Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1973.08.0625 Burlingame, California August 5, L973 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was called to order on the above date at 8:I0 p.m., Mayor R. D. Martin presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Clerk Ied the Pledge of Allegiance to the F1ag. ROLL CALL PRESE}flT: ABSEIfI: COUNCIIMEN: COtINCf LMEN: Amstrup-Cus ick-Iulang ini -Ivlart in Crosby (vacationing, excused) I MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of July 16, L973, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. Minutes of the special parking district hearing of June 20, L973t previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. ASSISTAI{I FINAI{CE DIRECTOR:The schedule outlined by the City Ivlanager in his for interviews of selected candidates for thismemorandum of August 2, L973, position was approved. MAYORIS COMMENTS Mayor Martin reported he has received several complaints about one of the concessions at the San Mateo County Fair where Burlingame teenagers, among others, were bilked of rather J-arge sums of money and he was convinced, after personal observation, that the game should be barred from the Fair. However, despite his and numerous other protests to management, the game continues. He suggested that parents warn their children to be wary. Also, telephone calls from the public to the manager of the Fair Association or the Board of Super- visors may create the pressure necessary to have this particular booth closed. HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED CONSERVATION ELEMENI Mayor Martin announced a continued hearing from the meeting of July 2, L973, on the Conservation Element of the General Plan prepared by Wiltiam Spangle e Associates. The Chair stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Juty 23 , L973, unanimously approved amendments suggested by the City Council and resubmitted revised pages. fn addition, David Keyston of Anza Pacific Corporation has questioned certain language in the Appendix and suggests modifications. During the period of discussion on this latter subject, Council indicated no objections to Mr. Keyston's suggestions. It was noted that changes in the A,ppendix need not be referred to the Planning Commission for review. There were no comments from the floor in response to the Chair. The hearing was declared closed. A motion was introduced by Councilman Amstrup to amend the Appendix (recommended by Mr. Keyston) as follows: Page A-IV-2 Area 3: First paragraph, first sentence, substitute "commercial" for "industrial." Last sentence (same paragraph), strike "Per condition of agreement." 2to page A-IV-3 Area 4: Second paragraph, first sentence, rewrite thus: "Develop- ment to date qives indication of a character of development along the waterfront which wiII not recur by reason of the present rezoning from M-l to C-4." page A-fV-3 Area 5: Last paragraph, first sentence, to start with the phrase "With the e:<ception of the progressing develognent of Bayside Park, ". The motion was seconded by Councilman Mangini and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 58-73 "Adopting The Conservation Element Of The General PIan" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Cusick and carried on the following roll call: AYES : COI.INCILMEN: NOES: COUNC]LMEN: ABSE}TI COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Cus ick-Mangini-Mart in None Crosby 2. VARIANCE 15IO NEWI,ANDS AVENUE, RfCHARD GARCIA APPLICANT.DENIED Ivlayor Martin announced that a pubtic hearing was scheduled by the Counc il for this date on the appeal of Richard Garcia from the action of the Planning Cormnission (tie vote, 3 in favor, 3 opposed) on an application for variance to allow an existing multi-family building to continue in a R-I District at 1510 Newlands Avenue with less than required parking. The Mayor also announced that a letter was received by the Council from Bruce A. Bailey, Attorney at Law, San Mateo, requesting a postponement to the meeting of August 20, 1973t in behalf of Mr. Garcia. At the Chair's request, there was a showing of hands by persons in the audience interested in this matter; thereafter, with Council concurrence, the Chair stated the hearing would proceed as scheduled. Barry Murphy, attorney associated with Bruce Bailey, was recogtnized. He explained that Mr. Bailey was obligated to another commitment and was hopeful the postponement would be acceptable to the Council. Furthermore, he was aware there would be residents of the area present to take part in the public discussion but he fett that research of California cases as to estoppel of municipalities in zoning matters could be of benefit to the city, to people in the area and to l,lr. Garcia; a delay of two weeks would allow for such research. Mr. Bruce Stewart, 1308 Bayshore Boulevard, identified himself as the real estate agent who sold the property. The Chair expressed regret that Mr. Garcia was not present because the Council may decide to take an