HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.03.0111
Burlingame, California
March I, 1971
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held ondate. the meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by MayorJ. Crosby.
the above
Wi 11i am
P LEDGE OF ALI,EGTAITCE
In response to the Chair, the city Planner led the assemblage in thePledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present -
Absent
Councilmen:
Counci lmen :
Ams t rup-Crosby-Johnson-Mangini -Martin
None
T'he minutes of the preceding meeEingto council previously, were approved
ment to show the date of the Council
of February L6, 1971, submitted
and adopted, following an amend-
study meeting as firesday, llarch 9.
the
of Burlingame
BURLINGAME AVENUE BEAUTIFI CATION PRO.IECT
Mayor Crosby announced that Council would hear a report from members
of the committee engaged in preparing a plan for the beautificationof BurJ-ingame Avenue.
Ihe privilege of the floor was accorded by the Chair to Mr. Robert
fhompson, President, Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Eric Mausser,
Chairman, Beautification Project,.
Mr. Ihompson stated that, in response to Councilts request at the last.study meeting, a petition was prepared and circuLated for the purpose
of determining reactions to the project. He stated that the petition
filed with Council represents a concentrated effort on the committee'spart to contact every business within the area of benefit.
Mr. ftrompson advised that, at the request of the merchants,
improvement plans contemplate widening of the right-of-way
Avenue by narrowing the sidewalk one (1) foot on each side.
Mr. Thompson stated that results of the petition are very
and several businesses, not subject to a business licenseteered to pay their full share.
encourag ingfee, volun-
ItIr. Thompson requested that Counci.l, without committing itself to theproject, initiate proceedings under the special act by instructingthe City Attorney to prepare the resolution of intention calling fora public hearing.
Mr. fhompson yielded the floor to Mr. I{ausser, who referred to copiesof the "Burllngame Beautification Survey" furnished council and invitedquestions. In response to Mayor Crosby, Mr. Mausser explained that a
number of businesses in the downtown area are branches of large firmswith headquarters in remote areas, that where the Ioca1 manager nay
have indicated wholehearted support of the project, there v,ras noofficial commitment from the home office; in such instances, the firmsare included in the "unable to contact" category.
Mr. Mausser stated that, in some instances, contact hras never madewith an o\,vner or operator of a shop, despite repeated visits --these, too, are noted I'unable to contact. "
Mr. Mausser advised that some who were in opposition later changed
minds and that others withheld support, pending resolution by theof problems relating to their operations.
thei r
ci ty
MI NUTE S
t2
the city Engineer noted that certain Properties have been included in
the suriey Lhat are outside of the boundaries that were agreed uPon.
Mr. Mausser stated that, for the most Part, the petition was restricted
to the prescribed area, with the excePtion of certain businesses
having a definite interest in the city.
Mr. Ttrotnpson stated that the comnittee is hopeful that the city
council will agree to make a contribution to the District equivalent
to the cost of installing new sidewalks and that the resolution of
intention will recite the amount of the city's cont,ribution.
In resPonse to Mayor Crosby, the City Engineer reported there should. 1be no interference with the drainage system, but that he l'rill investi- !
gate and report to Council in conn6cti-on wi L.fr an existing shallow water
main that may create problems, if the street is widened.
The City Engineer eoEunented that there would appear to be little to
be gained fiom a proPosed widening of the right-of-\"rayt that, normally
where a street is widened, the object is to accomPlish at least an
additional lane of either eight (8) or nine (9) feet.
counci Iman Martin suggested - the city Engineer and lilr. Mausser con-
curring - that traffic flow on Burlingame Avenue could be greatly
improved by replacing diagonal parking with parallel.
Mr Mausser stated that the merchants agree but recalled comPlaints that
were made when para11e1 parking was installed on a trial basis several
years ago.
iii ( crosby requested clarification from the city Attorney t hether the
city contribution must be included in the resolution of intention.
The City At,torney explained that the statute, in effect, requires that
each property owner or business lieensee be informed in the resolution
either the amount of the tax or the formula by which the tax shall be
determined. He stated that it would appear that neither factor can be
determined until the city's contribution has been established, th
if the contribution is determined, it would seem advisable that i
included in the resolution for everyone to see and understand tha
is a primary factor in controll-ing the levy or the formula.
I{ayor Crosby suggested that action be deferred until the matter
of the city's contribution can be reviewed at a study meeting.
