HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.04.05r) 5)OD
Burlingame, California
April 5, 1971
CALL TO ORDBR
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was called to orderon the above date at 8:10 p.m., Mayor william J. crosby presiding.
PIEDGE OF ALI,EGIANCE
At the !!ayor's request, the City PLanner led the assemblage in thePledge of AlJ.egiance to the FIag.
ROLL CALL
Present-- Councilmen:
Absent -- Councilmen:
Ams t rup-Crosby-Johnson-ltang ini -t{art in
None
MINUIES
The minut,es of the regular meeting of llarch 15, L97I, submitted pre-viously to Council, hrere approved and adopted.
PRESENTATION
SISTER CIIY ASSOCIATION
Iutayor Crosby acknowledged a eommunication dated ltarch 30, I97L, fromIr{r. Ben L. Heehinger, chairman, Burlingame Sister city Association,requesting an opportunity to appear before council to present aproposal for suitable, Pennanent display of the bronze bust of Generalilose Morelos, presented to the Lions Club of Burlingame by the LionsClub of Cuernavaca.
l.tr. Hechinger, upon recognition by the Chair, commented on councilrscontinuing interest and support in fostering friendly relations betweenthe City of Burlingame and its affiliated city, cuernavaca, andexplained that the bust was sent in reciprocation of ": CaliforniaIt{ission Bell presented to the City of Cuernavaea several years agothrough the courtesy of Mr. Paul Constantino. He stated that theMission Bell has been placed in a prominent Location in the City of
Cuernavaca and that the membership of the Burlingame Sister CityAssociation and the Lions Club are anxious to ehow ecuaL considerationand courtesy by having the bust properly mounted a-nd displayed. Hestated also that, hopefully, dedieat,ion of the mounted bust can bearranged as Dart, of "Burlingame Days" activities during mid-uay.
tlr. Hechinger presented Mr. John Benson, Past President, BurlingameLlons Club, who requested Council's favorable consideration to place-
ment of the bust in the city hall foyer, possibly opposite the statueof Abraham Lincoln. He stated that a number of factors influencedthe decision to seek approval to an indoor site, including theexeessively high eost of a suitable pedestal for outdoor use--anattract,ive waLnut base can be purchased for considerably less.
Mr. Benson explained that Lions Club activities are directed primarilyfor the benefit of children and the blind; for that reason, the
members would prefer an indoor site with the resultant 1o,uer outlayof funds.
In resPonse to Councilmen Johnson and lqangini, l'1r. Benson reported thata base possibly four feet in height would be suitable indoori--out-of-doors, possibly five feet and that the overall mounted height wouldbe between seven and eight feet.
Councilman t'lartin suggested there may not be suitable space in thefoyer because of existing furnishingrs.
!1r. Benson, acknowledging [tayor Crosby's inquiry, confirmed that a siteat the Recreatirr Center r^ras discussed at one time, but that theclty hall lobby would aPpear to be rrbre acceptable and pleasing tovisiting dignitaries from Mexico, additionarly, in the proposedlocation, the bust will be visible from out,side of the building on
34
occasions when city offices are cLosed.
It[r. Benson agreed with Councilman Amstrup that the base not be
permanently iixed t'o the floor to allorar for reLocation should the
need arise.
A motion introduced ry Councilman Johnson to permit ttre bust of
GeneraL t'torelos to be displayed in an appropriate area in the city
hall was seconded by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried.
COM}.TUNICATIONS
1. APPEAT IIEARIN.G SCIIEDUI,ED CAR $IASH FACILIIY.
A letter dated March 24, L97L, from the Law offices of Anderson,
Mcgillan and Connolly, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission
in denying an applicltion for special permit filed tryr cable Car I{Esh
Co., Inc., to eonstruct a car wash facility on lands of Southern
Pacific Company at the southwest corner of Carolan Avenue and
Broadway.
A public hearing before Council was scheduled for Monday, ApriJ. 19,
1971, at 8:00 p.m.
2. 9ANCE PERIT{IT GRANIED SHOWBOAT RESTAURANT.