action without him. The alternative is to hear the people and then hear Mr. Garcia at a later tjme. Councilman Cusick asked when Mr. Garcia took possession of the property. Mr. Murphy advised the deed was recorded on it{arch 13, L973. CounciLman Cusick referred to Council minutes of March 19 and April 2, L973, wherein mention was made of the illegal status of this property, and to comments from the City Attorney indicating that the purchaser was attempting to rescind the contract to purchase. The City Planner, at the Chair's request, reviewed the history of the property, mentioning conversion to multi-family use of an existing single-family dwelling without benefit of building permit or city insepction several years ago, and a prior application in May, l97Lt by a prospective purchaser for variance to legalize the building and permit structural alterations, which was subsequently withdrawn because of neighborhood resistance. The City Planner stated that when the application was filed in 1971, the building was described as a "7-unit apartment building." There is nothing of record in city hall to show when apartment use occurred. The seven units still exist, six in the principal building and one in a carport at the rear of the Iot. fn March of this year, the property again came to staff's attention when applica- tion was made for a buildinq permit for termite work. The building inspector refused to issue the permit. The City Council was informed of this on March 19 27 in a communication from the building inspector, the matter was referred to counsel, and staff learned later that the property had been transferred to another oliner. The current application was brought to the Planning Commission at its May study meeting. A public hearing commenced at the regular meeting in June and the commission's action, resulting in the three to three vote, occurred at an adjourned meeting on July 9 on a motion to deny the variance- The number of units at issue was five, Mr. Garcia having agreed to remove two. fn response to Councilman Mangini, Mr. Stewart stated neither he nor Mr. Garcia was aware that the building was illegal until the building department refused a permit for the termite work. I,1r. Stewart explained there was no reason to suspect illegality because of existing apartment buildings, one j-mmediately adjacent to the subject property and two others on the opposite side of Newlands Avenue. He stated he called city halI as a precautionary measure to inquire about non-conforming buildings, gave the address and was informed of code provisions for such buildings. He indicated he may have been remiss in not pursuing the matter further with city staff prior to consummating the sale. fn response to the Chair, Mr. Stewart stated that the only problem mentioned by the prior owner was the dwelling unit in the carport. He pointed out that the property has been multi-family in use for approximately 13 years, that approval of the variance will allow structural improvements to bring the building to code, both building and fire safety, and that Mr. Garcia antici- pates reducing the number of units to five. Mr. Murphy stated that the real question lies with the use of land in the areai there is an automobile service shop across El- Camino from Newlands, an apartment building directly adjacent to the subject property, a neglected property on the opposite side of Newlands at the corner of El Camino, next to that an illegat multi-famity building and, next to that, a new multi-famity building approved by variance approxjmately two years ago. He stated that when this latter building was permitted, the former City Planner made come comments concerning (I) existing illegal uses on Newlands Avenue and (2) a recommendation made in 1953 that some part of this area, particularly in close proximity to E1 Camino, should eventually become a multi-family district. Mr. Murphy stated this concept was tater endorsed in the city's adopted general P1an, that the same theory that applied when the new building was allowed at 1511 Newfands applies equalty to the Garcia property--the land is too valuabl-e for single-family use and the city cannot afford either vacant residential properties nor depreciating buildings. Mr. Murphy maintained that Mr. Garciars plans for the property will reduce density, traffic and on-street parking because of removal of two units. Mr. Garcia intends to make a substantial investment in i:nprovements, which, he feels, wiII benefit the immediate area and the community generally. The hearing was declared open to the floor. Protestants were invited to comment. Robert V. Ohlson, 2LL Occidental Avenue, asked whether the Planning Cornmission voted on five or six units. The Chair reported five, according to the minutes. Councilman Mangini asked the purpose of the question. Mr. ohlson explained it was his impression the original discussion was directed toward six units and, findinq resistance, the applicant mentioned five units. Councilman Mangini asked Mr. ohlson