification in use. Currently 11 percent of the site is landscaped. The exceptions required are (1) a variance for total site landscaping of 7 percent where 15 percent is required and (2) a conditional use permit for 15 percent landscaping in the front 30 feet where 80 percent is required. The proposed intensification in use increases the on-site parking requirement from 36 to 40 parking spaces. Because of a variance previously granted for warehouse/office use, there are 19 parking spaces on site now. This previous variance is voided by the requested change in use and the property must now become conforming in parking for all uses on the entire site. The applicant notes the only way to provide parking is to eliminate landscaping. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny the request. The applicant appealed to council. The Burlingame City Council 5J5 June 7, 1999 Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. John Bower, 525 Almer, said his main concern is the tree limbs which overhang his condo building; asked the tree be removed. Henry Sorensen, 525 Almer, support removal, tree encroaches on property and is damaging a retaining wall. Elisabet Sahtouris, appellant, noted the arborist report does not state the tree is dangerous; it's a protected tree, it keeps temperature down and produces oxygen; it's a magnificent tree and should remain. Will McGowan, Beautification Commission, stated commission voted to allow removal because of the split crotch, the age of the tree and the damage to neighbor's retaining wall; neighbors can trim any branches which overhang their property; noted nobody would plant such a tree in that area, the Oak tree is more important and the Acacia's removal will aid the Oak tree's growth, in a short time the Oak will infill where the Acacia is removed. The hearing was closed. applicant subsequently submitted a revised plans and employee trip chart. These are the basis for council action. Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. Norman Book, ;rttorney representing the applicants, reviewed his letter of June 2, 1999; variance is for landscaping; property was built 30 years ago and has had little improvement since then; the size and configuration of the building on parcel precludes providing more parking without removing structure or landscape areas; there is no vegetation in landscape areas at present time; there are exceptional circumstances due to the size and placement of the building and the area available for parking and landscaping, it is impossible to provide for both; furthermore alarge transformer is located in the landscaping area; granting the variance will not be detrimental to properties in area or to public health or safety; it is compatible with neighboring property; they will create 40 parking spaces and beautify the area with landscaping. Peter Callendar, landscaping architect, showed visuals of the landscaping plans and beautification of the site. Dick Lavenstein, owner of adjacent property, urged council to overturn the denial; the buildings in this area are run down and maybe this project will inspire others to beautiff their property; council should grandfather sites in this area because they were built in another era and cannot meet today's requirements for parking and landscaping. The hearing v/as closed. Council discussed: if allowed, can we condition that all landscaping be completed before occupied, currently there is no landscaping; can we condition that landscaping must be maintained. Staff said yes, can condition to complete landscaping and irrigation installation before final inspection, and to maintain landscaping; failure will cause review for revocation of permits. Discussion continued; what happens if the building is destroyed, conditions remain if new building configuration is the same; if building changed or intensified then conditions no longer apply; believe there are exceptional circumstances to grant the request; Lavenstein made good point about these older buildings being grandfathered. Vice Mayor Knight moved to reverse the Planning Commission and approve this project by adoption of RESOLUTION 55-99. Seconded by Councilwoman O'l{ahony. Councilman Galligan asked if condition about landscaping maintenance could be includeO in motion. Knight and O'Mahony agreed. The motion with amended condition carried unanimou.sly 5-0 on voice vote. Vice Mayor Knight expressed concerns about the lateness of the recent Planning Commission meetings, hearing on this project took place at 1:30 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING - SECOND READING ORDINANCE 1614 ADOPTING THE 1998 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Fire Chief reviewed his memo of May 20, 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. The State adopts the Uniform Fire Code with amendments every three years, the latest being the 1998 edition. The city then adopts the California Fire Code which becomes the fire code for the City of Burlingame. Over the past years, Fire Marshal Keith Marshall has worked as chairman of the Codes Development Committee for the Cl'qn1y Fire Prevention Officers. The goal of this committee was to develop a model code for all county fire agencies. There are no changes to our existing sprinkler and fire alarm requirements with this adoption. He recommended council adopt the ordinance and direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance. Mayor Janney opened the public hearing There were no uofilments and the hearing was closed June 7, 1999 s36 Burlingame City Council Councilman Galligan moved adoption of ORDINANCE 1614 Adopting the 1998 California Fire Code. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously 5-0 by voice vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None BALLOT MEASURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF CITY CLERK. OUTLINE OF DUTIES AND COMPENSATION AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS - RESOLUTIONS 56-1999 and 57-1999 City Manager reviewed his memo of June 1,1999, which recommended council consider adopting two resolutions. The first resolution placeS on the November ballot the question "Shall the Office of City Clerk be appointive?" and the second resolution outlines the elected and appointed duties of the City Clerk and how compensation is set. He suggested the appointment process not begin until after the November election. In April council discussed the pending retirement of the City Clerk and indicated it wished to appoint a qualified person to fill the unexpired term until November 2001 and place a measure on the upcoming ballot to change the elected position to appointed. The current duties of the city clerk are both statutory per the Government Code and customary as outlined by the job description. Current compensation is based on a combination of these duties. Since 1972 the compensation of the elected portion of position has been the same as that of council members (currently $400 per month, increasing to $590 in November). The employee portion of the clerk's compensation has been set by council during employee negotiations. After the November election he suggested advertising for the position for a minimum of 30 days with qualified candidates to be interviewed by the city council or a subcommittee. Final appointment would be made by city council. Councilman Galligan asked about the statutory portion of the salary and the non-statutory duties of the city clerk; staff noted in 1972 a resolution was passed that the elected city clerk's salary would be the same as council members; council needs to adopt a resolution changing the salary to $590 in November when council's salary increases; the remaining portion of the clerk's salary is for other non-statutory duties. Councilman Galligan continued, noting other council members expressed concern that someone would be elected that could not do the job; if that should happen, that person would only get the $590 salary and could hire someone to do the other jobs; he thought the position should remain elected; noted this has gone before voters three times and failed. Vice Mayor Knight said she could support the resolutions presented; think the public should be asked about appointing someone; moved to adopt RESOLUTION 56-1999 "Submitting a Measure to the Voters on Whether the City Clerk Position should be Appointive. " Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried 4-1 on voice vote, Councilman Galligan voting no. Vice Mayor Knight moved to adopt RESOLUTION 57-1999 Establishing the Compensation for the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman Spinelli. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted the statutory and non-statutory duties and salary was confusing; she was having second thoughts about this issue. Staff noted salaries can be revised by council a.t a later date; council could assign a basic salary and reward the clerk for additional duties. The motion carried 3-2 on voice vote, Councilman Galligan and Councilwoman O'Mahony voting no. ANNUAL REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMITS City Attorney reviewed his memo of June L, t999, which recommended council review existing permits and renew the following for a 12 month period: Alibi Club, Behan's Irish Pub, Benihana of Tokyo, Bobby McGee's, Burlingame Station Brewery, Caiifornia Bar & Grill, Caribbean Gardens, Burlingame City Council 537 June 7, 1999 Dicey Rileys' Irish Pub, El Torito, Golden China, Grandview, Hyatt Hotel, Max's Opera Cafe, and Moon McShane's. He recommended two permits for 12 month renewal with name changes: Paragon (formerly Tavern Grill) and Sheraton Gateway Hotel (formerly Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza). Approve a minor amendment in the permit for American Bull Bar and renew for 12 months. Cancel two permits because the establishments have been closed: Empress Court and Tuberose Restaurant. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved approval of the recommendations of the City Attorney. Seconded by Councilman Galligan and carried unanimously 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE 1615 CLARIFYING APPLICABILITY OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE City Attorney reviewed his memo of May 18, 1999, which recommended council introduce an ordinance clarifying the animal control ordinance. h, reviewing a code enforcement matter, we found a section which might be interpreted to mean that cats were exempt from restrictions on behavior of animals as well as good care of animals. By changing the word "section" to "subsection" in 9.04.014(a), the city can clearly state that while cats do not require licenses, they are not allowed to become a nuisance or to be inhumanely treated. The mayor asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to waive further reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Vice Mayor Knight and carried unanimously by voice vote. Vice Mayor Knight moved to introduce ORDINANCE 1615. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously by voice vote. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Spinelli noted a letter from the State regarding non-compliance with AB 939. Staff noted another letter was received today from the South Bayside Transfer Station Authority regarding same. a. BOARD TO ADJUST BASE YEAR DATA FOR THE CITY'S INTEGP.ATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Assistant City Manager's memo of May 21, 1999 recommended council authorize the petition process to seek approval for the new AB 939 base year data from the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The South Bayside Transfer Station Authority approved a base year adjustment study to give member jurisdictions a more accurate assessment which will allow each jurisdiction to gauge their progress toward meeting the 50 percent diversion goal mandated by AB 939. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) completed the study in April 1999. A copy of the report is available in the City Clerk's office. The current diversion rate for Burlingame 15.98 percent and the new diversion rate from the study is 42.1percent. A jurisdiction must petition the CIWMB for approval rf this new base year data. ESA will do all the necessary preparation and petition work; cost will be paid by BFI and spread over the rate base in calculating the 2000 rates. This will have a negligible impact on rates. June 7, 1999 s38 Burlingame Cify Council b RESOLUTION 58-1999 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO REFUSE COLLECTION AGREEMENT WITH BFI Assistant City Manager's memo of June l, 1999, recommended council approve a resolution amending the agreement with BFtr that extends the trigger date for early termination of the agreement. The franchise agreement with BFI provides for early termination if the city notifies BFI by a specific date. While negotiations are completed, there is not sufficient time to prepare agreements for approval before the trigger date (June 30, 1999). This will extend the option to February 1, 2000. RESOLUTION 59-1999 ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF THE BARROILHET AVENUE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT BY SHAW PIPELINE - CP 9595-2 Public Works memo of May 25, 1999, recommended council accept this project as completed by Shaw Pipeline in the amount of $310,458. d RESOLUTION 60-1999 AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Fire Chief's memo of June 1, recommended council approve this agreement for non-medical dispatch services by the county dispatch center. e. REJECT CLAIM OF MELISSA OLSON FOR WATER DAMAGE City Attorney's memo of June l, recommended council reject this claim for damage to a water heater. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 6 FOOT FENCE FRONTING SKYLINE BOULEVARD AT I27 LOMA VISTA DRIVE Public Works memo of May 26, 1999, recommended council approve this permit for a six foot high wooden fence with encroaches approximately eight feet into the city's right-of-way. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A PROPOSED 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 5J5 AT,MF,R ROAD PM g8-12 Public Works memo of May 26, 1999, recommended council approve this map if the project is approved. h. CITY LOT H PARKING UTILIZATION (EL CAMINO AT RALSTON) Public Works memo of June I, 1999, recommended council to direct staff to continue 10 hour free parking in Lot H and continue to monitor parking utilization until such time as when the Safeway/Walgreen project parking issues are resolved. c i f (}b Burlingame City Council s39 June 7, 1999 Parks & Recreation Director's memo of June 3,1999, recommended council accept the Park & Recreation Commission's recommendation to name the entire former landfill area Bayside Park; the golf driving range Burlingame Golf Center; the soccer field Burlingame Soccer Center, the dog exercise area Burlingame Dog Exercise Park; the three existing and one proposed ballfield Bayside 1,2,3, 4; and the lighted soccer field Bayside Soccer Field. AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN FR/EADS OF THE EARTH VS LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (U,5, SUPF.E}({E COURT CASE NO. 98-822) City Attorney's memo of June l, 1999, recommended council authorize the city attorney to join in an amicus curiae brief at no cost to the city. Councilman Galligan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilman Spinelli and carried unanimously 5-0 by voice vote. City Attorney noted the maps for 535 Almer (item g) will not be approved until council adopts the resolution approving the project at its next meeting. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Spinelli attended Airport Roundtable and the Burlingame Night at the Giants game. Vice Mayor Knight told about Criminal Justice, she was pleased to be reappointed to complete her term on Criminal Justice; attended school liaison and Transportation Authority; retirement for Police Chief of Millbrae; gave a school tour at city hall today. Councilman Galligan attended the Giants game, Fire Marshals event, Council of Cities with Councilwoman O'lvtahony, BCE, School liaison with Vice Mayor Knight, Sheriff's event, North County Council of Cities with Councilwoman O'Mahony; teen facility committee, and a second grade class tour from Franklin at city hall last week. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the Council of Cities, Fire Olympics with all council members, CCAG, NCCC with Councilman Galligan (she presented a book "Picture Yourself in Local Government" from that meeting); attended a safety symposium by Police and Fire and complemented the departments. Mayor Janney attended the teen facility meeting as well as the other events mentioned by council. OLD BUSINESS Councilman Galligan asked about progress on the eating establishment study by the Planning Commission. Staff responded they will have something from the Planning Commission to review by July. Councilman Galligan also received calls complaining about design review, the concern was that the Planning Commission is redoing design review after thc applicants meet with the design reviewer; wondered if council needs to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss this issue. Staff noted the Planning Commission and design reviewers are meeting June 16; staff will report back. Councilwoman O'Mahony also got a call from Robert of the Cakery asking about food establishment study status. Councilman Spinelli asked about the letters council received from South San Francisco and from San Bruno regarding BART and new legislation; wondered if we should write a letter also. City Attorney said he would prepare a resolution for next meeting. June 7, 1999 540 Burlingame City Council j. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Spinelli mentioned he saw while in Europe that some hotels had a city shopping card which gave discounts in that city; perhaps the merchants and Chamber might consider that as a means to get hotel patrons across the freeway to our restaurants and shopping areas. Councilman Spinelli noted a letter about mitigation for the runway reconfiguration received from the Airport in May while he was absent, the letter said the airport would be contacting staff. Staff said the airport has not contacted the city; staff will be writing a letter in response to the EIR and our concerns will be mentioned in that letter. Councilman Galligan said that our shoreline is the closest to the proposed runways and would be most affected. TREE REMOVAL AT 524 EL CAMINO City Manager noted council received a letter from Katie and Denis O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, appealing the decision of the Beautification Commission on a request for removal of six private Eucalyptus trees at 524 El Camino Real. He noted the commission did not make a decision but continued the item until its next meeting, therefore an appeal was not appropriate at this time. Council was aware of this site and agreed the Eucalyptus trees are in danger of falling over because of the excavation; the Beautification Commission continued this issue but doesn't meet again until July, that is too far off. Staff noted if it is a safety issue council could act now. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to direct staff to place this request on the June 21 agenda because of the possible propefty damage and public safety issue. Seconded by Councilman Spinelli and carried unanimously. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a Commission Minutes: Beautification, May 6; Senior, May 20; Parks & Recreation, May 20: Planning, May 24, 1999. Department Reports: Police, April 1999; Building, May 1999 Proclamation for Torch Run, June 14-18, 1999. Letter from Anita Tucker regarding trees Letter from Anne Fuller objecting to the Polo sign on Burlingame Avenue. Memo from Assistant City Manager regarding water and sewer rate changes and postcard notice being mailed to residents. Letter from Supervisor Jerry Hill regarding issues brought up at the MLay 2l Council of Cities meeting. Letter from Lloyd and Marilyn Mahaffy regarding oroposed changes to Highway 101 and Peninsula Avenue overpass. i. Letter from Bob Marks of Peninsula TV. Vice Mayor Knight asked if staff responds to these letters; staff said not unless directed by council. Burlingame City Council 541 June 7, 1999 b. c. d. e. ob h f I I I ADJOURNMENT IN HONOR OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSIONER BILL WARD Mayor Janney asked for a moment of silence to reflect on the continuing medical struggle of Beautification Commissioner Bill Ward. The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk ? June 7, 1999 542 Burlingame Cify Council