A communication from Terry's Operating Company, principals in the
Showboat Restaurant and lounge, 410 Airport Boulevard, requested
issuance of a permit allowing dancing on the premises between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. Ihe communication stated that
modern and folk-type dancing will be provided.
IYlr. David Xeyston, landLord, and Mr. Lloyd Bothwel1 , owner/operator
of the t'Showboattt were Present.
Responding to Councilman Johnson's inguiry concerning enforcement
of regulaLions applicable to minors on the premises, Mr. BothweLl
explained that the operation is primarily a restaurant, that, the
rules prohibiting minors in the lounge will be strictl.y enforced,
cornparlble to neihods employed during the 14 years the business was
loclted in the City of Oakland, and that has never had, nor does
he contemplate problems in this area.
!.1r. Bothwell stated that the lounge and dance floor will be Located
on the same deck, but seParated.
In response to Councilman AmstruP, tutr. Bothwq*}l retrrort,ed that
dancin! will be limited to the hours noted and that Live music for
dancing will constitute the soLe form of entertainment.
Councilman lrlartin, reporting that he has received some complaints
in connection with the facility being located in Burlingame, declared
that the City Council was nevei inforraed of the property ownet|E
plans and thAt use of the channel for the PurPose was aPproved by
B.C.D.C.
Fire Chief lloorby, responding to Councilman Martin's reference to a
statement in the-iire lnspeclor's report that there will be "reasonable
compliance with the various requirementsr " confirmed that the
estlUlishment is meeting all of the minimum requirements of the code-
A motion introduced by CounciLman Amst,rup granting a dance perrnit -toTerryrs Operating Cornpany for the Shor'rboat Restaurant for a period of
Eix monthi from date, renemral to be subJect to reappraisal of the
operat,ion, was seconded by Councilman Johnson and caried unanimously.
3. DANCE PER!,iIT B-IACK HORSE. (continued)
A letter dated lrlarch 23, L97L, from llarry Stollar, ourner, Black Horse,
269 primrose Road, reguested a permit, for dancing between the hours
of 4:OO p.m., and 2:00 a.m., music by juke box.
b) l,oo
Ihe cqnrnunication reported Mr. Stollarrs emplolnnent in various
capacities at the Black llorse since January, 1970, orior to becoming
sole o\{ner in November of that year.
When it was determined that the apPlicant was not present nor
represented, I{ayor Crosby, lrith Council concurrence, referred the
corununication to the meeting of April 19, 1971, for disposition.
Itre City l{anager was requested to inform Mr. Stollar accordingly and,
at Councilman Martin's eomment that, dancing as earJ.y as 4:00 D.m.,
may cause parking problems in the vicinity, to reeommend char,rying
the hours of the dance permit aPplication to f,between 6:00 p.rl.p
and 2:00 a.m. "
4. LEGISIATION REQITESIED BY P4IiKING COII{MISSION.
A communication dated ltareh 31, 1971, from the City Planner submitting
a request from the Parking Conxrission for parking regulations on the
undedicated portion of Airport Boulevard was referred to the City
Attorney to prepare legislation for Councilrs consideration.
5. .
Communications from the Citv Engineer and City Manager, datpd
March 3I and April I, 197L, respectively, concerned passage of a
resolution .:uthorizing execution of contract with the State on the
TOPICS progrram.
Itre City Engineer, responding to l{ayor Crosby, advised that adopt.ion
of the resoLution and execution of the agreement are a part of the
proce€ses whereby the City of Burlingame will be eligible to receiveits share of Federal money for street and highway improvements available
under ICIPIcS.
RESOLUTI.ON NO. 19-71 "Authorizing Execution of Agreement Between
1the City of Aurlingame And llhe State of California, Act,ing By And
fhrough ftre Division Of Highways Of Ihe Department Of Public Works"
was introduced ry Councilman Johnson, who moved its adoption, seconded
by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on roll call.