if he would support a variance for five units. He responded ttno. tt C. Don Co1e, 117 Occidental Avenue, protested that the city fathers should not be called upon to pass a special law to accommodate a person who purchases a seven-unit building and then discovers it is a single-family building. ff this application is approved, every other olvner in a similar situation will expect equal treatment. Mr. Cole stated it is always the same story when a non- conforming building owner requests a variance. Now appears to be the opportune time for the Council to take a decisive stand by refusing this owner the privilege of variance from the zoning laws. The Mayor pointed out that the building is not non-conforming in any sense, it is illegal, and the terms have totally different meanings here, because the city recognizes and regulates non-conforming uses. 2E Michael Mustachia, L529 Newlands Avenue, opposed the variance, stating he would not expect the city to "hedge his losses" if he experienced a poor investment. Councilman Mangini asked about recourse open to the applicant if the variance is denied. The City Attorney stated this would be a private matter between the buyer, seller and real estate agent. Councilman Amstrup reported he examined a copy of the county's assessment roll earlier in the day and learned that the property has a total assessed valuation of $131375.00--$4,800 land and $81575 improvements, or a cash value of $531500, according to the assessor. This would indicate the property is assessed as a single-family dwelling, not income property, with the result that other taxpayers carry the tax load for this and, presumably, aII itlegal structures in the city. He stated that the time has come for the City Council to stop making the few who are abusing the law the exception, and those who live within the law the victims. Mr. Murphy noted that I,Ir. Garcia desires to conform to the Iaw, that is the basic reason for the variance application. Mr. Garcia is not a party to illegalities that occurred in the past. He intends to make structural improve- ments that will become a matter of record and., undoubtedly, the basis for reassessment of t[e property. The Chair conrnented there will be a precedent established, whatever the action. A variance granted here can result in every owner of an illeqal building coming to the Planning Commission and City Council demanding equal sanction. The Chair stated the Council has the alternative of continuing the hearing to the meeting of August 20 to hear Mr. Garcia and Mr. Bailey or closing it now and taking an action. He asked for Council comment. Council-man Cusick stated to prolong would be unfair to the citizens who made the effort to appear. She noted non-conforming buildings are legal buildings that predate the zoning ordinance; however, if a non-conforming building is damaged beyond a certain percentage, it can be rebuilt only in conformance with existing zoning. The applicant has an illegal apartment building, built without a building permit. He is asking for something that every legal building had. To allow this can harm the integrity of the building permit system and perhaps cause citizens to question why they shoul-d be subject to building permit regulations. Councilman Mangini pointed out that time and again the people have appeared at Council meetings to protest multi-family construction in single-family neighborhoods. He asked what the Council can do to protect the interests of the homeowners, stated that the application should be denied and recommended it be brought to a vote. Councilman Amstrup concurred, stating the time has come to establish a policy. Disapproval of the variance and reversion of the building to single-family use wiII set a policy for staff and alert the public to what can be expected in similar cases. The hearing was closed. on a motion introduced by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried, the application was denied. (Councilmen Crosby absent.) The l,layor recommended that special counsel be retained if abatement of multi- family use of the building is to be pursued. The City Attorney stated that a case of this kind could be quite time consuming and that other pressing matters in the city would suffer if he were to und.ertake it. He agreed that other counsel- be retained. He stated. he woutd like to return to the Council with recommendations, including an outline of possible courses of actions that could be pursued and comments as to possibility of success on each of them. With Council concurrence, the Chair authorized the City Attorney to proceed accordingly. f)) Ivlayor Martin commented that he did not understand the change in procedure of the Planning Commission. It appeared there were too many matters coming to the City Council that should be stopped at a Planning Commission study meeting. He pointe.d out also that two members of the Council were appointed to study the Sign Review System being considered by the Ptanning Commission and to report to Council at the Septernber study meeting. He asked that Spangle's recommendations on Urban Design Framework and Guidelines be made available to Council at the September study meeting, stating Council should have the opportunity of input before the Planning Commission proceeds further on these two matters. RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:30 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m. IIEARINGS (cont. ) 3. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED OFFICE BUILD]NG,PRIMROSE ROAD Mayor lvlartin announced that this was the time and place schedul-ed to conduct a public hearing and to consider the application of Neil J. Vannucci, A.I.B.D., for special permit, as per interim zoning ordinance No. 984, to construct an office building covering more than 3OB of total lot area. Acknowledg"ment was made of Mr. Vannucci's letter of JuIy 10, L973, outlining details of the project, accompanied by a site plan with elevations. The Chair stated this application results from the emergency ordinance restricting lot coverage. fn response to his inquiry, the City Planner confirmed the project meets the code in all other respects. Mr. Vannucci was recognized by the Chair. He stated that the building will be one story in height, designed for S.L. Griffiths, Inc., insurance brokersr who have been in business in Burlingame since 1910. The operation has outgrown existing facilities and, at the heginning of the year, Mr. Meyerhoffer, one of the principals in the corporation, purchased the site on Primrose Road. Mr. Vannucci explained that the property has total land area of 51600 square feet, the company's immediate needs are 31200 square feet but, in time, 5r2OO square feet will be required. 30e" lot coverage would result in 11980 square feet of building space, far below either current or future needs. Furthermore, if a fuII two-story building were built, and 30% coverage observed, the result would be about 25% less than requirements. Mr. Vannucci called attention to architectural treatment indicated on the plan, stating that the design was selected especially to carry out the Early California theme evidenced in the City's main library building on the opposite side of Primrose from the subject property. Mr. Vannucci mentioned also that the parcel consists of two sma1l lots. There were no comments from the floor. The hearing was declared closed. The Chair commented that the emergency ordinance was enacted to control size, height and parking and that he could foresee no problems in this project. Councilman Amstrup asked if the redwood tree on the property will be preserved. Mr. Vannucci replied "definitely." On a motion introduced by Councj-lman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini and unani:nously carried (Councilman Crosby absent) the special permit was approved, the project to conform generally to d.rawings on file. The City Engineer referred to I,1r. Vannucci's comment that the property consists of two l-ots. He stated this will be researched and, if there is an existing lot l-ine dividing the area where he intends to build, it will be advisable to have a resubdivision map filed to delete the line and create a single parcel. 3U COMMUNICATIONS I. PROPOSED PROJECT 1108-1120 BURL]NGAME AVENUE AND 303-307 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Acknowledgment was made of a communication from Jonathan B. Horowitz, 1106 So. El Camino Real, San Mateo, concerning proposed plans for remodeling the Odd Fellows HalI and the former Tri-City building on Burlingame Avenue, and a third property on California Drive. The l-etter explained that the total result would be a shopping ma11 complex of the type often associated with Carmel or Los Gatos. The City Attorney informed the Council that Mr. Horowitz is not certain whether he needs to make the sarne application that the Council just heard (special permit, ordinance No. 984). The City Attorney stated he has not seen the plans, except for a very quick look, and it may be that an examination will indicate that no application to Council is necessary. The Chair recognized Mr. Horowitz, who explained that the Odd FeIIows building exceeds 35 feet in height and, if it was the Council's intent that the ordinance apply to existing buitdings, apparently a special permit is required; if that was not the intent, then only the building permit is necessary- During the ensuing period of cormnent, Councilman Amstrup advised that his wife operates a business in one of the properties included in the project, and he felt he should abstain from conunent. He stated he has seen the plans. Councilman Cusick asked if the ordinance applied to remodeling of existing buildings. The City Attorney explained that he was in the building deparLment when Mr. Horowitz was there, that he was asked by the building inspector if an application should be made to the Council, that the plans were on the counter but he did not examine them and did not know whether there was a problem of lot coverage or height, but that he did recommend that the application be filed. Mayor lvlartin expressed the opinion that the ordinance did not apply to existing buildings and that he did not believe height would be a problem, but perhaps there might be a requirement for parking. He stated he was not prepared to make a decision without seeing preliminary drawings. Mr. Horowitz stated that if parking is required this will make the project economically impossible. He reported also that he has not taken title to the properties as yet. There were no objections heard to the Mayor's recommendation that a proper application be filed for hearing at the meeting on August 20. 