Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1974.12.02CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame city date in the City HaIl Council Chambers.at 8:l-0 P.M. by Mayor William J. Crosby. Burlingame, California December 2, 197 4 29:i held on the above was called to order Council was The meeting PLEDGE OE' ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Lieutenant of Police Thomas B. Chase. ROLL CALL Present : Absent: councilmen: Amstrup-cro sby-Cu s ick-Harr i son-Mang ini Councifmen: None $13,174.40 13,962.00 MINUTES BIDS I. RESURFACING MISCELLANEOUS CITY STREETS JOB NO. 74-14 Bids for the above project, oPened on November 20, L974, at 2:30 P.M were declared as follows: BIDDER TOTAL BID Reed & Graham Bay Slurry SeaI eity streets - slurry man Amstrup, who moved RESoLUTION No. 7O-74 "Awarding Contract Resurfacing Miscellaneous seal, Job No. 74-14" was introduced by Council- its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried on roll caII. 2. RESURFACING MISCELI.ANEOUS CITY STREETS JOB NO. 74-19 B ids were for the above project, opened on November 20, L974' at 2:00 P.M declared as follows: TOTAL BID Lowrie Paving company $37,549.50cray & Lewis, Inc. 38,058.00 Kubit, Bortolotto & Kelly, Inc. 42,882.90 Councilman Harrison, $rho moved and unanimously carried on roll Engineerrs Estimate: s32,689 .50 its adoptj"on, second by Councilman Amstrup ca11. A communication from the Director of Public works to the city Manager, November 25, L974, recommended award of contract to Lowrie Paving company, Inc. In an addendum to the coNnunication, the City Manager concurred in the recommendation. RESoLUTIoN No. 71-74 "Awarding contract Resurfacing Miscellaneous City Streets - Asphalt Concrete overlay, Job No. 74-L9" vras introduced by The minutes of the regular meeting of November L8, 1974, previously submitted to the City Council, were approved and adopted. Engineer's Estimate $13,246.00 In a memorandum to the City Manager under date of November 25, 1974, the Director of Public works recolunended award of contract to Reed & Graham. An addendum to the communication from the City Manager concurred in the recommendation. BIDDER () PETITION FOR ANNEXATION KASH AND SACCUMAN The petition of Ilennj.s M. and Jennie M. Kash, 2844 Hil-l-side Drive, and Cesare and Louise Saccuman, 2848 Hillside Drive, for annexation to the City of Burlingame $ras considered at length by the Council, with input from the floor, at the meeting of November L8, L974. Action $ras postponed, and the matter continued to the present meeting, for the Director of Public works to determine a fair and equitable buy- in charge for properties beinq annexed into the City of Burlingame from the Burlingame HiIIs. Acknowledgment hras made of a memorandum, November 27, L974, to the City council from the Director of Public works reco(unending an asslssment of $1,500.00 against each annexing owner for upgrading of public utilities in the Hi1ls area. Attached to the memorandum, Lhe uirector of Public works furnished copies of the transcript of a Burl.j.ngame Hills study committee meeting of February 25, 1,968, and a 1968 si,af f report titled "Burlingame HiIls Annexation PoIicy Questions, " both addressed to the question of annexing the entire Burlingame Hills area at one time. With reference to the $1500.00 figure, the Director of Public Works exPlained in his memorandum that he was hesi.tant to recorunend any high-r figure, although believed justified, because of statements maae Uy the aity's representative in the transcript of the 1968 meeting . The Director of Public works, responding to Mayor crosby's invitation to co(unent, apoJ.ogized for not having a complete rePort availabl"e on the buy-in factor. He explained there was not time to do the researah necessary to determine a pro rata amount to apply against capital improvemeirts, buildings, parks, etc.i the Director of Finance indicated inother month vrould be needed to arrive at that type of figure, To establish actual original cost figures would entail review of all of the original documents on the various projects.. The Director of Public works stated that the $1p00.00 figure just reflects costs discussed with the homeowners in 1968, updated to present-day cos ts . Councilman Harrison reported he spent some time \^,ith the Director of Public Works discussing this subject. The $1500.00 relates solely to upgrading public utilities; capital j.mProvements paid for by the taxpiyers out of the general fund are not included. He