CC Min 1995-10-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In response to Council questions regarding truck parking for loading and unloading in front of the building taking up parking spaces reserved for Gold's Gym, Director Patterson advised that it would be more appropriate to ask the applicant or owner of the property how this situation would be resolved. In response to Council questions, Mr. Roland Lampert, owner of the 899 Broadway property and building (warehouse and proposed Gold's Gym) described Bindco's use of the warehouse for storage and distribution, and stated that the loading and unloading of trucks was at the Charter Street side of the building, not Broadway. There are no trucks left on site. Mr. Lampert stated he would like to keep one of the bays on Broadway to facilitate side loading. Mr. Lampert advised he did not receive a copy of the video nor did he see it. Mr. Lampert stated he also owned the California Athletic Club in San Carlos and went through this exact same process when opening that Club. Mr. Lampert stated that there have been no complaints by that Club's light industrial neighbors over the last three years, except the one time at the very beginning, which resulted in the Gym putting up a barrier which worked out quite well. In response to Council questions, the applicant Jerry McCall, described the computer monitoring and results of lunch time use in the Santa Clara Gold's Gym. Mr. McCall stated he was still working with Raychem on additional parking and exploring valet servIce. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that there was an evidentiary issue to consider. References were made to a video, and asked if all Council Members had received and viewed it. If it was not observed by all Council Members then the City Attorney recommended that if it is going to be considered a part of the record that the opportunity be made for all Members to view it, and the official copy be placed with the City Clerk. If it was received after the Public Hearing, then it would take special dispensation of the Council to receive it. Apparently it was sent out after the last meeting to the Council's individual homes. That creates an evidentiary problem as far as the record is concerned. In answer to the question, all Council Members acknowledged receiving and viewing it. City Attorney Schricker asked if the Council wished to have the video become a part of the official record. Councilwoman Steinfeld stated that the video simply described the neighborhood, it doesn't refer to staff or City processes, it simply stated the concerns of the impacted businesses. City Attorney Schricker stated that the record should show the time periods during which the video was taken, and essentially what it purports to demonstrate, and as a matter of foundation it should show the hours of day, what days of the week it represents as far as the usage is concerned and what it depicts, what buildings and what uses are involved. MINUTE BOOK NO.53 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 375 October 9, 1995 Page 14 . - ...--"..