Mr. Ihompson reported that the merchants have indicated the work
be planned to assure comPletion Prior to commencement of faII
shopping .
tbe
tit
shoul-d
Councilman Martin questioned whether the merchants are aware that the
District assessment may be an additional levy over and above
the contemplated increase in business license fees. He stated that he
would pref-r not committing the city until all concerned parties have'
had thE opportunity of appearing before council and expressing their wishes
pro and con on the formation of the District.
Councilman Martin suggested that the resolution of intention be PrePared
to include the maximum scoPe of the h'ork and the maximum tax liability
and that, followinq the hearings, changes be made where required,
depending upon the-wil1 of the people and the Councilrs determination
as to contribution.
-1In response to Mayor Crosby, the City Engineer stated that the prelim-
{inary total cost for the merchants' share of the improvements was '
$220, 000 . 00 .
Mr. Thompson mentioned an estimated cost for street widening of
$35,OOO.OO. He requested that Council consider a statement in the
resolution of intention to the effect that ibs contribution will be
"x" number of dollars, or the cost of the sidewalks. He suggested
that counci lman Martin's idea of including maximum data may have the
effect of creating problems for the District.
Mr. thompson stated that the governing statute contemplates that the
city_will make a decision on its contribution in advance of publichearings.
Crosby concluded the present
subject will be explored further
with coneurrence of Council, I4ayordiscussion and announced that the
13
at the study meeting of lltarch 9
Tt|e city Attorney suggested that, because of the considerabledetaiL involved in preparing and mailing the notiees of hearing and in
consideration of the time element, Council allo\,, at l-east 30 days
between the date of the adoption of the resolution of intention and
the date of the public hearing.
ACKNOWLEDGMEN?
Councilman Johnson, in behalf of council, acknowledged Mrs. AlineH. Lorenz, 118 occidental Avenue, Burlingame, and thanked her for
representing the City of Burlingame at a recent important meetingof Sister-city committees in San Francisco, attended by a representativeof washington.
REQIIE ST TO REIO CATE ART DI SPIAY TO WASHINGTON PARK
A communication dated February 26, L97L, was read from Mr. R. Sanborn
Towle, Vice-Chairman, Burlingame Art Festival cofiunittee, requesting
permission to transfer the proposed art festival activities from
the previously approved site (old city ha1I property) to an area
in Washington Park, thereby accomxnodating the student segment of
the committee, which has been advocating a park site, and committee
members generally, who were anxious to avoid implied favoritism of
a particular commercial area.
l,tr. Witliam J. Hauser, General Manager, Chambe r of commerce, at
Councilman Johnson's invitatj.on, presented l4r. Torrle who reported
that a tentative site has been selected in the vicinity of the
picnic tables, east of the baseball diamond and tennis courts.
The city Manager reported that the Park SuPerintendent has
indicated that the proposed area is inadequate for the purpose.
llhere were no comments from council in opposition to the use of
Washinqton Park nor to councilman Martin'E suggestion that the matter
of site be resolved betvreen the cooperation of the City Manager,
the Park Superintendent, and the commi ttee.
Mr. Towle agreed to arrange for a meeting with the city Manager
and the Park Superintendent.
BID S
(a)VICTORIA PARK fMP ROVEME NTS
Bids for Victoria Park Improvements, received and opened on
February 24. 1971, at 2:O0 p.m. in compliance with published notice,
were declared as follows:
TOTAL BID
Anza Pacific
Fisk, Firenze & Mcl,eanF. D. Sperry
'Ittornton Construction
Maxdon Construction
Asphalt Paving
Iowri e Paving
Wenrick & Associates
O. c. Jones & Sons
$12, 8 90.05
13,036.10
13,060.15
i-3,778.53
13 , 831 .00
15, 857 . 00
I5, 990.3 5
t6, 544 .54
17,5L7.9O
Engineer's Estimate $15,441.50
A communication from the Director of Public works dated February 24,1971, recommended that the contract be awarded to the lourest responsj.blebidder, Anza Pacific corporation, in the amount of $12,890.05.
In an addendum to the City Engineer's letter, the City Ivlanager,
under date of February 25, L971, reported that acquisition of the
second Property in the proposed Project is in process, that the
BIDDE R
l4
additional work
delay the awa rd
total proj ect.
of
being evaluated and that it may be necessary to
@ntract pending receipt of data pertinent to the
A second letter from the City Engineer dat.ed February 25, 197J-,
explained that the original invitation to bidders was limited to
improvements in the area that is clear, since the date of acguisitionof the second property was unknown, and that j-t was intended thatadditional improvements, involving for the most part turf only.
would be undertaken following demolition of the existing structure.
