HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1977.06.06378
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
JIJNE 6 , 1977
CAIL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the
above date in the City Hal1 Council Chambers. The meeting was
ca1led to order at 8:06 P.M. by Mayor A.C. "Bud" Harrison.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG:
Led by Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney.
ROLL CALL
Counc i 1
Counci 1
Membe rs
Membe rs
Present:
Absent:
Amstrup, Crosby, Harrison, Mangini, Martin
None
MINUTES:
The minutes of thespecial meeting of
regular meeting of May 16,
May 18, l-977 were approved
1977 and of the
and adopted.
P RO CLA.I\,IAT ION
Mayor Harrison read proclamation urging merchant cooperation injoining those who offer discounts to senior citizens. Mr.
Howard Linton, president of Senior Citizens, voiced his appreciation.
COMMUN T CAT IONS
THOI\,IAS C. TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION: DEVELOPMENT
OF PROPERTY OWNED BY ANZA SHAREHOLDERS LIOUIDATING TRUST
Mayor Harrison announced
memo from City Planner on
would be considered later
agenda item.
that this communication, together withproposed C-4 District regulations,in the meeting under another pertinent
FROM STAFF
I. EXTENSION
BANK BUILDING
OF LEASE EOR OFFICE ROOMS, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT
Councifman Crosby moved Lease be extended for three month period,
second by Councilman Mangini. Motion carried by voice vote,
Cor:ncilman Martin abstaining from comment or vote.
2. LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENTS
City Manager communication of June 2, 1977 advised that Mrs.
Edj-th Cohendet and Mrs. Genevieve M. Phelan were willing tocontinue serving on the Library Board.
Councilman Martin stated he would oppose this reappointment. Heclarified there was nothing personal in his disapproval, butrather, a dislike for having commissioners serve more than twoterms on the same commission. Hovrever, he had no objections totheir serving on a different commission.
Councilman Amstrup moved reappointment of
and Phelan, second by Councilman Crosby.following ro11 call vote:
Commissioners Cohendet
Motion carried on the
City Manager memo of June 2, 1977 informed Council that thislease with United States Carbon Corporation expired ,June 1 , 1977,
and that it can be extended for a three month period. Rental
has been $491.00 per month. Recomnendation was for this ex-tention.
379
AYES:
NAYES :
COIJNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN :
AMSTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON, MANGINI
MARTTN
CONSENT CALENDAR
I. CLAIM OF KAETHE MAYNARD (INJURY)
2. MAPS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
By memoranda of May 27, L977 ' city Manager's endorsements of
.rune 2 , 1977, Director of Public works recommended the following
maps be approved:
Final Parcel l,lap in Resubdivisions of Lots 2A,2c,
3A, 38 and 3D of Block 3, City of Burlingame at
33 Park Road by William A. Bartlett for T. Farley &
M. Sinqer.
Final Parcel Map - Resubdivision Lot 21 , BLock 12,
Burlingame Terrace & Lot 3 Will-borough Place, 1121
Palm Drive and. 792 Willborough Road, zoned R-1 by wm.
A- Bartlett for John Ward.
1
2
3 Tentative subdivision Map for Ten Condominium Units
1500 Howard Avenue by Geo. S. Nolte & Associates
for Mr. and Mrs. Martin Bruton.
4. Final Subdivj-sion Map for 30 Condominium uni-ts at 1515
Floribunda Avenue, by Wm. A. Bartlett for Floribunda
Deve lope rs .
Councilman Martin questioned if conditions applied to tentative
maps had been satisfied for the final maps. Public Works
Di-rector affirmed they had and that conalitions of tentative maps
now being approved would be the same as imposed by the Planning
Comnission.
Councilman Crosby moved consent calendar be approved, second by
Coundilman Amstrup, al-1 aye voice vote.