did not opPose annLxltion as the properties aPply and wish to come in and endorsed the Director of public Works' iecommendation that the Finance Director come up with cost details whereby a buy-in formula can be applied to properties seeking annexation. Councilman Amstrup suggested that establishing this kind of figure creates a precedent for future action by the Council. The time may come when the whole Hills area may exPect to annex on the identical" formula. He recolunended that the council proceed cautiously bearing in mind there could be a precedent that the Council may not wish to live with. Mayor Crosby asked the City Attorney if the City Council can be bound to a fixed amount. The City Attorney responded that once the Council established a monetary cost it could be argued that the council must be consistent j.n its -harge to come into the city. This kind of fee is not colnmon, The precedent would have been set once the figure was set. Councilman Manginl asked if the to LAFCO if a buy-in charge \,rere The City Attorney stated that a the city and the proPerty ohrner involve LAFCo. subject annexation must be returned attached, or any other condition. formal contract negotiated bet$reen providing for PaYment would not Councilman Cusick suggested that a current buy-in factor possibly $rould not be suitabli three to four years hence, because of the inflation element. She pointed out that the cost of upgrading a $,ater system to standard might be entirel'y different in three years. Tire City At.torney explained it was not intended to eliminate the pos- sibiliti of inflatio;. In effect, the Council would be establishing a minimum f igure . 21) ir Mayor Crosby indicated a preference for more study of the materialpresented by the Director of Public Works and rnore j.nformation oncapital improvement costs. He expressed reluctance to make a decisionon the information at hand and, other than the buy-in feature, hadno strong objection to the annexation, everything being equal. Hepointed out that in 1970 the city approved a tl4ro-lot annexation. Councilman Mangini commented there are a number of questj-ons to be answered with respect to a buy-in formula; for this reason, he would supPort further study by staff. Councj-Iman Cusick recommended that the applicants be given the oppor- tunity to consider the $1,500.00 amount and also to think about addedcosts for capital improvements buy-in. Perhaps they worlt be interested.If the city could have their answer soon, a decision could be madeto proceed,or not, with the study. Mayor Crosby recognized Mr. Saccuman, inviting his comments. The latter reported he had anticipated some form of fee but was unprepared for the amount proposed by the Director of Public works. He stated he was willing to pay a fee but felt that the S1,500.00could not. be justified. In agreeing to a postponement for additional staff study, he asked if a breakdown of the Director of Public Workslfigure could be made avaiLable for his information. Councilman Amstrup stated the buy-in fee j,s a policy decision that no member of staff is going to make. The Council should decide, first, is it going to follow that approach; if so, information cornpiled by staff will be of value; if not, there will have been a great deal of purposeless research. He recommended this be discussed at a study meeting so guidelines can be passed along of rrhat the Council rrants included and what deLeted. Mayor Crosby thereafter declared a January 20, L975; in the meantime, at the study meeting on Deeember- 47 to the meeting of formula to be discussed t/, ;'{' cont inuance the buy-in 197 4 ; ,t..'1- IiEARING PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 25 ZONING I"layor Crosby announced this was the time and place scheduled, Pursuantto published notice, to conduct a public hearing and to consider a series of amendments recorunended by the Planning Commission. Acknowfedgment vras made of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-74 " Recommending Code Amendments To Title 25 Zoning Covered By Environ- mental Impact Report EIR-29P, " Environmental Impact Report For Pro- posed Code Amendments To Title 25 Zoning (EIR-29P), Addendum To EIR-29P and proposed ordinance to implement such amendments. Following an announcement of ground ru1es, Mayor Crosby declared the I:earj.ng open on the Envj.ronmental ImPact RePort. Invited by the Chair to initiate the discussion, the City Planner stated tha EIR covers a number of different topics. It is subdivided