Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.05.05;id0 Burl ingame , May 5, California r97 5 CALL TO ORDER A regular meetj.ng of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaIl Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 P.M. by Mayor Irving S. Amstrup. PLEDGE oF ALLEGIANCE To THE FLAG: Led by Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney . ROLL CALL Council Members Counci.l Members Present: Absent: Ams trup-Crosby-Cus ick-Harr i son-Mang ini None MINUTES The minutes of themitted to the City regular meeting of April 2L, L975, previously sub- Counci.I, were approved and adopted. WASHINGTON PARK GRANDSTAND AND FIRE STATION NO. 1BIDS : Bids for the above work, opened on Wednesday, April 30, 1975, at 2:00 P.M., $rere declared as follows: BI DDER PARK FIRE TOTAL ROOF JOB REPAIRS NO. 75-3 Adams RoofingIzmirian Roofing Ace RoofingSterling Roofing ,486 ,960 ,46L ,7 49 $2,050 3,900 5, r89 5,249 $7,536 7 ,960 9,650 9 ,998 $s 3 4 4 During a brief period of discussion, the Director of PubLic works, respondinq to Councilman Mangini, confirmed that the grandstand roof is in poor condition, leaking badly. In response to Councilman Cusick, the Director of Public works reported that' in a situatj.on such as this where there are thro separate jobs, the City can select the two lowest bidders. However, the contractors are alerted to this possibility as a courtesy. The Director of Public Works stated he learned from the low biclder that he had included aII of his profit, all of the incidental expenses in one item; for that reason, he would not accept a contract f or one of t,he thro , I t riras the Director of Public Works ' position that this was fair, RESOLUTION NO. 28-75 "A$rarding Contract Roof Repairs - Washington Park Giandstand And Fire Station No. 1 Bu ilding" (Adams Roofing, $7,536.00) lras introduced by Councilman Harrison, r,rho moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby and unanimously carried on ro11 caII. AUCTION PERMIT: RABIN BROTHERS, SAN FRANCISCO An application was filed by the above firm under date of april 22 for a peimit to hold a one-day sale on June 4,1975, for Components operation Division of the Ampex Corporation, 865 Hinckley Road, auction to be held on Hinckley Road premises starting at 9:30 A.M. An inventory of goods to be sold accompanied the application. A report from the Chief of Police, April 24 , t975, expressed no objection to granting of the permit. A motion by Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Mangini, all aye i, Engineerrs Estimate $5,200 55,200 S10,400 In a memorandum to the City l,lanager under date of May 1, 1975, the Director of Pub1ic Works recommended award of contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Adams Roofing, 1021 washington Street, San carlos. An addendum to the comnunication from the City Manager concurred in the recomrendation. 381 voice vote, approved issuance of the permit for the time and place recited in the applicant's letter of April 22, L975. HEARING FROI\T SE?BACK VARIANCE APPROVED, 2301 EASTON DRIVE Mayor Amstrup announced this was the time scheduled t,o conduct a public hearing and to consider the appeal of Leo Kriloff, 2315 Easton Drive, and Herbert S. Tanner, 1345 Columbus Avenue, from Planning Commissiongrant of front setback varianee to Charles Terry for the property at 2301 Easton Drive. Following an announcement of ground rules for the hearitg, Mayor Amstrup requested the City Planner to present a resume for Council and audiencebenefit. The City Planner projected two transparencies of photographs submitted by i"Ir. Terry to the Planning Commission: 1. Exhibit B "Site Plan sub- mitted by Charles L. Terryr" 2. Exhibit C - diagram showing 5-L/2 foot encroachment into front setback where Mr. Terry is building an addition to the dwelling. The City Planner ca1led attention to two notations on Exhibit. B "error #I" and "error *2." He advised these identified dimensional errors on the plans submitted by the applicant. Sixteen (16) feet of front setback apparently was measured from curb or sidewalk line,not property line, neither were measurements made at right angles to street or property line. The City Planner stated that plans were received by the Building Depart- ment; Iater, it was discovered that dimensions \^rere not true. He explained that, in the main, it is practice at City HaIl to accept facts and figures presented on pIans. After Mr. Terry commenced construction, irregularities were noted in the front setback. Ivleasurements made by Building and Planning Departments established that an addition to the main structure encroached into the 15 foot front setback. Referring again to the transparency, the City Planner pointed to the curve line of Easton Drive. He stated that many people believe theirproperty begins where the street ends; that is not true. On the trans- parency (Exhibit C), he showed the Terry property line L2 feet back of curb line and explained there must be 15 feet of setback measured from the property Iine. Further, the City recognizes that the old garage encroaches into the front setbacki at that location there is 7 feet 4 inches of setback. The garage will be removed for the addition under construction. The City Planner reported that Ivlr. Terry was notified there was a problem. lle was asked to present his plan to t,he Planning Commission because a determination had been made that the building was closer to the street than regulations permit. The Planning Commission was made aware of all the circumstances and approved the variance on a vote of four to three. Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner to explain his statement that Mr. Terry was informed there was a problem. Councilman Crosby asked whose problem, the City's or Mr. Terryrs. The City Planner expressedthe opinion that the problem arose because staff accepted facts which were found later to be not true. Therefore, staff felt it necessarythat a variance application be permitted, because staff cannot grant avariance administratively. Councilman Harrison asked at what point of construction were the errorsdiscovered. The City Planner stated it was his understanding thatfoundation and framing were in p1ace. Councilman Mangini asked the City Planner if he was in position to comment on the cost to Mr. Terry of the remodeling project up to the time the work was stopped. The City Planner stated that aspect was not explored.Mr. Terry was asked to submit costs of remodeling to conform to zoningregulations, but there was no exact dollar amount mentioned. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments from theappellants. 3b2 Mr. Leo Kriloff,2315 Easton orive, announced he has resided at the Easton address for 27 years and has been a resident of Burlingame 35 years. He advised that he joined with lvlr. Tanner in appealing the Planning Com- mission's action. He offered the following for the City Council's con- sideration: I. From EI Camino ReaI to Hoover School, there are LLz homes on Easton Drive. Easton Drive meanders, very few of the homes, if ar1zr sit squarely on a lot. Of the LL2 homes, there is not one that encroaches beyond the setback except the Terry residence, 2. Burlingame has a first-class ordinance and the essence of the City reflects itl He, as a property owner, has a concern that that excellence be maintained.- Mr. Kriloff referred to Section 25.54.020 of the Municipal Code citing four conditions requisite to variance grants, and stated he. fails to comprehend where lvlr. Terry wiII suffer undue property loss if the variance is denied and, conversely, how Mr. Terryts enjoyment of his property wiII be enhanced by approval of the variance. Mr. Kriloff main- tained that approval of the variance will be injurious to his property. Mr. Kriloff stated that the Planning Commission erred in not considering the spirit, and the wording of the zoning ordinance with respect to variance grants. Not only do some of the people feel that the variance was granted improperly but wish to remind the City Council that the Commission's vote was four to three, at least three members of the Commission agree with the opposition on the grant of variance. Henry S. Tanner, 1345 Columbus Avenue, appellant with Mr. Kriloff, maintained that most people are familiar with setback provisions and Mr. Terry, a licensed B-1 general contractor, surely must be. Mr. Tanner stated that the area of encroachment is very noticeable, that the lot is large and provides ample room for construction in con- formance with the law and that there would appear to be no val-id basis for a setback variance. If a setback variance can be granted without reason for Mr. Terry, why should setbacks be regulated. Hopefully, the City Council will resist any effort to downgrade the neighborhood by approving the variance. Ronald Durkee, 1353 Cotumbus Avenue: If there are going to be regu- lations, and if there are going to be attempts to enforce them, this is the time for the City to take a stand. The City Council should let it be known that it intends to support and enforce its ordinances. James T. Griffiths, L326 Columbus Avenue and Mrs. Mary Cox, 1310 Colum- bus Avenue, endorsed comments of previous speakers. There were no further comments in support of the appeal. Mayor Amstrup recognized Charles Terry. Mr. Terry stated he was informed by the draftsman who prepared the plans that the property line was on the curb line. Mr. Terry stated that he and the draftsman were both in error, there was an honest mistake, not an attempt to be deceitful. Referring to Mr. Kriloff's comment that there were no other homes encroaching into setback on Easton Drive, Mr. Terry stated he has information furnished by the building inspector that, proves otherwise. Mr. Kriloff made a mistake. I,Ir. Terry reported he has been a resident of Burlingame for 18 months, that he, too, believes regulations should be enforced in a manner that will provide the citizens with the beauty and quality for which Aurlingame is noted. With respect to undue property loss, he mentioned there ian be un<lue loss in any portion of a property; suggestions