Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2000.02.23BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA February 23,2000 SPECIAL STUDY MEETING Mayor O'Mahony convened a meeting in Conference Room A at 6:00 p.m. with Bill Hurell, Consultant of Wilbur Smith Associates, the firm hired to prepare the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study. Mr. Hurell presented the conclusions of the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Parking Study noting: 1) assumptions about future growth of the City;2) finding that today people do not want to want to walk more than one block to their destination; and 3) projections assume future issuance of parking variances remains the same as in the past. The study notes that existing shortage of spaces in core area is 365; short- term needs (next five years) in the core area is shortage of 401 spaces; 20-year build-out is 759 spaces. Mr. Hurell discussed ways to increase the parking supply in the downtown area, including better management of existing parking spaces and appropriate places to add parking spaces in future structures. Discussion of the report: Councilman Spinelli asked about the increase of revenue if parking fees were increased; City Manager Argyres stated that at this time, the revenue stream has not been calculated, reminded Council about public outcry when parking rates were increased ten years ago; Vice-Mayor Galligan stated increasing rates could raise approximately $1.5 million; CM Argyres agreed revenue would increase, but that there would also be more costs in enforcement and upkeep. Mayor O'Mahony questioned how to prepare the public for the increase; Vice-Mayor Galligan felt the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission should be involved in this effort. Director of Public Works Bagdon stated that implementing the plan would include preparing the public for the increase in rates; Vice-Mayor Galligan felt parking for employees in the lot on Howard and Bayswater should be free; CM Argyres stated meter boxes are inconvenient; need to come up with a financing plan. Mayor O'Mahony felt Lot J development was enlightening, but not the most productive; closing Donnelly would have a negative effect on traffic flow;Vice-Mayor Galligan asked if the lot next to Lot C was available; CM Argyres stated it was not available at this time, but if it was in the future, it was possible for Lot C to be expanded. Councilwoman Janney suggested a field trip to Palo Alto to look at other three level parking structures. Mayor O'Mahony suggested'oin lieu" parking fees for business developments; need to come up with a formula for such fees; Councilman Coffey noted that "in lieu" parking fees would reduce property values because they would need to be included in development costs of property; Mayor O'Mahony stressed the importance of avoiding parking variances. CM Argyres felt parking study should be discussed with Planning Commission at the Joint Study Session on February 26,2000. PUBLIC COMMENTS Aldo Seminity questioned why Burlingame would need so many more parking spaces in the future. Stan Vistica felt if long term parking time was decreased, there would be more traffic problems as more people would be driving around looking for parking; Consultant agreed that there would be an increase in traffic by drivers looking for parking. - Parking Study meeting was adjoumed at 6:55 p.m. Burlingame City Council 81 February 23,2000 CALL 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 at7:02 p.m.by Mayor O'Mahony. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by City Clerk Ann Musso ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, SPINELLI, COFFEY, O,MAHONY MEMBERS ABSENT NONE MTNUTES The minutes of the City Council Study Session of February 5, the Regular Meeting of February 7, and the Special Meeting of February 15, 2000, were unanimously approved. CONTINUATION OF APPEAL HEARING FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 949.965 ROLLINS ROAD John F. Britton, owner of the property located at949-965 Rollins Road, requested the appeal hearing for this residential condominium project be delayed indefinitely. Moved to continue by Councilman Coffey, seconded by Councilwoman Janney, unanimously approved by voice vote 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING . APPEAL OF'PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF'A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD. ZONED M-l: RESOLUTION #25-2000 APPROVING SIGN EXCEPTION. WITH CONDITIONS City Planner Monroe reviewed her staff report of February 2,2000, which recommended City Council hold a public hearing and take action on the sign exception requested. The applicants are proposing to install a free standing, two-sided changeable copy pole sign on the primary frontage of the business at 1649 Adrian Road, Zoned M-l. The sign exception is for a pole sign with an overall height of 24' with a maximum allowed of 20', a changeable copy sign which requires Planning Commission or City Council approval, total signage area of 416 SF on the primary frontage where a maximunr area of 200 SF is permitted, and