into eight (8) paragraphs, the last added as the result of an emer- gency ordinance regulating height limits in R-3, R-4, C-I and M-I Districts. The Planning Commission approved EIR-29P covering seven(7) code amendments in June, 1974; in Ju1y, 1974, the EIR was amended, because of the addition of Paragraph 8, and transmitted to the city Council to be certified. The city Pl,anner advised that the amount of time the Planning Commission devoted to the amendments, individual'Iy and collectively, goes back over a year. The amendments hrere not sent to the City Council until all the concerns the Commission had were resolved. The City Planner discussed the ProPosed amendment relating to explaining that the code now recites specific dollar amountsi amendment provides that fees shatl be fixed by resolution of Councit so they can be uPdated as deemed necessary. "Fees , " thethe City 2e$ With respect to the amendments and regulations requiring a special permit to erect a building more than i5 feet in height, the Planner pointed out that the city Council willfrelieved of conducting initial hearings on a number of projects. Tr,ro emergency ordinances in existence require the City Council to grant special permits. The amendments $rere put into the zoning code so that the Planning Com- mission will conduct the initial hearing and pass its recommendation to the city Council. The city Council can act on that, - or set aside the Commission's decision and hold a subsequent hearing. He mentioned another significant change relating to percentage of 1ot coverage i.n M-1 (Industrial) oistiict; the amendment will require approval of a special permit for 60t coverage, thereby providing a very large meaiure of control , and establishing the threshold for Planning Com- mj.ssion and City Council review of projects. MODIFICATIONS: Councilman Cusickrs recofiunendations for modifications to EIR 29-P were accept ed, as follows: I. Page 15, Paragraph 2, Line 6, insert "interrupt views..." 2. Page f6, Paragraph 1, delete "create concentrate peopte for an urban feeling. " The Ci.ty Attorney stated the ordinance can be form and amended with a subsequent ordinance; will be in effect. "reduce privacy" folJ.owing the desired density to Mayor Crosby invited comments from the fl,oor. Mr. David H. Keyston, Vice-President, Anaa Pacific Corporation, objected to the language on Page 14, Addendum to EIR-2gP, sub-Paragraph d., specifically the words "use with a" in both places where they appear. He asked if it was the intent that each time the use changes in a building where height is greater than 35' and lot coverage over 60* that a special. permit will be required in the M-I District, or does the regulation apply to a building more than 35 feet high or covering more than 608 of tha lot. EiEiEioned that one of Anza's buildings, built and used for a warehouse, was subsequently changed to a truck termj.nal dispatching air freight. The City Planner expressed a preference to use the wording that exists in the code. The proposed ordinance follows that wording. He read from the code, Section 25.42.030, "Any use similar in nature to one for which a permit is required in this or any other district. " The Planner pointed out that the city faces the problem of older buildings being converted to office buildings where there will be a need for more parking. The Planning Commission shoul,d have the oppor- tunity to review such projects. Mr. Keyston referred to the 6Ot lot coverage regulation in the ordinance before the Council and another zoning change approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council for consideration allowing for 70t coverage in M-I. He suggested the zoning ordinance may become too complex and confusing to interpret. In response to Mayor crosby, Councilmen Mangini and llarrison, Council sub-corunittee charged with review of the amendments, sustained Planning Commission and Planning Department recorunendat ions . adopted in its present in the meantime, the changes Charles W. Mink, chairman of the Planning Commission, urged the Council to retain the wording. He stated if the city makes concessions to builders to exceed 60t or 35' this is for a specific purPose and use, and it is to the city's benefit to preserve its right to review any change in use that might take place in a building. The City Attorney referred to Page 14, Addendum to EIR 29-P, sub- paragraph "d." In the two items listed, he noted that "structure" is used in one and "building" in the other. His