6. IMPROVE!,TENTS $TASTEIITAIER TREATUENT PIANT.
A copy of a communication from the City Engineer to the City Uanager,dated l'larch 31, L97L, concerning "Regional t{Eter Quality Board Meetingof March 25rL97L" and a Letter to Council from the City Manager,
dated April 1, 1971, commenting in improvements to the treatmentplant recommended by !1r. John Jenks, Consulting Engineer, hrere
aeknowledged and held for the study meeting on Wednesday, April L4,
1971.
7. BIDS PORTION BAYTRONT PARX IMPROVEMENTS.
A conununication from the City lrianager, dated April 1, L97L, reportedthat present plans contemplate sulrnittal. of bids to Counci.L for awardat the meeting of May 3, L97I, on landscaping, lighting and baseballfieLd at Bayfront Park.
8. CHANGE ORDER TIRE STATION NO. 3.
A letter dated March 10, L971, from !,1r. Albert W. Kahl, Architect,
subrnitted for Council's approval copies of Change Order #1, FireStation No. 3.
An addendum to the cornmunication from the City llanager, dated March 3O,
L97L recommending approval as requested by thl architect, hras
concurred in unanimously by the City Council.
9. OVERHANG ENCROACHMENT.
A request from l*tr. Helnuood P. t'lansergh, Architect, for permission toallor encroachment of a roof overhang into an existing ten footPubLic Utility Easement in the industrial district was considered
36
Later in the meeting (following Northpark Apartments hearing) when thearchitect' s repreaentative appeared.
10. CHANGE ORDBR RECREATION CENTER.
A letter dated April L. 1971, from the City Manager subrnitted Change
Order S2, Recreation Building additions and Alterations, and
accompanying conununication dated March 15, L97Lt from lvlr. Kingsford
ifones, Architect, for Council's approval.
lthe City Manager, eommenting on the matter, noted that the architect
arranged a compromise reduction in the amount the sub-contractororiginally requested and reported there wilL be no further change
orders.
fhe City l{anagerrs recorunendation that the change order be accepted
and approved hras unanimously concurred in by council.
The City lvlanager referred to a second communication frqn thearchit,ect, dated April 2, L97L, reporting that the work has been completedin accordance with requirernents of the contract documents and
recommending final acceptance by the City.
RESOIJUTION NO. 2A.7L ftAccepting Const,ruct,ion Burlingame RecreationBuilding Additions and Alterations{ was introduced by Councilman
Amstrup, who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman ltangini and
unanimously carried on roLl caLl.
11. REcur,ArroN oF ItAssAcE EsTABLrs.Hr,tENTS. @W.
A letter dated April L, L97L, from the City Manager reported that there
have been inquiries for licenses to open massage establishments andthat the City Attorney has prepared a regulatory ordinance similar tothat of the City of San Francisco, inasmuch as the code does notprovide specific enough regulations for such operations.
Ihe communication recommended enactment of the proposed ordinance.
llhe City Attorney stated that there is an application pending in thecity for permit to conduct a massage establishment,, which, of it,self,is a lawful business and cannot be prohibited but, because it is a
type of busineEs which can be subject to abusesr the city shoulddefine the conditions under which such establishments shall bepermitted lnd licensed.
The City Attorney report,ed that the proposed ordinance was modeled
on the City of san Francisco ordinance, for the reason that the Latter
has been tested in the courts and found constitutional and valid. Hestated that, after some experience, Council may determine that certain
revisions are necessary but, for the present, the document is in formto be adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 932 "An Ordinanee Amend ing Ilhe Municipal Code Of IheCity Of Burlingame B}z Adding chapter 6.40 (Regulations for Massaqe
Establishments, llassage Services and Public sath Houses] to title 6
(Business ticenses and Regulations) was introduced for first reading
by Councilman lr{anqini.
RESOIJUTIONS
7/
RESOLT TTON NO. 2L-?+
With San Mateo County "Authorizing Rate fncrease and Amending Agreement
Scrvenger Companyr was introduced by
Councilman l{artinr who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman
ilohnson and un.nimously carried on ro11 call.
RECESS
Folloring a recess at 8155 p.m., I{ayor Crosby reconvened the meetingat 9:05 p.rt.