Ihe communication outlined in detail estimates of materials and coststo improve the second property, based on unit prices submitted by
Anza Pacific in their low bid - estimated total cost 94,000.00 -including building removal and excluding work to be performed trlrthe Park Department.
Additionally, the City Engineer's communication offered three
methods of resolving the matter of at ard of contract and accomplishingthe additional improvements, essent.ially, as follows: (J-) employmentof force account and purchase order meLhods for the additional \rrork
upon completion of the bid contracti (2) Assuming aequisition ofthe second 1ot prior to completion of bid contract, accomplishbuilding demolition by purchase order and negotiate with the bidcontractor for additional and deleted items on a unit basis;(3) neject all existing bids and readvertise for the total project.(fhe city Engineer's proposals and recommendations are fuI1y aetailedin his communicatj.on on file)
Councilman Martin referred to the City Engineerts proposal #2whereby the additional work would be negotj-ated with the successfulbj.d contractor on a unit cost and stated that,, assuming no legal rami-fj.cations, this would appear to be the most economical method.Ile pointed out that by arranging for the building demolition andtop soil purchase on the open market, the total. cost of remainingitems - 2,4,5.6,7,9 - will be considerably below the statutorylimit on requirement for calling for bj.ds.
In response to Mayor Crosby, the City Attorney discussed problemsthat may arise where an attempt is made to negotiat,e a contractafter bids are opened, because of enlarging or decreasing. TheCity Attorney stated that he could flnd no difficulty in following
Councilman Martin's suggest,ion in the present situation.
Mayor Crosby announced that award of contract on Victoria Park
Improvements, Job No. 7L-3, will be considered at the meetingof March 15, 1971.
(b) FIRE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT
A comrnunication dated Ivla rch 1, 197I, from Reginald E. Moorby,Chief of the Fire Department, stated that bids received in responseto invj.tation were opened on the above-mentioned date, as follows:
ITEM 1 - 100' Aerial Truck
American I.a F rance
Seagrave Fire
Apparatlls Inc.
rTEttl 2
$71, 949.15
$69, 652.L4
1,250 c.P.t4.
t,ax inc.
tax inc.
2 Pumpers
Ameri"can La France
Seagrave Fire
Apparatus
$98,082.50
$100, 702 . 08
combined
tax inc.
tax inc.
ITEMS
Inc .
Iand2
Seagrave Fireif both Items
Apparatus Inc. will deductl and 2 are purchased frqn $2.535.37
them.
l5
Seagrave
Minus
566, 33 5.37 Aerial
95,906.7 4 Pumpers
$162,242.tt
2,535.37
$159,706.747,985.34 Lax
American La France
$767 ,692.O8
$170,031.7s
Tihe communication from the Fire Chief stated that combining the two
lowest items, Seagrave's Aeria1 and American La France's two engines,
the cost would be $167,734.74 or $42.66 over Seagrave supplying
both Items I and 2; however, American Ia France has taken exception
to parEs of the specifieations, whereas, Seagrave will meet the
specifications. Ihe Fire Chief recomnended, therefore, that the
contract be awarded to seagrave Fire APParatus Inc. for one (1)
100 foot aerial truck and two (2) 1250 G.P.M. Pumpers.
An addendum to the letter from the city l{anager under date of
March L, 1971, concurred that the awa rd be to Seagrave Fire ApParatus,
Inc .
taxinc.
taxinc.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-7I
IOO foot Aerial Truck
(Seagrave Fire Appara
passage on motion of
Amstrup and unanimous
'tAwarding contract - Purchase of One (1)
and 1\.ro (2) triple combination Pumpers"
tus, Inc. -- $167,692.08) was introduced for
councilman llartin, seconded by Councilman
ly carried on roll call.
Mayor crosby requested a recomnendation from the city Attorney as to
procedure.
lhe City Attorney recalled that the subject was continued from the last
meeting to the present for the PurPose of allowing concerned Parties
an opportunity to explore the possibility of using "Romex" in the
proposed development. He recalled that the proponentsr letter to the
city council of February 11, 1971, indicated that the use of "Romex"will be a primary factor in determining whether or not the project
can be economically feasible.