recommendation that "structure" be used in both was accepted. Mr. Arnold H. Rodman, 905 Morrell Avenue, asked if guideJ.ines are 7(), established in the EIR rdith respect to height and bulk in C-4 The Planner reported that specific regulations are proposed. these from Page 9 of the EIR. District. He read There were closed. no further comments from the floor. ?he hearing was declared A motion by Councilman Mangini to certify Environmental rmpact RePort EIR-29P with its modifications $ras seconded by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on roll call. ORDINANCE NO. 1025 "Amending Sections 25,24.0L0, 25.32.030, 25.34.030, In a coluflunication dated Novembet 27, !974, James l'1. O'NeaI of Albert A. Hoover & Associates, Architects, appealed, on behalf of Mount Royal Estates, the decision of the Planning Commission at its meeting an November 25, L974, in denyin9.3,;peciat permit. for the above lroject. A memorandum from th€7etty'ptanner , November 27, corunented on the application. The city Planner reported the Project exceeds 35' in height and the City Coirncil should consider that a part of the same hearing' He r"ras informed by Mayor Crosby that the the hearing at the regular meeting of 25.36.030, 25.36.O40, 2s.36.070,25.42.030, 25.42.040, of the Burlingame Municipal Code and Adding Sectiors 25.08.265 Floor area ratio, 25.41.025 Conditional uses requiring a special permit, 25.41.090 Height and bulk of buildings, 25.74.025 Lapse of special permit for nonuse, to Title 25 (ZONING) of the Burlingame Municipal Code" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Mangini. COMMUN ICAT IONS ].. APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED MILLSDALE OFFICE BUILDING 1755 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Mr. orNeal was present. City Council wilL conduct December 16, L97 4. A letter dated November 8, 1974, from Bruce K. Thomas, 7I5 Crescent, S""-uii"", requesting thaf primrose Road be made a one-way street into eurlingame fr6m Aayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue was acknowledged and referrid to the police Department and Health, Safety & Traffic Com- mission for study and recommendation. 2.TRAFFIC PATTERNS INTERSECTION OF CYPRESS AND CAROL STREETS PRIMROSE, BAYSWATER, EL CAMINO, The Director of Public works r{as requested to notify I4r. Thomas, the pastor at st. catherine,.s and commercial establishments along stre;t that the matter witl be considered by the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission at its December 12 meeting. the 3. T{OODMAN V,MUNICIPAL COURT -- PARKING ON PENINSULA AVENUE Under date of November 25, 1974, the City Attorney informed the Council tilat a hearing was held on November 15 in the Superior court on the above matter, and that Judge Mi11er, in his memorandum decision, stated that since "no parking" signs were improperf,y placed, the citations were invalid. The communication stated further that in effect the Court gave a judgment in the same form as the settlement which the city had offered to l4r. woodman. The City Council accepted the Attorneyrs recorunendation that the city proceed to place another sign in the nriddle of each of the blocks that were the subject of the action and again pursue citations of violators. 4. PARCEL MAPS Under date of November three maps consldered by November 25 and advised rnendation on each. 26, L974, the Director of Public Works submitted the Ptanning Commission at its meeting on that he concurred with the Commission's recom- 298 1. Amended subdivision map Park Plaza Towers, a condominium project at 1L0 Park Road, map prepared by Frahn, Edler, Cannis for Pacific Western Contractors. on a motion by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried., the City Council accepted the reconmendation of the Planning Commission that the map be denied on the basis that any other action would be contrary to previous council action concerning amendment of the agreement with Pacific Western Contractors. In response to inquiries from Councilman Amstrup, the Dj-rector of Pub1ic works stated that the latest word he had was that 1I units have been authorized for occupancy, that the city is not preventing owners from occupying their units, and that the units that are in violation of the agreement between the city and the developer have been sealed. 