TIEARINGS
37
1. PARKING AND BUSINESS IUPrcVBMENT TREA.
BURLINGAME AVENTE CENTRAT BUSMESg DTSTRTCT. W.
ltayor Crosby announced that thie was the time and place scheduled,
pursuant to Resolut,ion of Intentia'n No. 16-71, to conduct a public
hearing on the formatLon of a city beautification district under the
Parking and Business Improvement Area Iaw of 1965.
For the henefit of the ;:udience, Ilayor Crosby recited ground rules
applicable to public hearings before Council, whereby all persons
from the audience desiring to speak on an issue shalL approach one of
the microphones in the chambers, decLare his name and address and
sutrnit evidence pertinent to the subject.
I{ayor Crosby request,ed that, the audience not belabor a point made by
a previous speaker, explaining ttrat CounciL is willing to hear new
evidence pro and con from all interested Persons.
The Chair acknowledged receipt of a conmunication dated lrlarch 31, L97L,
from ifames E. Delehanty, 845 t{a1eolm noad, supPorting the project.
tlhe privilege of the fl,oor hras aecorded Mr. Eric Mausser, o\,rner of a
commercial establishment at 236 Iorton Avenue and Chairman, Burlingame
Avenue Beautification Project.
Mr. Mausser reviewed the background of the beautification Progrirm
undertaken by members of the Chadber of Corunerce, the approximately
seven (7) years the project has been under study, prior attemPts made
by other committees to bring the project to reality, culrninating in
the present proposal, which has the endorsement of the Chamber of
Corwnerce Board of Directors, City Beautification Conunission and
majority of merchants subject to assessment.
!'1r. Mausser presented Mr. Ronald Perner, Architect, #1 Iorton Avenue,
who showed a series of films of the area of planned improvements--
improvements to consist of new sidewaLks and curbs, street, widening,
side$raLk trees and benches, brick pedestrian crosstrtaLks, attractive
wasE receptacles, unique street signs and subtle Lighting.
For purposes of comparison, ![r. Perner showed recent comparable
improvements in other cities -- a newly developed malL in the city
of Santa Cruz, Vfiashington Street in the City of Oakland, and the City
of Berkeley's Telegrraph Avenue.
1,1r. Robert fhompson, Chamber of Corunerce President, discussed probLems
inherent in any assessment district where an equitable method must be
formulat,ed for spreading assessments. He noted that ground floor
businesses on Btrrlingame Avenue constitute the greatest zone ofbenefit, with Lesser benefits, perhaps to establishments on intersecting
streets t,o a distance of one block from the Avenue.
Ivltr. lfhompson reported that merchants with whom the matter lras discussed
appeared receptive to the formula of assessments recited in the
Resolution of Intention and that I'1r. Kenneth I. ifones, Attorney,
expert in the field of improvement district assessments, considered the
formula reasonable.
!1r. Uausser reported that of the total of 238 business establishmentsto be contacted, 150 were in favor, 32 opposed and 56 either non-
comnittal or in the "unable to contact" category. t{r. Mausser
stated that the majority of those contacted, including the opposition
agreed that the city needs some form of aesthetic improvements.
Ackno,rledgrment was made of a conununication from Mr. GiLbert Rodli,Jr., G.R. Associates, 341 California Drive, in favor of the
proj ect.
In response to the Ctrair's invitation for comments from the audience
favoring the project, Council heard from Mr. Hugh F. Connolly,
Attorney, 1450 Chapin Avenue, former President of the Charnber of
Conuneree.
A cormnunication in opposition was read from Sa}amander Shoes, L227
BurJ,ingame Avenue, signed by Almut Nothnagel.
38
!!.r. Bruce Kirkbride, ovrner of property at the southeast corner of
Burlingame Avenue and Park Road, stated that he signed the petition infavor but desired cLarification as to the extent sidewalks will be
narroqred by reason of the proposed street widening, the formula to beapplied for assessing corner properties and the ba6is for the 7OCfront foot assessment on side streets.