Mayor crosby acknoarledged receipt of the developers' communication of
February 25, 197L. signed by Richard B. oliver, Partner, submitting
material from several governmental agencies on the State and local
1evel, and a letter from the developerrs insurance carrier to supPort
the request, for use of NMc (aomex.)
Mr. oliver, in response to Mayor crosby, reaffirmed that economics
are a primary factor, that negotiations with the o\"rne r to effect a
reduction in the price of the land have been successful to a degree
and that, hopefully, another reduction may be granteC, additionally,
building costs and the condition of the lending market all contribute
to the feasibility of the project.
Mr. Oliver acknowledged that the economic situation may improve but
that it is his and his associate ts position that savings to be
realized by the use of "Romex " can be bet,ter invested in landscaping
and other amenities.
Ir4r. Oliver referred to a copy of a communication on fil,e from the City
of San Mateo Building Department advising that NMc (Romex) is permitted
in the wiring system of a three-story apartment developrent in that
city.
Mr. Oliver requested Council's consideration to enacting legislation
amending the existing ordinance whereby "Romex' will be permitted.
Mayor crosby recalled that the matter of "Romex" vtas discussed at
HEARIT'IG S
(a.) NoRTIiPARK APARTMENTS - Burlinqame Shore Land companv Propertv
16
lengitwtod
th prior to adoption of the present Electric Code in 1970 and that
as a majority opinion of the Council, following a public hearing,isallow its use.
Councilman Amstrup commented that it appears rather unusual for aproject as expansive as the proposal to be dependent upon a certaintype of electric wiring.
Mr. Oliver stated that competitive costs received by the contractor
from reliable suppliers of both conduit and "Romex" indicate thatinstallation of the latter represents a saving of $165,000.00 incon-struction costs.
Councilman Johnson reiterated her position in opposition to the use of
"Romex, " stated that there is not the opportunity for building expan-sion here that exists in other cities on the peninsula and, for thatreason, conditions would appear to be favorable for Burlingame to main-tain its present law.
In response to Councilman Amstrup, Mr. Oliver reported that,, prior toinvolvement in the project, he had been misinformed on the City of
Burlingamers position on "Romex" and that he learned, after prelimin-aries to the project were cotnmenced, of the requirement for conduit.
In response to Councilman Martin, Mr. Oliver agreed to confer with thecontractor to learn whether he proposes aluminum or copper "Romex. "
Council-man l4artj.n corunented that the problem appears to be whether ornot the project depends upon the city's approval of "Romex; " if so,that issue should be decided firstr if not, the project can be con-sidered on its merits.
Mr. Oliver requested that council, initiatly, consider the project
exclusive of the issue of *Romex " and subsequently permit resub-mittal of the request for an amendment to the Electric Code.
Ivlayor Crosby questioned the City Attorney concerning the stat,us of theexisting contract between the city and the present owner for develop-
ment of the property.
Trhe City Attorney advised that the contract must be terminated and a
new one drawn, if the ne$, proposal is approved. He explained that. thepresent contract relates to a particular structure--the new proposal
contemplates a different, structure.
The City Attorney stated further that the matter of the contract issolely within Councilrs j uri stli. ction; that, if EIE E aae zonfng
varJ,ances in the new proposad such va-rlaRees will require a Ti€a-ing
before the Planning Conmission at some stage.
fhe city Planner confirmed that zoning variances are involved.
Councilman Martin, in response to Mayor Crosby's inquiry concerning
his position on procedure, explained that. as a matter of expediency,
he would prefer that hearings initiate at the Council level, because
success or failure of lhe project depends upon the city and the
developers agreeing mutually on the terms of the contract and,
assuming approval of the project, per se, by Council, that the
Planning Commission be requested Eo conduct its hearing on the zoning
variances.
In response to a question raised by the city Planner, Mr. Oliver state(
that a decision has not been reached on the restaurant site and it i6
possible request may be made to segregate that site from the apartment
site. IIe stated that he will at,tempt to have a definite ansbrer by the
time of the next Council meeting, as well as arrange to confer with
the city At,torney on an amendment to the Electric Code.
Mayor crosby, thereafter, announced a continuance to the meeting of
l4arch 15, 1971.
L7
RE CE SS
Follol"ring a recess calLed at 10:05 p.m., the chair reconvened the
meeting at 10:20 P.M.