RE SOLUT lON S
1. RESOLUTION NO. 41-77 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING E)GCUTION OF
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN MATEO C OUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS
BUREAU AND CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR PROMOTIONAL SERVICES'' WAS
introduced by Cor:ncj-lman Amstrup who moved its adoption, second by
Councilman Mangini, carried on following roJ-1 call- vote:
AYES : COUNCILMEN: AIVISTRUP, CROSBY, HARRISON,MANGINI
NAYES: COIJNCILMEN: MARTIN
2. RESOLUTION NO. 42-77 "RESOLUTION GRANTING SPECIAL PERMIT
1510 CYPRESS AVENUE, BURLINGAI4E " was presented for Council
consideration. City Attorney reported this resolution is a formal
recordable confirmation of action taken at a previous Council
meeting.
Councilman Amstrup questioned clause which states that if the
two sons vacate the premises for a period longer than six months
the permit shall terminate. City Attorney stated he was concerned
with a time limit for enforcement of the conditions, but the
clause could be el-iminated if Council wished-
Councilman Martin remarked this was a normal clause to li-mit an
action.
In response to question from Counci lman Crosby, City Attorney
TTiirx:|rFltt'1Tai-rllrlr.rlrlF
City Attorney's memo of May 27,1977 transmitted copy of letter
from R. L. Kautz & Company recommending that this claim be denied
due to the time factors of this iniury. City Attorney concurred
in this recommendation.
380
Councilman Mangini had no objection to the clause, remarkingit was unlikely the younger son would be leaving in six months.
Councilman Martin lnlroduced this resolution and moved itsadoption. Second by Councilman Crosby, carried on the followingro11 call vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
COI]NC ILMEN :
COUNCILMEN:
CROSBY,MANGTNI,MARTIN
AMSTRUP (for reasons previously stated),
HARRISON (for reasons previously stated)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 43-77 I'RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PARTTCIPATEIN PRISM PROJECT.
Council was informed that this resolution indicates only anintention to participate in this project, for which Burlingamehas paid through the end of this year. There is an escape clause.City Attorney pointed out that the resol-ution states t'. . intentj-onto participate for the remainder of the 1977 calendar year . .,'Resolution was introduced by Councilman Mangini who moved itsadoptj-on, second by Cor:ncilman Crosby, all aye roll call vote.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 44-77 "AUTHORIZING E)GCUTION OF AGREEI\,IENT
BETWEEN TOWN OF' HILLSBOROUGH, CITY OF' B URLI NGAI\,IE AND CITY OF
SAN MATEO FOR LIBRARY SERVICES" was introduced by CouncilmanAmstrup, second by Councilman Crosby, all aye.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 45-77 IIAUTHORIZING E )OSCUTTON OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COI]NTY OF SAN MATEO AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAIUE FOR THE
TROUSDALE DRIVE AND MAGNOLTA DRIVE SIGNALIzATIoN PRoJECTI' wasintroduced by Councilman Amstrup who moved its adoption, secondby Councilman Mangini.
Council"man Crosby questioned the cost of this project. Dirlctorof Public Works stated cost was 945,000, but by entering thisagreement Burlingame will be reimbursed $30,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 46-77 ''RESOLUTION AUTHORTZING E)GCUTION OF
AGREEMENT FOR RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM WTTH SURE-KILL EXTERMINATORS,INC. " was introduced by Councilman Crosby, second by CouncilmanMartin, carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE S
ORDINANCE NO.110 7 "URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM
UPON DEVELOPMENT NORTH AND EAST OF BAYSHORE FREEWAY AND WTTHIN
THE ROLLTNS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA"
Mayor Harrj-son reviewed dj_scuss j.on at the joint meeting of CityCouncil and Pl-anning Comnission on June 3, t977, during which thetopic was continued development and potentj_aI problems of theWaterfront Conunercial District and environs. At that time theCity Attorney was directed to prepare an emergency ordinancetemporarily stopping development in this area because of concern\"rj-th impact of many possible sj-multaneous developments on traffic,water, sewage and other services, and other effects on the area,
This ordinance, No. 1107, had this evening been presented toCouncil, Mayor Harrison declared a brief recess at 8:25 p.M.
so that Council could review it.