Mr. thompson, ?t Mayor Crosby's invitation, reported that definite
information on the street widening will not be known until furtherstudies are made and working details prepared--the net gain probablywiLl be l to l-L/z feet. He stated that businessess on Burlingame
Avenue wilL receive the highest benefit from capitaL or permanent
improvement,s, neqr sidewalks, curbs, street wideningri businesses onintersectingr streets wiLl benefit by reason of pedestrian trafficgenerated by the off-street, parking lots that service the Avenue; therates of assessment hrere fixed accordingly.
Mr. l'lausser stated that corner sites will be assessed on both Avenue
frontage rate and side street rate, where applicablel furthermore,indicated fees are maximum projectionsi actual assessments have notyet been fixed.
The City Attorney, responding to a seriee of inquiries from CouncilmanI'tartin reported that the fixed amount of the fee--whether ground levelfront foot or upper level--probably will not be known until there iseither a preliminary cost estimate or actuaL bids on the improvements;he explained that the governing statute was adopted in 1965, has been
usd infrequentl.y and is a skeleton in comparison with other older
assessment district acts. He stated that he is soner'rhat, puzzled as tothe next statutory scheme of procedure but would assume that, ifCouncil forms the ^istrict, it would then retain an engineer or architect,that the contract would be similar to the usual architectrs contract,requiring presentation of preliminary plans and designs and cost
estimates for Council consideration--presentation of final plans andspecifications to be subject to authorization by Council.
Are City Attorney pointed out that the assessment, i: not against apiece af land n^r a business tax on land but an additional ta:c on a
business that will be levied in the same manner as the businesslicense tax. He agreed with Councilman Mangini that the city may be
faced with collection problems.
Mr. if. E. Hol.land, representing Federal Parts, Inc., 231 CaliforniaDrive, indicated no objection to improvement of -urlingame Avenuebut to being incLuded within the area of assessment, for the reasonthat the company witl derive Little if antr benefit.
ttrerefere no further commentE fr:om the floor. trhe hearing was
decLared closed.
Mayor Crosby invited Cr:uncil comment.
Councilman Amstrup supported formation of the District, commenting
that, the merchants have been attempting for years to achieve some formof beautification program and that the cornrnittee has cooperated with
Council by conduct,ing the surveys that were requested. He stated that,
the project is necessary, the plan realistic and that the time hasarrived to implement the progr€un.
Councilman Martin stated that, every city is faced with problems of
dirninishing revenue from the property tax as the resul,t oflegislation enact,ed by the state, that the City of Burlingane mustlook to new sources of revenue and, for years, has been contemplatingrevisions in the business license tax. He cauLioned merchants in
attendance that changes wiLl come eventually, probably resulting insubst,antial increases over existing business license rates. He commentedthat the general taxpayer wil"l pay at least 2O% of the cost of the
improvements by reason of the cityrs contribution of $5OTOOO.OO and
loan of $200,000.00 to the Dist,rict. He stated that he considersthe scope of the work too broad, questioned whether the 1965 improvement
law can be Lega11y applied in the proposed project and *,ated thatthe city is erring by beconing a "guinea pig" in the use of the law.
39
Councilman llangini spoke in favor, commending the members of the
committee on their efforts in producing a spirit of cooperation within
the business community that will bring permanent benefit to the city.
Councilman Johnson stated that she shared the optimism of cqnmittee
members that, the project can be accomplished and was convinced that it
wiLL create an att,ractive shopping atrnosphere, increase business and
prove advantageous to aLl of the people of the city. Councilman
Johnson extended congratulations to the chamber of Commerce for its
courage and dedication in pursuing the project.
![ayor Crosby, speaking of his close association with the Chamber,
endorsed the program as a valuabLe contribution to the business area
and to the city generally. He recalled that at the time of formationof the parking district there hrere persons who doubted that it would
be suceessfuL or beneficial, but that time has proved othelwise.
ORDINANCE NO. 933, "An Ordinance EstabLishing A Parking And Business
Improvement Area, Burlingame Avenue Cent,raL Business District" was
introduced for first, reading by Councilman Arnstrup.
RECESS
Follohring a recess at 10115 p.m., the meeting was reconvened at,
LO:30 p.n.