that the kitchen be relocated are impractical; the kitchen is located where it belongs, alongsicle the dining room. Extension of the house was designecl purposely to square off the front and down the side so that aII of the lines will be perpendicular. Mr. Terry stated that the zoning ordinance provides the conditions under which v.iiar,ces may be granted. He suggested, if there is to be full compliance with all of Lhe ordinances, this would aPPly equally to the ordinance that provides for variances. This portion of the zoning code was created for situations such as this. Mr. Terry stated the Planning- 3 8,3 Commission noted that the property line on Easton Drive is almost at a 45" angle and Planning Commissioner Norberg remarked that the condition created a hardship in attempting to observe setbacks for the addition. Mr. Terry stated he did not ignore setbacks, he made a mistake. He has a large property but to at.tempt to relocate the kitchen to the rear wouldresult in some crowding because provision must be made for a driveway. Mayor Amstrup acknowledged a petition filed by the opponents to the variance with sixteen signatures, and a petition submitted by Mr. Terrywith 77 signatures. tebters supporting the variance were acknowledged f rom Timothy F. Auran , L323 Bernal Avenue, and PauI and Louellen J. I"Iesse, 2307 Easton orive. Comments were heard from: William Evans, 22L6 Easton Drive: The 5-L/2 feet of encroachment into the setback created by the addition under construction will be approxi- mately two feet less than the encroachment of the garage that has been located in the front setback for at least 50 years. With removal of the old garage, the front of the property will appear more open and spacious. The house was in very poor condition. Mr. Terry's improvements willnot only enhance the value of his property but of neighboring properties as weIl. Lawrence J. Hickey, L321 Montero Avenue, Mrs. F.R. Ludwel1, 22L7 Easton, Louellen J. Hesse, 2307 Easton Drive: Were pleased that the property' was purchased by someone interested in making improvements for familyliving. EeIt that Mr. Terry is doing an excellent job of remodeling. tlrs. William Evans, 22LG Easton Drive: Most anxious for Mr. Terry to complete the project. Stated it appears a shame that the work was stopped for reasons which do not seem to make much sense. Anyone who wanted to enlarge his home and did not realize there was a difference between edge of the sidewalk and the actual property line could beplaced in the same situation. It was the City's mistake because staffdid not discover errors in the plan. Mr. Terry should not be penalized any further, the work should be allowed to continue. There $/ere no further comments from the floor. The closed. hearing was declared Councilman Mangini asked Mrs. Evans to amplify her statement that "it was the Cityrs mistake." She replied the plans were presented to theCity, reviewed by staff, and no objections raised. Objections cameafter the foundation was poured and the btrudture partially in place. Councilman Mangini asked for information on costs to date of the remodeling.Mr. Terry reported current figures were not available but a month ago it was approximately $9800.00. Councilman Harrison asked if staff would comment on extenuating circum- stances in connection with the "City's mistake." The Director of Public Works explained, as mentioned earlier by the Planner,that the plans indicated 16 feet of setback at the front; that measurement vras accepted because there was no reason not to do so. At Mr. Terry's requestr &r inspector visited the property, inspected and approved thefoundation. The error was not observed, nor was it observed when a secondinspection was made. A few days later, the Chief Building Inspector,driving along Easton Drive, saw the construction, felt it was not right and stopped to investigate. ile discovered the error at the front setback. Councilman Harrison asked, in view of the action of the Planning Commission, and if the City Council should vote to reverse that, would the CityCouncil leave itself open to legal action. The City Attorney stated the City can always be sued. As far as thelegality of this case, arguments pro and con are just about even. Hestated there is sufficient evidence to support whatever the Council's decis j.on. might be. Councilman Crosby expressed concern about errors on the City's part.stated there appear to be extenuating circumstances, this is not Lhey He 38.I usual application for variance. He stated the City surely appears to bein error by reason of the two inspections. He asked how often the Citytakes a builder's word; is it customary not to check dimensions on plans? The Director of Works reported that, generalty speaking, unless thereis reason to suspect an error staff accepts plan dimensions, When aninspector does make a field trip, he should spot check. Un1ess there isa neighborhood complaint, or reasons to be wary, it is not customary to check dimensions or to request a survey. Where there is an area ofsuspicion, staff will