2. PROPOSED ABANDON!{ENT OF SEWER EASE}'IEIflT A letter from Florin Rhodes, 1530 La Mesa Drive, requested removal of one of two sewer easementsand the acceptance of a new sewer and easement on his property in Viewland Estates Subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. 59-73 "Resolution Declaring Intention To Vacate And Abandon Part of Public Utilities Easement Across Lots l1213,4 And 8, V iewland Estates, Burlingame, California" (setting public hearing for the meeting of September l'7, Lg73) was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and declared carried on the folfowing roII call: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Cusick-Mangini-Martin NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENI COUNCILMEN: Crosby 3. BASSA TAX LEVY Under date of July 23, L973, M. D. Tarshes, County Manager, submitted a chart of "Apportionment of Bay ALea Sewer Services Agencyrs Charges to San Mateo County Agenciesr" the City of Burlingame's share of apportionment $4226.OO. 31 The Chair stated there is no question that the city must pay the charge but there were opinions expressed at the County Council of Mayors meeting that, preferably, this should be handled at the county leveI. Apparently the county is una-bIe to complete necessary arrangements this year. The Chair suggested. that a letter be forwarded to Mr. Tarshes recommending that the levy be collected as part of the county taxes next year. He requested the City Manager to investigate procedures whereby the Burlingame Hills area and the Town of Hillsborough will pay their fair share of this assessment and to report back to the Council. 4. BUS SYSTEM GRANT Under date of August 2, L973, the City Manager reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Review Committee approved an al-location of $163,000.00 to Burtingame for its bus system. The application reguested $1751000.00 but the Committee deducted 25% for the county regional system and 4sb for administration. The City Manager advised there is an item of $51000.00 in the budget for advance planning. He requested authorization to employ Rj-chard Vicenti, who has had experience in implementing bus systems in lulenlo Park and Santa Cruz, as a special consultant at a fee not to exceed $Ir000.00. The City Planner reported he is acquainted with I,1r. Vicente and can strongly recormnend him to the Council to perform the services recommended by the City Manager. There were no objections from the Council. The City lvlanager was authorized to proceed in accordance with his memo of August 2. During a period of Council discussion, there were corunents concerning the possibility that Burlingame will coordinate its bus system with Foster City and the City of San Mateo to provide an expanded area of service; also, it was pointed out that it may be three to four years before a county-wide system materializes. 5. NOMINEES rOR PARKING COMMISSION VACANCY: The City Manager was authorized to schedule interviews with persons who have indicated interest in serving on this commission. fn a memorandum dated August 2, f)te City Manager reported that August 6 (today) is the deadline for submission of nominees to fill the existing vacancy. 6. GATES FOR STEPS AT ALVARADO AND EASTON: Under date of August 1, L973, the City Manager reported that a meeting was held with parties concerned with this problem and they indicated iron gates at both ends of the steps wiII be satisfactory. The City Manager's recorunendation that the gates be purchased and installed at an approximate cost of $576.00 was approved by the Council. For the benefit of interested persons in the audience, the City Engineer made available a sketch showing type of gate proposed to be installed. 7. SECOND P],ANMD USE REPORT REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: The City ManageT'S suggested allocation of $178 ,420.00 of fund.s to be received during the fiscal year 1973-L974 ($44r605. Recreation & Culture, $133r815. Public Safety, communi- cation dated August L, L973,) was approved by the City Council. 8. JOllflI FUNDING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER: Under date of August l, 1973, the City Manager submitted an inquiry from the City of San Mateo concerning this subject, and advised that information presented shows that Burlingame residents are being served by the center. The City Manager asked for an j-ndication from the City Council whether it might be interested in a joint fund.ing arrangement, in order that he can reply to San Mateo. The Council indicated interest. 