IIEARINGS (cont. )
2.REQUEST TO PURCHASE IN !EtLS CA}IYON DENIED
Mayor Crosby announced that this was the time and place scheduled to
conduct a pubLic hearing on the request of Mr. and l,lrs. Morris Farkas,
#3 To1edo Court, to purchase city-owned land in MiLls Canyon at therear of their property, to alLo.r completion of a partly-constructed
swinuning pool.
A letter dated March 29, L97L, frot Mr. and !'lrs. Itl. Dollinger,
180e Ashton Avenue, in favor of the reguest, was ackno.rledged.
In response to Uayor Crosbyrs invitation to the proponents to comment,
Mr. iloseph Geller, Attorney, 475 EI Camino Real, Millbrae, appeared
as their representative.
Mr. Geller reviewed circumstances whereby Mr. and Mrs. farkas hrere
informed at the time they purchased the property, approximately 12years a9o, that the rear boundary extended approximately 68 feet beyondthe rear of the dwelling. He stated that, at that time, there was anexisting fence 60 feet to the rear of the dwelling at, the bottomof the slope of the bank, that the Farkas family, assuming they ownedthe Iand, landscaped and maintained the slope and discussed their effortsfreely with neighbors.
I{r. Geller stated that, at, this point, after lengthy prior diecussions,
Council is fulIy aware of the surimming pool project and that it was nothis intent to belabor the quest,ions of bl,ame or responsibility,
except to state that the situation occurred as the result of a seriesof unfortunate circumstances. Mr. Geller noted that the situationexists, ereates a serious probJ.em and tremendous financial hardship
and that the reasonable soLution would appear to be the cityrs con-
senting to release of the land to allow the project to be compLeted.
Mr. Geller reported that the actual area that Mr. Farkas desires to
purchase is 43 feet by 40 feet.
I'lr. GeLler stated that the pool, if finished, will in no way be
harmful to the neighbors nor destroy aesthetic values of the canyontthe site that is the subject of dispute lies within a rot, of treesthat form a natural boundary to the Farkas property.
Mr. Geller diseussed the matter of precedent, conunenting that a
precedent need not be established, that Council can make findings
40
whereby the land can be reLeased on the grounds of extenuating
circumstances applicable only to the property involved.
Mr. Geller stated there hava been indications that the city considersitself h:rmless and that the mat,ter is one to be deeided between the
Property ov'rnar and his contractor. He stat,ed that a lawsuit is not the
Proper solution, referring to Language of the contract executed betweenthe parties wherein the owner is held responsible for proper sitinqrof the pool within his property.
In conclusion, Mr. Geller subrnitted for the record letters from".8. Rich, #1 Toledo court, and Frank.I. OrRourke, #5 Toledo Court.,
owners of the properties inunediately ;;.djacent on both eides of ttre
Farkas property, and a petition dated llarch 28, 1971, bearing J.lsignatures of o$rners on :oLedo Court, Ioledo Avenue and Martine-Drive, exnressing nrr obJection to the sale of a reasonable parcel of
Land to lr{r. and lvlrs. ?arkas.
Mayor irosby informed lt{r. Geller of a comnunication on file fromthree of the signatorier withdrawing their names from the petition.
l'layor Crosby recognized Mr. Icuis Starr, L675 Escalante Wby, andMr. Iouis &ent, 2704 Martinez Drive; both urged favorable consider-ation to the request.
Mayor Crosby recognized lt{r. wilLiam Isom, representative of i,ifetime
Pool.s, 910 Spn Antonio noad, Palo Alto, contractor retained byIr{r. E'arkas.
I'lr. Isom stated that the firm has been in business for ll years,
secured building permits and constructed over 2500 pooLs on the
peninsula and has never been invoLved in a sj.t,uat,ion such as occurred
on the Farkas ProPerty.