RE CONVENE
Council reconvened at 8:45 P.M
Mayor Harrison annotrnced Urgency Ordinance No. l-107 woul_d haveits public hearing. He requested City Attorney to include
stated Mrs. Azzaria had not seen the text of the resofution but
would be informed.
)J
381
I
2
3
The Assj-stant City Planner pointed out that many new projects
are contemplated for this area, with eight separate EIRrs
presently before the City for review. With the sale of Anza
land for individual projects, development will necessarily be
less coordinated than under the Anza Master Plan. He emphasized
the limited City services in this area and the necessity for
revj-ew of land uses to be permitted with consideration of their
impacts .
The Assistant City Planner presented four recommendations to
Council:
Adoption of urgency interim ordinance to allow time for
consideration of new policies.
Preparation of report within sixty days on short term
improvements required in the area.
Report in I80 days on long term trends, land uses, and
improvements required.
4. Planning Commission to puraue study of the existing zoning
and land uses within the specified area and consider the
adoptj-on of a specific plan for the area.
Mayor Harrison opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. David Keyston, Anza Pacific Trust, acldressed. Council.
He spoke of Anza's involvement in the original C-4 zoning at the
time when Council and Planning Commission thought office development
in the entire industrial area should be consiilered, and Anza area
was found to be suitable. A specific zoning for office use was
developed and applied to Anza property. Subsequently, Anza
developed a Master Ptan and invested in an EIR with hearings
over a 15-18 month period with no consummation by the City. The
city subsequently considered that a Limitation on height should
be investigated, with warnings by Anza that a 50' height limitatj-on
would lead to a "wall" along the Bay. Mr. Keyston pointed out
this is now apparently the objection to the proposed Regency
project. He stated the developer has invested heavily in site
work and financing arrangements, and that the project could be
changed in concept if the City wished. Ho\,/ever, a moratorium
would cause hardship and a substantial financial loss to the
buyer. He added that the magnitude of this and the Raiser
project was not sufficient to justify a moratorium, especially
in view of the studies, data, and cooperation Anza had given the
City over the years. He noted acceptance by developers of the
decision by Cor:nci 1 to require EIRS on all separate projects,
even though present zoning ordinance does not require them.
Mr. Keyston stressed that Anza has not been able to selI any
of its land, but now has an opportunity to do so with financing
more avail-able. However, a moratorium would discourage prospects
and the City could lose opportunities, such as an impending sale
to a hotel chain. He agreed that traffic in this area needed
study, but this should not be a reason to hold up the two projects
already discussed. He commented he had been encouraging condominium
developments which impinge on traffic at exact]y the opposite
times as office buildings; and appealed to Council to amend the
ordinance so that not at1 projects would be held up during the
time of the moratorium.
in description of area the Rollins Road Industrial area north
of Broadway and east of the S.P. railroad tracks. He then requested
review from the Assistant City Planner.
Mr. Richard Lavenstein of Lavenstein and Company addressed the
Council. He had presented Council with letter dated June 6,
1977 protesting this measure, applicable to only 15 property
owners, and in particular its application to the M-l zone where
only manufacturing and warehouse projects may be built. Letter
382
requested Council's consideration of a meeting with these
property ori/ners to work out concerns without resorting to severe
and financj-ally disastrous measures of the moratorium. Mr.
Lavenstein reviewed his letter in detail, noting the thrust of
the ordinance was mainly on office buildings, and the fact that
major projects in M-I woul-d be minimal and would not change
the character of the area.
Also speakj-ng against the ordinance were: Mr. Robert Gilmore,president, Building Trades Council, san Mateo County; Mr. Larry
Getz, condominium developer; Mr. Chris Minnick, Regency Development
Agency; Mr. Robert Brown, Realtori and Mrs. Violet Gotel1i,presidept , A.w.A. R.E.