three signs on the primary footage where a maximum of two signs are permitted. The existing sign on the site is 20' tall, but the applicant is requesting to add a clock on the top portion of the sign which raises the height to 24' . Each face of the sign is 168 SF, for a total of 336 SF. The changeable reader board sign is located below the fixed portion of the sign. It is the intent of the applicant that the copy on the changeable sign include special items advertising their business as well as messages announcing special community cr City events. If the sign includes anything other than advertising for the business owner on site, due to the proximity of the freeway, an outdoor advertising permit would be required from the State of California. The Council needs to determine that community messages are not considered to be off-premise signage. If the application is granted, the City cannot regulate the content of the community messages placed on the changeable sign. February 23,2000 82 Burlingame City Council The Planning Commission voted to deny this request as they did not feel it was valid to approve such a large sign just because there are other large signs in the area; felt the only hardship for the applicant was that the name of the business doesn't accurately convey what this business does; felt intent of sign was to increase the ability to advertise; also concerned that the reader board would be a distraction to drivers on the freeway and will present a visually unattractive impression of the City. Vice-Mayor Galligan inquired if the City had any control over the verbiage on the electronic portion of the message; City Attorney Anderson explained that the City could only control the advertising of an off- premise commercial activity, but not the type of community activity advertised. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Attorney representing Color Copy, and the applicant, Nabil Daoud addressed the Council. Mr. Hudak distributed photographs of what the sign would look like with the type of messaging the applicant was considering; stated the height of the sign is necessary to have clear visibility from the freeway; the size is needed so drivers can see it clearly and quickly; these factors are consistent with other signs in this area; noted there were other reader board signs in the area where the message changes constantly and are a distraction to drivers; applicant has agreed to put restrictions on their messaging, such as one message per day, not advertising off-premise businesses and to only advertise the nature and services of the products Color Copy provides; explained that technology in the printing industry changes rapidly; applicant feels it is important to get new product information out to the public; need ability to change message from time to time, but only once per day. The five to l0 watt light bulbs will be one color only. Mr. Hudak explained that Color Copy proposed announcing community events as a way to be actively involved in the community; felt this was a positive idea. Cal Trans has confirmed in writing that the public messaging will not require the applicant to obtain a permit. Council Comments: Councilman Spinelli felt the siln would be a distraction to drivers, especially if it was to change each day; doesn't feel a hardship to the applicant exists; sign ordinance should be adhered to. - Qounsilman Coffey felt a sign of any size could be a source of distraction; there are other signs in the area that are equal size or greater; property has largest street frontage in the area (600'), and this sign would only affect freeway traffic. Councilwoman Janney noted that Color Copy Printing is a major asset to the community, as well as major employer; did not feel the sign would be out of line with the other signs in the area. Vice-Mayor Galligan stated that Cal Trans has approved the sign and that it's location would be seen by many and could be very beneficial to the applicant; use of the sign for community events could be a great benefit to the City as well. Mayor O'Mahony stated she didn't feel the clock portion was necessary, but felt the sign exception should be approved. Vice-Mayor Galligan moved to reverse the Planning Commission's denial to approve the sign exception; seconded by Councilwoman Janney. Approved by voice vote 4-1, Councilman Spinelli dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FIVE PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW TWO STORY OT'FICE BUILDING AT 1411 CHAPIN AVENUE. ZONED C.l SUBAREA 8.1 CP Monroe reviewed her staff report of February 15, 2000 which recommended City Council hold a public hearing to take action on the parking variances requested. The applicants are proposing the demolition of eight residential units located in two separate buildings with nine on-site parking spaces, and replacing them with a new two-story, 8,301 SF foot office building on the 7,722 SF site. Applicant would convey to the City a public access easement, the length of the west side of the property to be used by the proposed project's required parking which will become a part of the public parking lot