HEITRINGS (cont. )
(b. )DECIARING AIRPORT BOUI,EVARD OPEN FOR PUBLTC USE.
fkre City Attorney, in response to Mayor crosby, explained that apublic hearing is mandatory before conditions of the Vehicle Code
can be applied to a private road and privat,e property. He recalLed
that, at the meeting of February L6, 197L, Council adopted the
resolution fixing time and place of such hearing and providing for
the property o\.rne r to be so notified.
Ir{ayor crosby announced a public hearing on the proposed adoption of
Ordinance No. 929 providing for public use of the private road
"Airport Boulevard I' and application thereto of california vehicle codeprovisions.
lltre City Clerk, in response to I{ayor Crosby, reported no communications
fi1ed.
I4r. David Keyston was present representing
There \^rere no cotwnents from the audience in
ovrner -
the Chair.
the hearing was declared closed.
ORDINANCE NO 929 "Finding and Declaring That Airport Boulevard, A
Maintained Road, Is Open For Public Use And TrhatPrl-va tely O*ned And
fhe Provisions Of The california Vehicle Code Sha1l ApPly' was given
its second reading and.upon motion of councilman Johnson, seconded
by Counci lman Amstrup, said Ordinance passed its second reading and
was adopted on the following ro11 call:
Ayes: Councilmen: Amstrup-crosby-Johnson-Mangini-lvlartinNoes: Councilmen! None
Absent Councilmen: None
COMMUNI CATIONS
1. CIANGE IN SUB-CONTRACTOR APPROVED.
A letter dated February 23, 1971, from the Director of Public l^Iorks
stated that a request from Mr. Les Kelly, 1ow bidder on Job #71-7
"Rehabilitation washington Park crandstand " to change the sub-
contractor for the miscellaneous steel work requj.red written consent
of Counci 1.
the property
response to
A copy of the conmunication from Mr. Les Kelly and a copy
"Designation of Sub-contractors " accompanied the Director
Works communication.
of
of
form
PubIi c
The city Manager. under date of February 24, l97l in an addendum to
the letter, recommended approval, advising that a written waiver has
been received from the original listed sub-contractor.
lhe city Attorney, in response to Mayor Crosby, indicated no o.1 jection
explaining that the law provides for reLief of the prime contractor in
such situations.
A motion introduced by Councilman funstrup, seconded by Councilman Mangini
and unanimously carried, approved a ehange in the sub-contractor listed
in the bid proposal of Les KeJ.ly, Inc, for "structural Rehabilitation
to crandstand at washington Park, " from Foresters Structural Steel &
Miscellaneous Iron to Steffenrs lron works, Inc.
2. RIOUE SI TO PU RCI]A SE IAND IN MILLS CANYON PARK.
18
A letter dated February 24, 1971, from Morris Farkas, 3 Toledo Court,
stated that at the time he acquired the property he was informed by a
representative of the builder, from whom he purchased, that the rearproperty line was 68 feet to the rear of the dwelling, that, recently,
he purchased a swinuning pool from Lifetime Pools, Inc., and the con-tractor was issued a city building permit upon present,ation of hisplot plan showing the rear property line at 68 feet lrom the dwelling;
subsequently, the work was stopped by the city upon discovery thatthe property line is actually 25 feeL from lthe house and that excava-tion for the poo1 extends into city-owned property.
The letter stated that research has disclosed that the developer
gave 43 feet of land, which the builderr s representative indicated waspart of the property, to the city.
Tlhe letter reported further that it is physically impossible to builda pool within the property boundaries, that to abandon the projectat this time would cause financial hardship and requested permissionto purchase the seetion where construction encroaches upon city-ovrnedproperty.
Copies of a plan prepared by Lifetime Poo1s, Inc., showing locaEionof the pool and proposed accessory structures were filed.
Mr. Farkas, upon recognition by Mayor Crosby, expJ-ained that he
had no reason to question the real eslate salesman who informed himthat I'he owned out there, next to the neighbor's fence. " I{r. Farkasstated that, because of lack of knowledge of such technical matters,he entrusted the contractor with fu11 responsibility of determiningproperty lines and securj-ng necessary permits and that, to date, hehas invested approximately $4,000.00 in the project.
fhe City Planner referred to his report to Council. on the subject,dated February 16, 1971, and stated that the plan filed by the con-tractor indicated that all of lthe work was to be confined within ]thearea ourned by Mr. Farkas, that the work vras stopped by !tr. HiU ofthe building department for property lines to be checked, that, he.