Arguments raised were:
Burlj-ngame has known for a long time what is going to happen
on Anza. Zoning should not be done under a moratorium. Moratoriums
have been known to carry on for lengthy periods.
Marketing survey indicates need for condominiums in thi-s area.
With their traffic ffow markedly different from offices, they
would not add to impact. One project has advanced to the EIRstage, and a moratorium might destroy, in the fickle real estatemarket. (In response to question from Councilman Martin,Assistant City Planner indicated this project would requirerezoning. C-4 regulations do not provide for residential usesor developments. )
Necessity for EIR on 700 Airport Boulevard. had been clearedwith lenders. This subseguent moratorium could adversely affect
financj-ng and stop the project.
The City already has adequate protection in the M-I zone.
References to M-I should be struck from the ordinance.
A.W.A.R.E. is actively opposed to moratoriums because of theirunfairness. This extreme measure can financially destroyd.evelopers. The City has enough ordinances to protect itself.
Mr. Robert Hammett, 1400 Rollins Road., questioned what woul-d
happen to his proposed bridge project in M-I, which enables theCity to have an access it wants. He urged M-1 be eliminated fromthe ordinance and selected projects in other areas be a]lowed tocontinue under the moratorium.
There were no further comments, and the public hearing wasdeclared closed.
Councilman Martin pointed out that development in M-t and
C-4 had reached the poj-nt where policy must be reviewed and a
moratorj-um is the only way to stop devefopment temporarily. Henoted that the originaf purpose of C-4 was for waterfront oriented.projects; office buildings had been developed in this area tothe point where waterfront uses are now only occasional. Traffic
problems must be faced, and the Convention Center will add tothem. M-I has changed radically, with retail uses and officebuildings being allowed (special- permits. ) The City must make
decisi-on on future uses in these areas.
He noted that EIRS as projects develop te1l Council what ishappening. However, Council's purpose in this legislation isto determj-ne .in advance what is going to happen. Questionsmust be answered: Will a large expenditure of money be necessaryto alleviate traffic problems? Is it available and from where?Will the taxpayers be charged, to the benefit of the devel-oper?
He sympathized with the developers but thought it vital thatthe City should investigate this area cIose1y. He assured the
audience the Council will conduct their studies as expeditiouslyas possible and j-n good faith. He noted it may be preferable tohurt the developer for a short time than to damage the Cj-tyfor a long time.
383
Counci lman Martin commented that Mr. Harunettrs project should be
included with the projects to be exempted, along with Mr' Raiserrs
project and Mr. King' s.
Councifman t'langini agreed that policy review for this area had
been long needed. However, he thought the ordinance needed'
some modifying. He questioned if control could be obtained by
the procesi oi special permit review. Assistant City Planner
conf-irmed that the special permit hearing with review of details
offered a great deal of control. However, clear criteria of
approval must be deve loped and, in this case, quickly'
Mayor Harrison questioned if special permit process \^'e re set up
in this area, would it be possibl-e to proceed simultaneously
with reports, reviews, and policy study. Assistant City Planner
considered this could be done.
Councilman Amstrup voiced his concern that the
be prolonged, and noted that if developers are
is also hurt. He gave example of the possible
which produce revenue for the City.
Councilman Crosby agreed, considerecl the ordinance basically
unfair to some deveiopers, and that it could be protracted because
information could not be developed in a short time' He thought
the biggest concern was the traffic problem, noting that $'hen the
anza nii was reviewed, the City agreed that freer^'ay access must
be sol-ved. Nothing apparently has transpired, and Caltrans
priorities are uncertaln. He stated he had never liked the
io..to.ir., and was inclined to approve the special permit approach
with concurrent work on PolicY.