spaces. These 15 spaces would be - metered and available for public use. The entire back-up area for these spaces is in public parking lot B-l; arrangement allows a24' wide central aisle in Lot B-1. Rearranging the parking spaces on the west side of Burlingame Ciry Council 83 February 23,2000 the property allows the increase of parking spaces from nine to 10. An encroachment permit granted to the Garden Center affects the use of the rear 72' of the west side of Lot B-l making it unusable for public parking. The Planning Commission was concerned with the requirements for the reconfigured public lot B-1; proposal shows the reconfigured lot to be 64' wide from the face of the Garden Center building to the face of the proposed office structure. Public Works expressed concem about where and how parking meters would be installed and maintained for those spaces on the east and west side of the lot, and how the structures would be protected; recommended a3-ll2 foot buffer zone be established between the building and the bumper stop for the car. Concem was also expressed about how this agreement would affect the City's options on the future use of public parking Lot B-1. If this lot were sold, there would be no accessible parking for this proposed 8,000 SF building. The public access easement should give the City ownership of the 13' to 17' deep area occupied by parking the length ofthe applicant's property. Vice-Mayor Galligan asked CP Monroe what the square footage is in the public access easement area; she noted it was approximately 2,000 square feet. Vice-Mayor Galligan felt it was difficult to make a decision on a parking variance after the study meeting on the parking study; directed Staff to come up with some figures for a parking "fee in lieu"; wondered if this needs to be done in steps as opposed to denying or approving the project at this council meeting. Felt more information was needed from the parking study; the land the City will be able to keep will be very valuable; City will receive revenue from 17 more meters; would like to know the numbers before granting a parking variance. Mayor O'Mahony noted that the parking study was based on 100% occupancy at peak hour during the week, which is very different from the parking study done in 1998 for previous applicant. Vice-Mayor Galligan felt if Council did not like the concept, the applicant should be told at this time. CA Anderson stated it was not necessary to hold a public hearing, but suggested it might be helpful to hear what the applicant had to say. Councilman Coffey questioned whether or not this lot was in the core area; it was confirmed that this lot is in the core area of the parking study. Mayor O'Mahony noted that the cars were jutting out into the City parking lot as shown in the packet, the staff report notes there is a lack of space between building and the parking bumpers. DPW Bagdon explained that a 2-112" overhang plus one foot for the parking rneter was a safe design to protect the buildings and provide needed access to the meters. Noted there were parking lots in the City with less space due to existing conditions; would like to have the parking meters placed so they wouldn't get hit by cars; would need to have enough overhang so the cars would not hit the building given the current design of cars; anything less than 3-112", the car could be in danger of hitting the building. Mr. Hudak, Attorney for the applicant, stepped forward to address the council; stated he measured a stall in the library parking lot and it was exactly the same size as what is being proposed by the applicant -20 feet from the back of the stall to the garage wall; the parking meter irts in fine; states the dimension of the parking lot meets all code requirements and has exactly the same standards, dimensions and overhangs that are in the library parking lot and Donnelly parking lot. Mr. Hudak agreed to move the parking stops in another six inches if that was a requirement by DPW Bagdon. Since the applicant and his representatives did not have the benefit of reviewing the parking study and did not want to pressure the Council to make a decision, felt it would be appropriate to continue the appeai hearing for one month. Council could then review the parking study; applicant could present a more complete presentation on why they feel the parking layout works. February 23,2000 84 Burlingame City Council Vice-Mayor Galligan felt six weeks would be more realistic for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Committee to complete their study, agreed that the present building,on this site needs to be removed if it will benefit parking and the parking will be available forever, would add to available parking on weekends; Mr. Hudak explained that the concept of "land swapping" was incorrect; stated the applicant is not taking land, but giving use of 1/3 of the lot to the City for parking; under current zoning, applicant could build a 12,000 to - 15,000 square foot project (lot line to lot line), but are only proposing half that size. Mayor O'Mahony explained to Mr. Hudak the concern about excessive parking variances that have