ask for the survey. Councilman Crosby asked the Director of Public Works if he feltr &sa result of what has occurred in the Terry property, it might be wiseto scrutinize plans more thoroughly. The Dj.rector of Public Worksstated site plan dimensions probably should be verified within a footor so. Councilman Crosby stated that he was of the opinion, after looking atthe Terry property, there will be more open space and overall improve- ment in the appearance of the property once the old garage has been removed; furthermore, because there apparently was considerable error on the City's part, he would be inclined to favor sustaining the Planning Commission. Mayor Amstrup agreed that all of the testimony emphasizes the necessityfor more stringent examination of plans on the City's part. The applicant made a mistake, then two more were made by the City, all of which tenr:ls to cloud the issue of the variance. He reported he spokewith the inspector who visited the property. The inspector statedquite honestly that he "goofed." Mayor Amstrup asked staff tf tfre corner setback is 2L-L/2 feet from the curb. Staff confirmed this. Mayor Amstrup commented that the new addition will result in removal of a non-conforming garage structure located on the property 1ine. Councilman Cusick stated that the zoning code provides for variancegrants and that this is the type of situation where that provision can be applied. Councilman Mangini asked about the large white building at the rear of the property. Mr. Terry reported that is the new garage. There is a bathroom on the ground floor to serve as an adjunct to the swimming pool. There were no further comments from the Council. Councilman Harrison moved to sustain the decision of the Planning Com- mission in approving the front setback variance. Councilman Harrison explained his motion was made with the understanding that approval here is not to be construed as a precedent setting action and that staff, in the future, will verify setback dimensions shown on plans. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cusick and unanimously carried. STATE OF THE CITY CONCLAVE: Mayor Amstrup expressed appreciation to n and superb Presentations. RECONVENE: After a recess at 9:00 P.M., Mayor Amstrup reconvened the meeting at 9:05 P.M. - COMMISSIONER REAPPOINTMENTS: With the concurrence of the Council, ointment of Everett K. Kindig and Charles W. Mink to the Planning Commission for four year terms. COIVIMUNICATIONS APPLICATION F.OR AIITUSEMENT PERMIT: IVIOVING PICTURE THEATER 1415 BURLINGAME AVENUE Under date of April 23, L975, Jay F. Darrenogue, 26L9 Cipriani Boulevard, Be1mont, requested issuance of a permit to operate a movie theater on the premises formerly occupied by the Fox Burlingame theater. His letter outlined plans in detail. =', 1 3.35 The Chief of Police report dated May 2, L975, concluded "This agency finds no information that would preclude the issuance of a license for amusement. " The Fire Inspector, under clate of April 30, L975, reported that the applicant has been informed that use of the building will be subject to nules and Regulations of the State Fire Marshal as specified in Tit1e L9, California Arlministrative Code, and that an inspection with the building inspector will be made when Mr. Darrenogue wishes assistance. Mayor Amstrup recognized 1,1r. Darrenogue. He responded to a series of inquiries from the City Council, advising that the owners would like to sell the building but have agreed to lease to him for five years. The rent will be lower than that paid by the prior operators. If the building is so1d, he must vacate. He stated this will be a family opera- tion, which will reduce operating costs significantly. He was aware there must be fult compliance with the Fire Inspector's recommendations and that he would be willing to accept a condition to the permit pro- hibiting stage shows, live performances, "X" or hardcore movies. Councilman Harrison's motion to approve the permit was conditioned as follows: 1. Mr. Darrenogue to obtain a lease for the building, Z. Compliance with building and fire regulations, 3. (from Mr. Darrenogue's letter of 4/23/75) "It will be my intention to foIlow the same pattern of operation as that of the previous operators. There will be no change in seat,ing capacity or movie content. My plan will be to show ircrr through rrprr rated f ilms obtained from the major f ilm outlets. I plan to have two showings per night of double featurer late release movies for the general admission price of $2.50. The show will operate seven days a week with children's matinee Saturday afternoon and a regular feature matinee Sunday afternoon. There will be no stage or theater live performances, nor any rrxtr or hardcore movies shown at this theater. " Motion seconded by Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote. AMUSEMENT PERMIT FUN HOUSE, 224 CALIFORNIA DRIVE A let,ger dated April 29, L975, was received from Victor J. Feldman, J.V. Vending Corporation, San Bruno, supplier of machines with Scott Litteial in tne amusement