Mayor Harrison reviewed the problems the Cj-ty knows it faces
in the waterfront area, and the fact that if a moratorium is
set developers will be discouraged from coming into Burlingame'
He stated ifr" City is concerned with its financial problems' and
he did not want to discourage viable projects in this area' He
considered the special permit process might be a solution, -
=p".ifvi-"g he wo-u1d lik; the Cj-ty Planner's suggestions imp1emented'
rir""" i..-to require special permit for structures over 35"
qioss ftoor arei of moie than 30,000 SF, and projects with FAR
of mo re than 1.
Councilman Amstrup stated he was not certaj-n that the special
permit criteria as suggested by the City Planner was the most-advantageous because it naa not yet been thoroughly considered
uy coun6it. He suggested developmentaL action be stopped for
two weeks to a1low Council tirne.
moratorium could
hurt, the City
loss of hotels
out that if the special permit process
criteria and it will take time to
days. He suggested all development
develop proper criteria.
Councilman Martin
was chosen, there
develop, at least
be stopped for 90
RECESS
A short recess was
reconvened.
Councilman Mangini
for a period of 90
project in C- 4.
po in ted
must be
60 - 90
days to
declared at 9:45 after which the meetj-ng
moved that an urgency ordinance be adopted
days to require a special permit for any
Mayor Harrison questioned if M-1 should be included'
councilman Mangini amended his motion to include the M-I area'
(Totat areas, north and east of Bayshore Freeway from the City
of San Mateo to the City of Millbrae, and the area east of the
iouthern Pacific rigtrt of way from Broadway to the. Citv of
MiLlbrae. ) Second by Councilman Crosby. on question from
-councilman Martin, C6uncilman Mangini specified that special
permits would be heard before the Planning Commission with a
384
reconunendation to the Counci 1.
In the following Council discussj-on it was decided that interiormodifications, maj-ntenance and repair, would be exempted fromthe ordinance; the ordinance woutd be effective irunediatel-y,signs would be exempted, certain specified projects, includingLegaspi Towers and Mr. Hammettr s, would be exempted, speciafpermits approved by Planning Commission would appear on Councilconsent calendar.
Motion as amended approving Ordinance 1107 carried on unanimousro11 call vote.
NEW BUS INESS
CITY RESPONSE TO PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Councilman Martin stated that pending legislation, as reviewedin the r,eague of California Cities Legislative Bul1etin, oftencritically affects City governmentsi and objections or approvalsof proposed bill-s should be sent to covernrnent officials rapidly.Waiting two weeks for a Council meeting could obviate action. Heproposed that a staff merber, together with a Councilman, reviewlegislative bulletins, with a telephone poII of Council membersif a communication on a critical issue should be sent immediately.
The re was no objection from Council. Mayor Harrison volunteeredas a Council liaison.
In connectj-on with this, Councilman Amstrup voiced his objectionto AB 1455 which would require that every general 1aw citysubmit to the voters at the Novend)er, 1978 election the questionof whether or not councilmen should be etected by district. Hestated he already had a resolution prepared.
MEMBERS BY DISTRfCTS" was introduced by Counci lman Amstrup, $rhomoved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini, carried
un an imous 1y .
RESOLUTION NO. 47_77 '' PiESOLUTf ON OPPOSING ELECTION OF COI]NCTL
BUDGET - I97?-7 8
POST OT'FICE PARKING
Councilman Amstrup, Budget Chai,rman, noted. Council had receivedproposed budget at the special meeting of June 4, 1977. Comnentingon the City Managerrs suggestion in letter of budget transmittalthat the City hold the line on the 92( tax rate, the Councj-Imanhoped that with the increase in assessed evaluations the tax ratecould be l-owered. He announced that public meetings for citizeninput would be held on this proposed budget.
Councilman Amstrup made the following assignments for review ofbudget $rlth department heads:
Mayor Harrison, Park and Recreation; Councilman Crosby, Library;Cor:ncilman Mangini, Fire and Civil Defense; Councilman Martin,Pol-ice and Parkj-ng Enforcement; Councilman Amstrup, City HalIand Public Works .