been granted over the past ten years (115 spaces). Mr. Hudak stated a variance was not needed; once they receive credit for the spaces that are created, the building will have all the parking required with two extra spaces. Noted a variance was needed to provide parking on the City lot rather than on site. Once the variance is granted, the City has a parking lot that meets all code requirements, and the building will have all the parking that is required. Vice-Mayor Galligan requested CA Anderson research ordinances and resolutions and what legally can and can't be done regarding the parking district. Councilman Spinelli asked what the future implications would be of taking an easement and not acquiring the property. Councilman Coffey moved to continue the appeal hearing to April 3; seconded by Vice-Mayor Galligan; motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING . CONSIDER ADOPTION F ORDINANCE #1624 ADOPTING CHAPTER 10.25 _ DAYTIME CURFEW FOR MINORS At the City Council meeting of February 7,2000 the Police Chief introduced a proposed ordinance regarding a daytime curfew for minors. Facts and statistics were presented on crimes that occur during the day by minors; the school districts are concerned about minors not being on campus during the day; police feel they need a tool to be able to question minors in residential neighborhoods during school hours. The proposed ordinance would state that during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on weekdays that are not holidays or - weekends, youths under the age of 17 would not be expected to be out. This would give the police the right to stop and question them. There are a number of exceptions in the ordinance to cover minors being at home ill, being with parents on vacation, etc. and exceptions would be based on the particular school the minor is attending. Vice-Mayor Galligan asked why the ordinance is written for "under.I7" versus " 17 and under"; CA Anderson explained that at the age of 17, many kids have already graduated from high school and have a right to be out in public. The Constitution compels that the writing of this type of ordinance be done as narrowly as possible to accomplish the purpose, yet so it does not affect a large number who do not qualifu; don't want it read as a truancy issue as the City is not allowed to deal with these type of issues. Police Chief explained that if a police officer notices a 17 year old he knew to be in high school and had some reason to believe he is out of school unexcused, that offrcer could stop that student and question them. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Burlingame High School Principal Gerald Aragoni spoke in approval of the curfew. Feels the curfew would be beneficial to those students who are reluctant to come to school and who are continually truant. Stated that Superintendent Thomas Moore supports this ordinance and appreciates the City's help. Will McGowan, 37 Lorton, Andrea Cammorotto,1329 Cabrillo, and Ken Castle, 1411 Drake addressed the Council in opposition of the curfew; felt this type of ordinance could be abused by police officers; some youths may be questioned more than others; feels a nighttime curfew is understandable but that a daytime curfew is not fair; feels it would be impossible for police to know every schedule of every school; does not want young children stopped without just cause; acknowledged there are a lot of problems with truancy but wondered how extensive the burglary issues are that this ordinance is being based on; felt with the number of tourists in Burlingame, this ordinance could be detrimental to tourism if a Burlingame City Council 85 February 23,2000 minor from another country is stopped and questioned. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey was concerned that the different school vacation schedules could be an issue; worried this could be a detriment to the relationship between youth and police; does not want youth to feel they are being harassed; in favor of building positive police and youth communication; reluctant to support ordinance. Mayor O'Mahony noted that Burlingame High School has approximately 1300 students and police officers know who the problem youths are; felt as an educator, something needs to be done to control those who don't stay in school. Police Chief explained that there are instances where youths truant from schools outside this area visit the Burlingame High School campus usually with the intent to cause physical harm; this ordinance would give the police department probable cause to stop these youths and verifu if they are truant from their own high school. Councilman Spinelli noted section 10.25.040(b) and (c) specifically states a peace officer can take action only if there is probable cause; does not feel the innocent youths are going to be negatively affected by this ordinance. Councilwoman Janney noted that this ordinance is very sensitive to the rights of youths as well as children; appreciated hearing support of this ordinance from the school principal and Superintendent; feels this ordinance would be in the best interest of the youth; support