9. SAII MATEO ARTS COUNCIL MINI-GALLER]ES: fn a letter dated August 1, L973, the City Manager reported on this matter. His recommendation that further details be obtained from the County Arts Director was endorsed by the City Council. 32 10. COOLIDGE SCHOOL AGREEMENI: Under date of August 2, L973, the City Manager submitted copies of this document,advising that it will be ready for execution at the City Council meeting of August 20, L973, after the school board has acted. Councilman Mangini referred to paragraph "c" page 2, commenting that the language would indicate that the city may not use the school grounds for any outside activities. The City Attorney stated it was his understanding that the city was leasing the building only and, in order to make that cIear, the exclusion clause was r,sritten into the 1ease. Councilman Mangini commented there may be occasions when personsmaywish to sketch an outdoor scene. He asked if this will be prohibited. Marie Texeira, Arts/Cultural Commission Chairman, asked if the Recreation Department was aware the grounds were not included, stating that she had not received notice to this effect. Following cormnents concerning insurance coverage and the master agreement that the city has with the school board for recreational use of school grounds, the matter was referred to the City Manager for resolution. 11. FEDERAL GRANT BURLINGAIVIE & MILLBRAE WASTE DfSPOSAL PRO]ECT: ThC CitY eivedManager reported under date of August 2, 1973, that word has been rec from Congressman Leo Ryan's office that this grant has been approved. REFERRALS I. Letter from Mayor Thomas Jenkins, San Carlos, to Mayor Martin concerning "the effect of zoning regulations on residential and day care facilities in San Mateo County" referred to the City Planner for transrnittal to the Planning Commission for review and report to the City Council. 2. Letter from IvIr. and Mrs. Herman Hittenberger, 2895 Hillside Drive, concerning hazardous safety conditions in the vicinity of the new car wash at Carolan Avenue and Broadway referred to Health, Safety s Traffic Couunission for comment. 3. Petitions in favor of and in opposition to mobile ice cream vendors, submitted by the City Manager, referred to Health, Safety o Traffic Commission for comment. 4. Letter from R. R. Mil1er, I1O5 Dufferin Avenue, with attached list of license mrnbers of vehicles that have violated the "no left turn" regulation when exiting southbound from the Pi.aza Shopping Center, referred to the Chief of Po1ice for investigation. 5. Letter from Ronald A. Rosberg, President, Repo Depo, 1669 Old Bayshore Highway, concerning traffic island painted in the street right of way in front of the driveway entrance to his building, referred to Health, Safety & Traffic Commission for comment. 6. Letter from Mrs. Edgar Vogel, 1300 Mills Avenue, objecting to proposed bird sanctuary in the area of Charlie Brown and The Fisherman Restaurants, referred to Park & Recreation and Health, Safety e Traffic Cornrnissions for comment. RESOLUTIONS The Council heard a report from Kenneth I. Jones, bond counsel, of revisions that will be necessary in the language of the resolution prepared for Councilrs consideration. In addition, Councilman Cusick asked that the fee of gI0O.00 mentioned in the second paragraph, page 2, be increased to $250.00. There were no objections. RESOLUTION NO. 60-73 "A Resolution Of Intention To Make Changes And Modifi- cations guriingame Avenue Area Offstreet Parking District, Assessment Credit Formula", amended on its face to incorporate revisions recommended by Mr. Jones and Councilman Cusick, (setting pubtic hearing for the meeting of 9/4/73) was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and declared carried on the following ro11 call: o5)o') AYES: COUNCI1,[4EN: Amstrup-Cusick-Mangini-Martin NOES: COUNCIIMEN: None ABSENT COUNCILI4EN: Crosby Mr. Jones stated that the resolution will be reprinted and corrected copies delivered to the City Clerk ORDINANCE - II{IRODUCTION OF: ORDINANCE NO. 995 "Adopting By Reference The Uniform Building Code 1970 Edition, Volume IV, Uniform Code For Repair, Vacation or Demolition of Dangerous euildings" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup for first readj-ng. UNFINISHED BUSINESS I. Gate at pl-ayground Parkinq Lot J .: In response to Councilman Cusick, the City Manager reported a recommendation will be forthcoming from Park e Recreation Commission. 2. Withdrawal from San Mateo County Harbor District: fn response to Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney gave a detailed report on his attendance at the I,AFCO meeting of July 18, 1973, when presentations were made by cities desiring to withdraw from the District. He advised the hearing commenced at 2..15 p.m., and continued until 9:15 p.m., and that the matter will come to LAFCO on August 22 for determination. He stated that Burlingame's application is prepared and can be presented when the Council so desires. He recomrrended as follows: 1. The Council await the action of LAFCO at its meeting on August 22. 