Council-man Amstrup dj-scussed open 1etter of June 3, t9j7 LoBurlingame Post Master from Fred D. Livingston, who suggestedthat s j-nce post office operations are being phased out, -the
conmunity could use certain portj_ons of this vacated propertyfor temporary downtown parking pending its eventual sale.
councilman Amstrup thought this suggestion had merit, and consideredthe post office should be contacted.
Mayor Harrison told of his conversation with the post masteron this subject. This official had suggested thal he be sent aletter from the Councj-l and he would be-happy to instigate inquiry.
t,
385
Mayor Harrison directed City Manager to write such a letter.
PUBLIC UTTLITIES COMMISSION HEARING
Mayor Harrison noted receipt of notice of prehearing conferenceon the application of Southern Pacific to discontinue operationof passenger services bet\"reen San Francisco arn d San Jose.
Conference will be held 9:30 A.M., Friday, June 10, l-977 at theState Building, San Francisco.
City Attorney questioned if Council wished st.aff to attend ortake part.
With concurrence of Council, Mayor Harrison requested thatCity Attorney attend conference for informational purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
t. Letter of commendationFrank D. Tealdi from S.D. I.
Burlingame.
dated May 25, ]-977 for Police Inspector
Data Processi.ng, 880 Mitten Road,
2. Memo ofdraft E.I. R.
3. Letter of June l, 197'1 from Mrs. A.
Road opposing new police station.
June
on
2, L977 from Associate Civil Engineer transmitting
Broadway,/Southern Pacific Grade Separation.
Erickson, 221 Arunde 1
4. Letter from T.J.S. Muirhead, 1808Council action on 1835 Loyola Drive.
Montecito Way, approving
5. Letter of May 24, 1977 from Ms.Virginia A. Stoddart , 1265
proposed Benihana Restaurant.E1 Camj-no Rea1, opposingCity Manager directed to
bridge near
answer.
6. City Manager memo of June 6, 1977 from City Manager transmittingreport from P.G.E. on Bayswater Underground.ing District. MayorHarrison stated this would be discussed at neit study meeting.
7. City Planner
7977 .
report of Planning Commission meeting ptay 25,
8. Treasurerrs Report, April 30, 1977.
9. Minutes: Park and Recreation, May 10;Traffic, Safety,Parking, May 12, tgjj.Planning, May 9;
Councilman Martin noted suggestion from Traffic, Safety andParking Chairman that af l- commission chairmen receive Lopies ofall other commission minutes so that they would be fu11y informed.Staff was so directed
Councilman Crosby requested that background information beincluded with study agenda on items that have been previouslydiscussed. City Manager agreed.
FROM THE FLOOR
Mr, Tom Marriscolo, 1547 Los Montes, Burlingame, addressedcouncil on subject of petition presently being circurated in thecity for referendum on police slation. -tte beiieved that somesolicitation is being done under false pretenses and misleadingstatements are being made. He announced his intention ofconferring with the District Attorney to investigate such areasof mis in formati-on.
Mr. Marriscolo made the suggestion on downtorrrn parking thatemployees should be educated to park a block or two fiom theirwork, and the parking probl-em would be aLreviated. He noted thatat 8:00 A.M. many parking places are already fiIled.
,
r{!tr!-Trr-..rr7rlrrrF4rrr
i
I
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
t
t
r
I
I
t
I
i
386
r^-.:,+*vr,!{$t 5!r?v,rr!Yar-Irll,.?arrirrl.!R!rtlr;r.*-
In response to question from Councilman Amstrup, he stated he
addressed Council as a private citizen, not as president of the
Potice Association.
Counci-1man Martin commented he hoped citizens would regard
this petition as an exercj-se in the d.emocratic process and not
as a system of recrimination.
Meeting regularly adjourned at 10330 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
z/ zlze,Hi 1lvCityerk
1
ADJOURNMENT