the people who take care of the community's youth. Vice-Mayor Galligan noted the positive aspect of this ordinance and that the objective is to try to keep the youths in school versus the alternative; referred to the statistics of other cities that have implemented a daytirne ordinance that show a decrease; supports the ordinance. Councilwoman Janney moved to adopt Ordinance No.1624, Adopting Chapter 10.25 - Daytime Curfew for Minors; seconded by Vice-Mayor Galligan; approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING . CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1623 TO REVISE SECTION 15.12.110 OF THE MT]NICIPAL CODE REGARDING SEWER TESTS Director of Public Works recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 1623 proposing that the expiration of sewer lateral tests be doubled to ten years based on data collected on testing in the past decade; feels this would not be detrimental to the collection system. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There wer"e no comments and the hearing was closed. Vice-Mayor Galligan moved to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1623 to Revise Section l5.l2.ll0 of the Municipal Code Regarding Sewer Tests; Seconded by Councilwoman Janney; approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING _ CONSIDER ADOPTI N OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR ACOUISITION OF 1140 LAGUNA AVENUE (APN 026.192-210) CA Anderson stated that this item should be dropped from the agenda as the acquisition of 1140 Laguna had closed escrow on February 18, 2000; The property was purchased for additional public parking for the Broadway area. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. February 23,2000 86 Burlingame City Council RESOLUTION #26-2000 AUTHORIZING 2O()O REFUSE COLLECTION/RECYCLING RATES Assistant City Manager Becker reviewed his Staff Report of February 15, 2000 recommending an increase in collection rates by 4.5oh for 2000, and to continue current rates for a single container of 20 gallons or less; this 4.5o/o change follows a July I increase approved by Council to implement specific recycling programs aimed at increasing the City's diversion rate from the landfiU; this is the first time the rates will be increased under the new agreement; the recycling and collection rates are now unified into one agreement. Discussions are continuing between the JPA and BFI regarding further enhancements to the recycling progam. At the present time, there is approximately 44-48% diversion and this could possibly be at 50o/o by the end of the year. Now the focus is on commercial programs which produce the largest recyclable tonnage in the City. Mayor O'Mahony commended the progress of the recycling progftIm; ACM Becker noted that in 1998 the City recycled 4lYo;1999 numbers are in the process of being calculated. The substantial increase of diversion is due to the commercial programs participation, reduced yard waste break, reduced transfer station rates; recyclable materials dumped at the transfer station are being physical removed and recycled;73% of disposed waste is commercial,2To/o is residential. Vice-Mayor Galligan asked when and if it would possible to have recycling pickup on a weekly basis versus every other week. ACM Becker noted weekly pickups would result in a substantial increase in fees. Representatives from BFI were present. Councilwoman Janney moved to approve the 2000 Refuse Collection/Recycling Rates; seconded by Councilman Spinelli; unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR a.RESOLUTION #27-2OOO - IN SUPPORT OF'PROPOSITION 14. LIBRARY BOND - ft was recorlmended by City Librarian that Council consider the adoption of a resolution in support of Proposition 14, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. RESOLUTION #24-2OOO - ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME GROYE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT. CITY PROJECT No. 9927 Director of Public Works recommended that Council approve Resolution #24-2000 accepting the Burlingame Grove Water Main Replacement - Phase 1 project constructed by Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. of San Jose in the amount of $172,679.25. RESOLUTION #28.2000 ACCEPTING A PERMAI\ENT AI\[D TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR THE BURLINGAME SHORLINE TRAIL BEHIND 12OO BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. CITY PROJECT NO.9643 It was recommended by the Director of Public Works that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting grant of a permanent and temporary construction easement for the Burlingame Shoreline Trail behind the gas station at 1200 Bayshore Highway in the amount of $18,825. b. c Burlingame City Council 87 February 23,2000 e. RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FANNY AND ALEXANDER RESTASURANT AT I1O8 BURLINGAME AVENUE CA Anderson recofilmends renewing amusement permit for Fanny and Alexander Restaurant at 1108 Burlingame Avenue for four months to match renewals f,or other amusement permits in City. REJECT CLAIM OF ELEANOR MURPHY FOR PERSONAL INJURY SUFF'ERED ON JULY 21. 