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