arcade known as the Fun House, requesting an amusement permit in his name. Mr. Litteral, holder of the current permit, is }eaving the operation. In his communication, Mf,. Feldman listed proposed hours of operation: School days 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.PI., school holidays and summer vacation 1I:00 A.M. opening. If summer session is held at Burlingame High School, premises will remain closed until school is dismissed. He requested permission to remain open until midnight on Fridayr -saturdayand school holiday eves, as many of the customers that time of night are over 18. Mr. Feldman was present. He was informed by Councilman Mangini that summer session wiff be at Burlingame High School, probably lasting until 2:30 daily. Councilman Harrison referred to Mr. Feldman's request to remain open until midnight at certaj.n times for the customers over 18. Councilman Harrison recalled that the operation was described as family-type enter- tainment when the original permit was granted. He reiterated objections voiced on prior occasions that, in his opinion, this is not the type of amusement needed in Burlingame, providing the opportunity for elementary and high school students to spend their money. He mentioned an incident that was brought to the attention of the City Council where an elementary school student spent $25.00 in a single week at the Fun llouse. Council- man Harrison objected to the location on California Drive near two bars, not too far from the park that has presented problems and in the vicinity of an elementary school and the high school. He objected, toor orl the grounds there can be policing problems because the curfew for minors must be enforced. Councilman Crosby asked the Chief of Police if his department had encountered 1. -2 Ssri problems with the operation. The Chief responded there had been none,since the last discussion at the Council meeting of March 3r 1975. Councilman Crosby point8Hltir"t the Council had not received reportsfrom either Po1ice or rir'e Departments on Mr. Feldman's applicition. There appeared to be a consensus that the matter be continued to thenext meeting when police and fire reports should be available. Councilman Mangini asked if the business will be forced to close untilafter the next Council meeting. Following some comments concerning a gap in processing of the applica-tion, Mayor Amstrup, with Council cAncurrence, informed Mr. Feldmanthat he may continue to opeEBtB9EfEA*ythe existing permit, and thathis application will be discuss'ed further at the regular meeting ofthe Council on May 19. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. BARNETT PROPERTY: A communication dated April 30, L975, from theoireffiksandtheDirectorofPirkstotheCity}ttanager offered four alternatives with respect to the existing house. theCity Manager recommended for the Council's consideration alternate #4 "Demo1ish the existing structure down to the finish floor level to accommodate the proposed pedestrian bridge on the Park Departmentplans." (Copies of the preliminary development plan prepared by thePark Department were furnished the City Council.) Following a brief period of comment, the City Council accepted the CityManager's recommendation to postpone further discussion to the studymeeting on May 7 when the Park Department will have a more detailedsite development, proposal available. 2. RENEWAL OT DANCE PERI{IT-BEARDSLEY ' S 1445 BROADWAY: A communica-tionEm-6 e o Po e r te Apr 1 L6, 1975, advised therehave been no problems of concern in connection with Beardsley's currentownership and management; therefore, there were no objections to renewalof the amusement, permit under the same type of operation. A mot,ion by Councilman Harrison to renew the permit for a period of oneyear was seconded by Councilman Crosby, all aye voice vote. 3. PROPOSED WATER RESOURCES CONTBOL BOARD REGULATIONS: City Attorneyaavi rawn. -4. STOP SIGNS ON MARIPOSA AT SEBASTIAN DRM: Cit y Manager memorandumofApril 30, L975, fec-orunendtng-tFaEEne signs be installed as proposed by the Traffj.c Engineer. On motion of Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Cusick, aII aye voice vote, the City Attorney was directed toprepare legislation for the Council's consideration at the meeting on May L9, L975. 5. WATER MAIN INSTALLATION UNDER BAYS}IORE FREEWAY:Under date of May L, 1975, the City Manager reported that an emergency s ituation has developed from the failure of an existing water main under the freeway. Becausethe existing main cannot be repaired, it is necessary to install a parallel line without de1ay. The Director of Public Works stated that threecontractors have been asked to submit costs. There were no objectionsfrom the City Council. 6. GBNEIRAL REVENUE SHARING SIXTH PLANNED USE REPORT:Accepted by theCityouncasstaer. 7 . R.EPLACEMENT OF STRUCTURE FOR SERVICE CLUBS AND ''WELCOME TO BURLINGAME'' SIGNS - EL CAMINO REAL NEAR MURCHISON DRIVE The C ty er S ero v roD s ec was re errtCouncil's study meeting on Wednesday, May 7. B. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL FUNDING: A communication from the Chief ofPolice dated April 24; L91r, with an addendum from the C ity Manager Z 3s7 dated April 30, L975, requested an action by the City Council urging Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jt., to continue funding of criminal justice programs in California. A copy of San Mateo County Criminal Justice Council resolution was furnished the City Council. Councilman Mangini, member of the Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County, recommended City Council support by adoption of a similar reso- lution. RESOLUTION NO. 29-7 5 "Urging Support Of Criminal Justice Council Projects oducedbyCounci1manMangini,whomoveditsadoption, second by Councilman Harrison, unanimously adopted on ro11 call. g.BURLINGAI.{E JUNIOR WOMAN'S CLUB ,.PAINT IN.' PROJECT: A COMMUNiCAtiON fTOM C eg z, c pres ent, concern n9p ans or a "Holiday Joy" paint in on Burlingame Avenue, (similar to last year), on Sunday morning, Decem.ber L4, L975, and requesting the Council's support by having the Avenue roped off during the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 12 Noon for the safety of the children, was forwarded by the City Manager. His recoflrmendation that the project be authorized was accepted on motion of Councilman Crosby, seconci by Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 30-75 "Declaring Noxious And Dangerous Weeds And Rubbish A Nuisance In Accord With Munic ipal Code Chapter 11.08" was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Crosby, unanimously carried on ro11 call. 2. RESOLUTfON NO. 31-75 "Authorizing Execution Of Extension Rider To Lease With Greyhound Lines,Inc., (Western Division) " was introduced by Councilman Mangini, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman llarrison, unanimously carried on ro11 call, Councilman Crosby reported he was informed by the person who operates the loca1 Greyhound depot that all of the shrubs removed from around tne building by City crews have not been replaced. Councilman Crosby asked the Director of Public Works to investigate. ORDINANCES (Second reading) ORDINAI.ICE NO. 1039 "An Ordinance Repealing Section 22.6o.o31AndAmen@.040ConcerningSignordinances', was given its second reading. Mayor Amstrup invited comments from the floor. There were none. On motion of Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Cusick, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on ro11 calI. (Introduction) ORDINANCE NO. 1040 "Ordinance Amending Section 13.36.030B AndSectionI3.g@arkingonPrimroseRoadFromDoug1as Avenue To Floribunda Avenue" was introduced for first reading by Council- man Mangini. (Introduction) ORDINANCE NO. 1041 "Determining Violations Of Ordinance cooe To Be rnfractffioduc ed for first reading by Councilman Harrison. I xoULENBERG FoRD srGN: M-ey -Z- nTi ; iiom- N orma matter be held on May Irequested. There were Acknowledgment was made of a communication dated ,n I. Book, Jr.7 requesting that the hearing on this 9, 1975, rather than June 2, the date previously no objections from the Council. RBF'ERRALS I. WINDI"IILLS: City Attorney letter of April 2L, I975r oD this subject refffi-Ed-eouncil study meeting on May 7. 2. TROUSDALE TRAFFIC STUDY AND REPORT: Traffic Engineer report dated April-Z5; T975: At-the-study meeting on ir{ay 7 ,the City Council will f. select the time for forftal review. 3bu RESOLUTION NO. 33-75 "Authorizing Execution Of Second Amended Coopera- EIon Agreement With County O f San Mateo (Housing And Community Develop- ment Act)" was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison, unanimously carried on roII calI. NEW BUSINESS 1. ASSEITIBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 22: CounCilMAN CUSiCK ASKCd the ffiion proposing alternatives to current property assessment practices. PROCI,AMATIONS Mayor Amstrup proclaimed "MENTAL HEALTH MONTH - MAY, L975".'NATIONAL NURSING HOME WEEK - MAY }1-18 , L975" "DESIGNATING BURLINGAME DAYS MAY 30 THROUGH JUNE 4, 1975". ACKNOWLEDGMENTS UNFINISIIED BUSINESS HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT: thE CTty Manager reporLed that a few sma Amended Cooperation Agreement with the C amended agreement. Police Department Monthly Activity Report, City Planner report of Planning Commission Minutes: Beautification Commission, April April L4, 1975. TROUSDALE DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT: ThE from Joseph A. Galligan, 15I 6 Hillsi de Drive, stop signs on Trousdale Drive have result'ed in traf fic being diverted to Hillside Drive where now exist. Mr. Galligan was informed that the an opportunity to study the report, but it wil regular Council meeting in the near future. ADJOURNMENT: Regularly adjourned at 10:00 P-l{. Respectfully submitted, H r €1 yC er In a memorandum dated May 2, L975, 11 technical errors in the previous ounty necessitates a second March, L975. Meeting, April 28, 1975. 3, Planning Commission, Council heard comments to the effect that the a heavy load of serious traffic hazards Council has not had I be reviewed at a ?