1999 CA Anderson recommends rejecting the claim of Eleanor Murphy for trip and fall injuries. f.RE.IECT CLAIM OF GILBERT I,IM F'OR S BACKUP OCCURING ON JULY 4.1999 CA Anderson recommends rejecting the claim of Gilbert Lim for sewer back-up that occurred on July 4, 1999. oE'AUTHORIZED CITY ATTORNEY TO.IO IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN HOWARI) JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION VS. CITY OF LA HABRA (CALIF'ORNIA SUPREME CASE NO. 5082591) h. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants #68001 to 68591, duly audited, in the amount of $2,727 ,921.45; Payroll checks 123347 to l24l0l for the month of January 2000 in the amount of $1,335,920.85; Electronic Fund Transfers for the month of January 2000 in the amount of $199,839.83 l.CITY INVESTMENT POLICY J k. Finance Director recommends approval of the policy for the year 2000. RESOLUTION #29.2000 APPROVAL OF BURLINGAME AOUATIC CENTER DISCOUNT FEE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS USE Parks and Recreation Director recommended that the City Council approve a resolution setting a discount fee for senior citizens using the Aquatic Center during public recreational swim hours. INTRODUCTORY REPORT TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM - DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACOUISITION OF 999 HOWARD AVENUE (APN 029-234.020) COUNCIL TEE REPORTS Councilwoman Janney attended Sam Trans Board of Directors Meeting where an action item was taken to expand the Paratransit/Redi-Wheels Program; attended BCE dinner/dance frrnction; attended meetings with the high school regarding the new pool; also met with the donor to discuss ways to raise funds for ongoing support of the pool. Councilman Coffey met with John Kelly, Samaritan House regarding the programs offered to the Burlingame citizens as well as the homeless shelter being proposed in Burlingame; February 23,2000 88 Burlingame City Council d. judged the high school speech contest that was sponsored by the Burlingame Lions club; met with CP Monroe and staff to review the process of application for design review; participated in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for the 21't Century survey. Mayor O'Mahony met with the Superintendent of the Elementary School District to discuss cofirmon goals and needs; attended C/CAG meetings on February 10 and 23; discussed guidelines for local development and - land use policy implementation. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Vice-Mayor Galligan felt it would be beneficial for the City to start discussing how City employees as well as the private sector employees will be getting from BART to their place of business; what shuttles will be available and where will they stop; Mayor O'Mahony agreed that this would be a good idea, an estimate of how many people will be using shuttle services would be necessary to get funding. Council agreed to begin working on estimated number of users with different offices that would benefit from a shuttle service. Mayor O'Mahony suggested the Council take a break from meeting with the different Commissions to give them a year to implement the ideas they have developed from the recent joint meetings. Councilman Spinelli agreed with Mayor; Vice-Mayor Galligan suggested she might consider quarterly meetings between the Mayor and the Chairpersons of each commission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -a.Commission Minutes: Planning, February l4; Parks and Recreation, January 20 and February 17; , February 7;Library, January l8; Beautification, February 3 Department Reports - Treasurer, January 31, 2000 Letter from Susan Tidmarsh, 2884 Adeline Drive, regarding use of New Roadway to Mills Canyon; reply letter from Fire Chief Reilly Letter from Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, regarding Design Review Process Letter from Janet H. Zimmer,ll20 Palm Drive, regarding concerns about homes in neighborhood Letter from Harold and Elizabeth Coffee, 1210 Oak Grove, regarding lack of parking spaces in the Oak Grove area Letter from Paul J. Constantino, 433 Airport Blvd., regarding lack of public art in the community Letter from Ken Musso, 1401 Grove Avenue, regarding Study Session meeting of February 5, 2000 Staff Report from Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian, acknowledging donor gift of $20,000 fro the estate of Hilda Porter to the Burlingame Library b. c. d. e. f. (}b' h. Burlingame City Council 89 February 23,2W0 j Letter from George Martineau and Nadja Breitenstein, 1050 Carolan Avenue, opposing homeless shelter at Rollins Road and Broadway Council moved to closed session at 9:10 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Returned to open session at9:20 p.m. CA Anderson summarizedthatthe City Council was not interested at this time in the acquisition of 999 Howard Avenue. ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY After a moment of silence in memory of Irene Papan and Leo Schon, Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at9:21p.m. Ctv,r-X Lrh//*4) Ann T. Musso City Clerk February 23,2W 90 Burlingame Ciry Council