1"1r. Cah^rell and Mr. HiIl visited the property, took measurements anddiscovered that perhaps 7O% of the work extends beyond the privateproperty into city-o\,rned lands. He stated that part of a fence, which
corresponded with the neighborts rear fence, was removed for the
cons t ruction .
Council was furnished a copy of the contractor's plan stamped andinitialed by building department staff and a sketch prepared by theCity Planner showing lot measurements of 80 feet in width by 100 feetin depth, location of the residence and extent of encroachment into
c j-ty property.
The City Engineer reported that he has been informed by building depart-
ment staff that the reeord map in the city haII, which shows theproperty having a depth of 100 feet, was dj-scussed with the contractor.
Ihe City Attorney reported that when staff met with Mr. Farkas the thecontractor in city ha11, the latter confirmed that he was shohrn therecord map.
Ilh e City Attorney recited three alternatives that were discussed withl,tr. Farkas and the eontractor for resolution of the problem:
1. Either Mr. and Mrs. Farkas and the contractor, or one or the other,undertake to restore the city's property to the extent that it can berestoredr 2. flre city agree to seI1 sufficient land to al1ow com-pletion of the project; 3. fhe city restore its property and initiatesuit against Mr. and Mrs. Farkas and the contractor for costs.
The City Attorney cautioned against any city official or member ofstaff being placed in a position of adjudication between the ol^rners andtheir contractor. He stated that the matter is betvreen the two
Parties--the contractor employed by the ol"rner entered upon city property
and the city will look to both parties to correct the situation.
fhe city Engineer stated that a survey wiLl be required to determineprecise boundaries of the Farkas propertyt furthermore, a survey will
be required of city propertj,, in the event of a sale.
Councilman llartin pointed out that the dressing room and mechanicalroom, if built to the pLan, wil_I be parEly on city property and part,ly
:F :.,i:r::*:-properry and rhar problem *it' not u.-r."or,r"a by retease
3
19
Mr. and Mrs. Farkas u::ged reLease of the land, stating that they havelived in the home for L2 years, enjoy the neighborhood and their
neighbors and are at a loss to understand how the present situation
developed.
Ivlayor Crosby requested Council's comments on the aLternatives presented
by the City Attorney.
Councilman Johnson reeonmended that the necessary surveys be rnade and,
assuming no legaI- entanglements, that the land be sold to Mr. and l,lrs.
Farkas.
I{ayor Crosby expressed concern that an unfavorable precedent may result
where city property is released to private use, influencing others to
request a similar opportunity.
Councilman Amstrup acknowledged that he was acquainted with the
Farkas family and in complete sympathy with their plight but agreed with
Mayor Crosby on the question of precedent. Councilman Amstrup statedthat probably every ovrner along the canyon would be interested inacquiring city land to enlarge his Lot.
The City Planner commented that the situat,ion is unusual and that itis questionable that a precedent will be established.
Councilman Mart,in referred to the copy of the contractor's plot p1an,
st,amped and initialed in the building department, questioning thebasis for approval of the plan for a 1ot B0 by 100 feet.
Mayor Crosby announced a continuance to the meeting of March 15, L97L,for Council to visit the property.
BUILDTNG DEPARTMENT REQUEST
E}IERGENCY I,EGISIATION IN RE WATERBEDS
A letter dated February 23, 1971, from John H. Ca1well, Chief BuildingInspector, cited problems of concern in relation to safety factorsof waterbeds and requested Council's consideration to enactment of
emergency legislation preventing their sale and use until laboratory
approved merchandise is available and the public informed as to hazardsthat may result, from their use in quarters unable to support the weight.
?he City Attorney reported that J-egisLation is pending in Sacramento.His suggestion that the macter be held in abeyance, pending information
on the Staters approach, was eoncurred in by Council-.
4 COMPI,AINT APPARENT ZONING VIOI.,ATION.
A letter dated February 15, L97L, from Francis P. Foote, 301 Chapin Line,reporting that a single-family dwelling at 27O Chapin Lane i-s occupiedby a number of persons, apparently more than normal for a one-familydweLling, requested Council's consideration to investigating andcorrecting iIlegal conditions that may exist.
fhe City Planner reported that he is familiar with the property, thatan inspection revealed an iIlegal apartment unit, and that his letterto the owner at an address in Bakersfield was unanswered.
The City At,torney advised that, he, too, attempted to reach the ownerby mail at the Bakersfield address without success and will pursue
the matter further.