2. In his opinion this matter of withdrawal wiII come to litigation and the Council should decide if it wants to participate in litigation. 3. It would be fool-ish for this City, if it is filing the application in good faith, to appear before LAFCO as i1l-prepared as the other cities were. He stated that d.eterminations should be made on what the vote was in Burlingame when the continuation of the District came to the el-ectorate, and. how many people in Burlingame use Olrster Point Yacht Harbor and Coyote Point; these are facts in which LAFCO is interested. fn conclusion, he emphasized that the City not file until after August 22 and then only after careful consideration. He reported an application for withdrawal can be filed at any time. 3. Burlingame Avenue Brick Work: The City Attorney reported that, hopefully, the problems j-n connection with settlement of this project have been resolved. A new rel-ease has been prepared, which the manufacturer has agreed to accept. RESOLUTION NO. 61-73: "Authorizi.ng Execution Of Release To Port Costa Products Company And To Masonry Supply Co., Inc., Corporations" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and declared carried on the following ro11 call: AYES: COIINCILMEN: Amstrup-Cusick-Mangini-Martin NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENI COUNCfLMEN: Crosby NEW BUSINESS 1. Traffic Hazard: Councilman Amstrup asked the Chief of Police to investi- gate a large mound of dirt, wittrout barricades, in the center of Magnolia Avenue behind Petrinirs Market. 2. Vehicles in Mills Canyon: Councilman Amstrup stated there is evidence of illegal entry in this area in the vicinity of Arguello Drive. 3. Survey Lot A: The Chair reported. the City Manager is conducting a survey of licenses in this lot prior to installation of meters and will continue the survey after the meters are instalLed in an effort to d.etermine where the people are parking. 3.1 4. Expiration of terms T,ibrary Board and Health , Safety e Traffic Conunission: Under date of July 18, L973, the City Clerk reported that the term of Ben L. Hechinger on the Library Board expired June 30, L973 and the terms of Ernest W. Sulger and R. Edward Allen, Health, Safety & Traffic Cormnission, expire August 6, L973. August 20, L973, was named the deadline for nominations to these two boards. ACKNOWI,EDGME}TTS Bank of America "Community fssues And Action Questionnaire." County of San Mateo, County Manager, letter of July 30, L973, regarding sol-id waste planning and coordination. (Copies to be furnished the Council. ) Resol-utions Conmittee, Peninsula Division Mayors, League of California Cities submitting series of resolutions. (Copies to be furnished Council.) San Mateo County Transit Develolxnent Project minutes of July 13, L913. BASSA notice of public hearing on Wednesday, August 15 | L973, Hotel Claremont. Richard E. Watson, Executive Director, County Supervisors Association, submitting material on Environmental Management Institute Workshops. Airports Commission re: Review of Airport Development Aid Program No. 5, Impact Statement. The Chair suggested that cornments that staff may have should be forwarded to the Airports Commission. Reports e Minutes: City Planner report Planning Commission meeting of JuIy 23, L973. Park & Recreation Conrnission Minutes, JuIy I0, Beautification, July 12, Library Board, JuIy 17, Parking, JuIy 25, Health, Safety, Traffic, July 12, Planning JuIy 9, 13 and 23, L973. Recreation Department L972-73 Collection Report From Fees & Charges. Councilman Cusick asked that the matter of non-resident fees be taken under advisement by the Council to determine whether or not there should be an increase over fees paid by residents. With reference to items in the Park & Recreation Commission minutes of July 10, Councilman Amstrup, member of Council Budget Committeer noted that allocations for Washington Park lights and Village Park Tennis Courts are in the preliminary budget but have not been approved. GOLF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATfONS Acknowledgment was made of material delivered to the Council by Councilman Amstrup, Chairman of this Committee. APPEAL HEARfNG SCHEDUI,ED Mayor Martin, with Council- concurrence, announced that the action of the Plannir.g Commission in approving a special permit and draft EIR I8P for the Bubble Machine at its meeting of July 23, L973, will be suspended for the Council to conduct a hearing in the matter at the regular meeting on August 20, L973. STUDY MEETING DATE: September 12, L973, was sel-ected as the date of the next Council study meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for transaction, the meeting was adjourned at 1I:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 APPROVED: City C1erk 7 ,