2. Final Parcel Map being a resubdivision into one 1ot of a Portion of Lot 14, Bfock 7, Burlingame Land Company Map No. 2 (5L9-23 Ansel Road, R-3 District) by Witliam J. Harunond for Robert and Katherine Berr).man. A motion by Councilman Harrison, second by CounciLman Mangini approved the map and accepted Planning Commission reco[unendation that final signatures be withheld until buifding code requirements are met, i.e., 20 foot separation or connection of structures on a single parcel in an R-3 zone. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Tentatj.ve and final parcel map being a resubdivision of Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 3, East Mil1sda1e Industrial Park No. I (1755 Bayshore Highway, M-l District) by Brian, Kangas, Falk & Associates for Albert Hoover & Associates, Architects, and Carol J. Flynn, owner. PlanninE Commission recommendation to approve -mep accepted on motion of Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried. 5. HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATION In a communication dated November 25, 1974, the Director of Parks submitted to the City }4anager "Nomination for Heritage Tree Status, " approvecl by the Beautification Commission at its regular meeting of llovember 7 , I97 4, and requiring City Council approval before desig- nation becomes effective. In an addendum to the communication, the City Manager recommended that the Council confirm the designation. A motion unanimous ( Sequo iaby Peter by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini and ly carried, approved Heritage Tree Status for the Coast Redwood Sempervirens) on the property at 313 Chapin Lane, nominated Grossman of that address. Public Employees' Retirement System And The City Council of The City of Burlingame" (identification and communication personnel in police department), introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption $rith the provision it becomes effective upon communication employees signing proposed memorandum of understanding. !4otion seconded by Councilman Harrj.son and unanimously carried on ro11 ca1l. RESOLUT ION I. RESoLUTION No. 72-74 "Resolutj.on of Intention To Approve An tunendment To Contract Between The Boar d Of Administration of The ORDINANCES l-. oRDINANCE NO. 1023 "An ordinance Amending Sections 22.04.080 And 22.20.010 oE The I',tunIcipal code Def ining end Prohibiting Roof Signs" was given its second reading. Councilman Cusick moved adoption, second by Councilman AmstruP. In response to an inguiry from David tion, the City Attorney confirmed it H. Keyston of Anza Pacific CorPora- is not the intent to prohibit 1)1)2 pole signs by enactment of this legislation. carl Heymann, Jr., of California Sign users council, Walnut Creek,protested that the languaga in Section 2, sub-paragraph i. "when inthe opinion of the planning commission" is arbitrary and capricious. He asked why specifics are not spelled out in the ordinance instead of using such words. The city Attorney comnented he was prepared to defend the ordinance . Councilman Mangini pointedin Burlingame is advisory,City Council. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1026 .'An tntuniciPaI Co-le Of TEe City Charges" rdas introduced for ferred to the meet outits that the role acti.ons being of the Planning Commissionsubject to review by the The motion to adopt the ordinance $ras unanimously carried on roll caII. ordinance Amending Section I5.04.010 of The Of Burlingame Concerning water Connection first reading by Councilman Amstrup. The Director of Public Works advised that some water rates and charges are established by ordinance and some by resolution and that it was his recommendation that all such charges be established by resolution; this ordinance is intended to adopt that procedure. UNPINISHED BUS INESS 1. Caboose Parking Lot: Referred to December 4 study meeting for dis- cuss],on, NEW BUSINESS 1. re San Mateo Count Transit District Board Members :Councilman Amstrup 7, where then9on wednesday, November 2 City Selection Committee elected three members of the San Mateo County Transit District Board. He stated it. was not his intention to be critical of Mayor Crosby nor the people elected but to question the haste with which the Corunittee acted. He mentioned that the Board of Supervisors announced it witl not select menbers until the two new supervisors are seated. It would apPear that the City Selection Com- mittee might have delayed until there was input from council members throughout the county. He noted, aIso, that by reason of the selection of the mayor of Pacifica by the Cornmittee, there will be tr^ro represen- tatives from the coastside on the board; of the three members to be selected from citizens of the county, one must be from the coast. Mayor Crosby explained that he attempted to reach Council members without success the day before the meeting. He stated that he questioned the urgency and made the observation that the action \,ras too hasty but was informed by McRobert Ste$rart, chairman of the City Selection Committee, that there was a deadl-ine for naming directors. Mayor Crosby agreed to raise the issue at the Council of l*layors meeting Friday, December 6. 