In response to Mayor Crosby, the City Planner agreed to inform
Reverend Foote of the city's interest and measures underway to attemptto correct the situation,
RESOLUTIONS
1. RESoLUTToN No. 11-71 "Recommendi ng Addition of Skyline Boulevard,
Carolan Avenue and Airport Boulevard ?o Select Street Slzstem" wasintroduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, seconded by
t-.
20
ORDINANCES
1 ORDINANCE NO. 930 "Re pealing Chapter 3.36 (Civil Defense And
Disaster) Oe fhe Municipal Code And Adding A New Ctrapter 3.36
(Emergency Services) " was introduced for the first reading by Councilman
Amstrup.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 931 "An Ordinance Amending fhe l\{unicipal Code Of
The city of Burlingame By Adding Sub-paragraph 46 to B13.20.010 And
Providing For An Intersection Stop For Vehicles At fhe Intersection
Of Walnut And Willow Avenues" was introduced for first reading by
Councilman Mangini.
UNFINI S}IED BUSINESS
I. BUITDING VIOI,ATION
In response to Councilman Amstrup, the City Attorney reported that he
has been informed that the compLaint should be filed and served in
the Ilhompson case prior to the next City Couneil meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
1, EL CAMINO REAL TRAFFIC.
Councilman Mangini and unanimously adopted upon rolL call.
2. RESoLUTIoN No. L2-7L "Authorizj,ng Execution of Agreement of sale
By And Between The City of Burlingame, A Municipal Corporation, And
H. Richard O'Hara and Mary Margaret OrHara His Wife" was introduced
by Councilman Johnson, who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman
Martin and unanimously adopted upon ro11 caIl.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 13-71 "Accepting Grant Deed FromlMary Michniuk,
Dated February 27, L97L" was introduced by Councilman Johnson,
who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously
adopted upon roLl call.
3 I,EAGUE OT CALIFORNIA CITIES
Councilman Amstrup referred to an item in the Health, Safety & Traffic
Commission minutes of February 11, L97L, concerning methods of improving
traffic flow on El camino ReaI, including removaL of the trees and
widening of the right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson stated that she was informed by the Commission
Chairman, in a conversation earlier in the d"y, that the discussion
related solely to problems that may be created by a substantial increase
in apartment building eonstruction in the city.
On a mot,ion introduced by Councilman Martin, seconded by Council-man
Amst,rup and unanimously carried, the City l{anager was requested to
inform the Commission that CounciL does not contemplate removal of the
eucalyptus trees on the El Camino.
2 rERRY BOAT RESTAURANT
In response to Councilman Martin's inquiry concerning an application
before B.C.D.C. for a "ferry-boat" restaurant in Burlingame, the City
Planner reported that Anza Pacific Corporation intends to reloca'te the
facility from Jack London Square in Oakland to the channeJ., that the
zoning provides for the use, and that the owner has the right to use
the channel for any purpose that does not interfere with the city's
drainage easement.
I,EGI SI,ATIVE P RAM.
flre City Managler referred to the League legislative bulletin of
February 18, L97L, requesting support of its legislative program and
suggesting procedures whereby cities can be kept, informed of pending
legislation and, in turn, make their positions known to their legis-
lators.
Councilman Martin suggested that Council be furnished a copy of every
bulletin so that they can select the items on which they wanL further
information, or wish to pursue; att l.hat the City Manager bring'E,o Couneil's aitention bills Ehat he may consider of vital import.
2t
4 . CAMTON PARK.
Reference was made to an item in the Park and Recreation Commission
minutes of February 9, L97L, wherein the Park Superintendent questioned
his authority to enter the Canyon "as the area had never been designated
a park. "
Ilhe City Manager stated that he will pursue the matter and report to
Council.
5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BAYTRONT.
Councilman Amstrup referred to a memo from the City Planner dated
February 24,197L, reporting that B.C.D.C. has rejected a plan submitted
by Mr. Charles King for an office building on Bayshore H:lghway
on the basis of architectural design, and requesting Councilts
assistance in resolving the matter.
t1he City Planner reported that the plan submitted to B.C.D.C. is the
product of approximately a yearts work and provides for aLl of the
amenities that the city considers essential to waterfront developments.
Council appeared to be receptive Lo the course of action suggested in
the Planner's memo, concurring with Councilman Martin that a copy of
the plan be made available for review.
ACKNOI^iI,EDGMENTS
1. A letter from the City Planner dated March L, L971, regarding
"Proposed Uniform Annexation Law. "
2. Communicat,ion from represent,atives of East Burlingame GrouP,
dated February L7, L97L, thanking Council for its unanimous decision
opposing a proposed development on Bloomfield Road at the meeting
of February 16th, L971.
3. Communication from Mr. and Mrs. RusseII A. LiLlemoen,
7O4 Bayswater Avenue, in appreciation of Council's denial of the
variance pertaining to 117 Bloomfield Road.
4. Mrs. P. Bringle reconunending adoption of "dog ordinance."
5. Communication from City Manager, dated February 24, L97L, "Improve-
ment, of Premises at LL7 Bloomfield Road. " ftre City Manager reported
that he will keep Council informed.
6. copy of a letter dated February 22, !97L, proposed to be sent
to city commissions by the City Manager, reguesting views and
reconmendations on regulations governing cornmissions.
7. A letter from the City CJ.erk, written at Councilman Johnson's
request, reporting that Robert LaMar has failed to attend a meeting
of the Parking Commission since his appointment by Council on August, 3,
L970.
On a motion introduced by Council-man Mart5-n, seconded by Councilman
Ivlangini, and unanimously carried, Mr. LaMar was removed from Ehe
membership of the Parking Commission.
The city Clerk was requested to inform I,1r. IaMar accordingly.
8. A copy of a letter dated February 23, L97L, from Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the City Manager, acknowledgingreceipt of the city's application for FLood Insurance.
In an addendum to the letter, the City Manager recommended that copiesof the flood insurance and flood hazard maps be made available forpublic inspection in the City Clerk's office.
9. Request from National United Nations Day Program Chairman forthe name and address of the cityrs UN Day Chairman. Mayor Crosby
22
requested that the name of Mrs. Edith Cohendet be for:vsarded to the
proper office.
10. San Mateo County Fair & Convention Association announcement ofa Travel Indust,ry Seminar at the San Mateo County Fairgrounds on
March L2, L971. Mayor Crosby extended an invitation to the City
Manager to attend.
11. County of San Mateo Commission on Aging communication, February 22,
1971.
L2. City of Belmont Resolution re: Federal Revenue Sharing Withtocal Agencies.
13. Request from PeninsuLa Association of Retarded CLrildren and
AduLts, San Mateo County, to proclaim "Ehe month of March 'rRetardation
Membership Month. "
COUNCIL REPORTS
1. Councilman Johnson reported that she, with Councilman Mangini,
met recently with representatives of the group interested in the
establishment of a city art cultural center. Councilman .Tohnson
requested that names for a citizens committee to investigate andreport to Council on the feasibiLity of such a facility be subrnittedat the next Council meeting.
2. Councilman Amstrup reported that the San Mateo County Council of
l,{ayors rejected the proposal of consolidation of cities and intendsto assess the pros and cons of a joint-powers system.
3. Councilman Mangini reguested that Student Government Day during
Burlingame Week be a subject of diseussion at the March 9 study
meeting.
CONSTITTIENT DAY
?he City Manager reported that Senator Gregorio has extended an
invitation to Council to attend a luncheon meeting on Saturday,
March 13; further details will be made known to Council when available.
coMMr ssroN APPoTNTMENjqS .
Mayor Crosby, with Council corlcurrence, announced reappointment of
Everet't K. Kindig and Ctrarles W. Mink to the Planning Commission; and,
Appointment of Mr. ElberL E. Huntley, 482 Marin Drive, to the Health,
Safety a Traffic Commission to fill an existing vacancy.
REFBRRALS TO STUDY }4EE?ING.
A request from Lhe San Mateo County Scavenger Company, proposing new
collection rates, and an Executive Session for the purpose of dis-
cussing Salary and Fringe Benefits Policy in 197L, were referred to the
study meeting of March 9, 1971.
ADJOURNMEryI
,
The meeting regularly adjourned at L2z2O a.m,
Minutes: Park & Recreation Commb ion,
Commission, February 10, l97L; Health,
February 11, L97L; Planning Commission,
APPROVED:
February 9, L97L; Beautification
Safety & Traffic Commission,
February 22, L97L.
RespectfulLy submitted,
4la,iu*ltc,M'^GHerberL K. ltlhite
Citlz Clerk
ilr,/r**
fr"William *I. C
g'*J"*
sby, ,"flot