2. Restructured Regional P]annlqg Conmittee MembershiF Councilman Cusick as . She referred to a coNnuni- cation from l4cRobert stehrart, Chairman, Council of Mayors,wherein it was proposed that the three (3) Council of Mayors representatives to the special Selection Committee be chosen from the three (3) largest cities in the county, whlch would be San l,lateo, Redwood City and Daly City,if this were carried out, Burlingame would not be represented on the Selection Committee. Mayor crosby stated this was Mr. stewart's idea and there vras some feeling this might be a poor precedent. Councilman Mangini pointed out this is not official . This City Council approved the city Selection Conunittee and the Board of Supervisors, three from each, selecting the six at-1arge members. At Councilman and to report committee. Cusickrs request, the City Attorney agreed to on the rqquirenents for membership on the City re search Selection 300 3. Cha Public Works Em 1o ee:Councilman Mangini ndent, Street and Mayor Crosby proclaimed Friday, "TOASTMASTERS DAY" in the City reported that Sewer Departments,the City of rles A. W 1 lson, S uPer r n terecently observed his fortieth anniversay with Burlingame. 4. Library Board iqeetings: Councilman Mangini mentioned the newstartlnq time of these meet ings and asked if the City Council has control in this matter. The City Attorney agreed to research and report at the study meeting. PROCLAMATION: December, 1974, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Corununications: 1. Copy of letter from Mr. and Mrs. Arthur S. Harris, owners of Lot 6, Viewlands Estate, to Mr. Ross Conti, County Tax Collector, requesting relief from payment of property taxes because the 1ot has recently come under the Earthquake l{azards Act. 2. Mr. P.H. tsroaddus, 3208 Hillside Lane, concerning stoP signs on Trousdale Drive. 3. San Francisco Water Department submitting proposed rate schedules for water service. 4. League of California Cities "Highlights of l-974 Legislation Affecting Cities. " 5. Park and Recreation Commission concerning United States FIag for the Burlingame Teen Soccer CIub to be displayed at International Soccer Tournament in Viareggio, Italy. 6. Staff: Director of Public Works re: F.A.A. Informal Air space tueetInE;Tillbrae city Hal1, December II, 1974, 9:00 A.M. City Attorney concerning 1egal requirements for member- ship in the Parking Comnission. Park Director concerning presentation by Mr. Mcvicar, Landscape Arshitect, of conceptual study of beautification of northerly entrance to the City on El Camino ReaI. With respect to the above, Councilman Amstrup asked that the Commission be informed that the City Council has no commitment to Mr. McVicar for services.Assistant City Planner leport of Planninq Commission meeting, November 25, L97 4. Minutes: Beautification CorNnission, November 7, Park & Recreation, November 12, Plann ing Commission, November I1, Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, November L4, L97 4. councilman cusick referred to an item in the llealth, safety & Traffic minutes concerning a request to be directed to the county Engineering Department for a siudy on itillside Drive in regard to traf f j-c impact. Th'e Director of publil works reported he intends to pass the Commissionrs recommendation on to the county engineer. the sixth day of of Burlingame. FEDERAL AVIATIoN ADI,IINISTRATION: Councilman Amstrup referred to a ProPosed f .A.A. regulation on dump areas withir two(2) miles of jet airports because of hazards creited by gults that normally gather in these areas. The City Attorney agieea to attemPt to find some addd,tionaL information. CALIFoRNIA NoISE LAw oF 19703 Councilman Cusick asked the city a Attorney i-he woul re searc the requirement that aj-rports are supposed to have equipment to monitor noise. ADJOURNMENT The meeting reg ularIy adjourned at 10:15 P.M Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: e William J. Crosby, Mayor 1 te,City Clerk