I{r. Isom explained that, in every instance, a contract is executed
between the purchaser and the contractor, property boundaries are
discussed, plans prepared and sulxnitted to the local building
department for examination and approval. He advised that every city
and county building department with which he has contact requires
property lines incLuded on the plans. H€ report,ed that normal proced-
ure was fo}lowed in the present situation, that, he, personalLy,
went to the city building department, filed the proper application,
reviewed the record map of the property showing dimensions of 80
feet in width by 100 feet in depth that, subsequently, he took
measurements on the proPerty from the rear of the dwelling to the
point that Mr. farkas assumed was the rear property line and that,
both he and Mr. Farkas determined, by reason of fences on the Farkas'
and neighbor lots, that approximalely 2/3 of the pool would extend
into the slope that Mr. Farkas believed was his land.
Mr. Isom stated that the drawings were left with the building department
for examination and that, later, a building permit was issued; the
encroachment problem was discovered when a supervisor on the Job went
to city haIl to verify that a proposed dressing room and mechanical
room would be properly locat,ed within the proPerty boundaries. He
stated that the construction supervisor stopped the work and that,
measurements taken thereafter on the site by building department
staff revealed that the space between the rear of the dweJ.Ling and
the actual rear property line was 25 feet.
Mr. Isom stated that at no time has he doubted Mr. Farkas' integrity
nor sincerity in claiming the area as a part of his property. -
Mr. Isom, in response to councilman Amst,rup, confirmed that he was
inforrned by the building department of lot measurements and assumed
that the 100 feet included the slope area identified as Part of the
property by ltr. I'arkas.
In response to Councilman Martin, Mr. Isom stated that the plans $rere
prepared by an employee of the fj.rm. Councilman Martin stated that
the drawings and pJ-ot, plan shor^r ?O feet back of the dwelling and that
it was incomprehensible that persons experienced in construction
work would not question the measurement on a lOO foot lot. He inquired
1t
of !lr, Isom uhether he was famiLiar with the 15 foot front setback
requirement in the City of Burlingame.
![r. Isom stated that the error was made, that it was not intentional,
and assumed from the property o\^rner to the contractor.
Responding to Couneilman Mangini, M,r. Isom reported that the job
supervisor went to city ha1L, in connect,ion with the pool house site,
approximately one week after the pool site was exeavated.
Councilman Johnson, noting that Lifetime PooLs is recognized as a
dependable firm, inquired if it is the policy not to examine property
deeds to establish correct property boundaries but, operate on assump-tions in all instances.
I{r. Isqa expLained that neither hie firm, nor any other swimming pool
contractor, examines property deeds, that, the owner is held resPon-sible for knowing his property lines. Mr. Isom commented that, hence-forth, measurements wiLI be taken from the front of the property on
every Job.
Uayor Crosby invit,ed lr{r. Preston Sullivan, City of Burlingame Building
Department employee, to address Council.
I{r. Sullivan disp}ayed the plan that was submit,ted when application
was made for a building permit, pointing out, that the plan indicatessufficient space at the rear of the houEe for the construction. He
stated that the contractor inquired as to the size of the lot, Irras
shown the record map and that several times during the conversationlot dimeneions vrere mentioned and the contractor guestioned as toavailability of space to contain the construction.
Mr. SuLlivan reported that the primary on-site inspection was made byt'lr. Robison Hill of the buiLding department, that he found reason to
question property boundaries and stopped the work and that the Chief
BuiLding Inspector shortly thereafter issued an official stop-work
order.
tlayor Crosby noted that the plan strbmitted to the building department
by the contractor does not ehow Property measurements.
In response to Council,man ifohnson, t'tr. Sullivan reviewed building
department policy in connection with review of plans that are
submitted for any type of construction and stat,ed that the pol.icy
was followed in the present situation.
In response to Councilman Mangini|s comment that issuance of a
buil.ding permit does not necessarily assure that the applicant meetsall of the cityrs requirements, Councilman Martin read from the 1967
Uniform Building Code, Section 3O? (c), containing the reference
mentioned by Councilman Irlangini.
Mr. Geller stated that llr. Isom informed him he 'ras shovrn the record
map on file in the building department but did not discuss the matterwith lr1r. Farkas--they proceeded on the assumption that the line was
where they thought it was. Mr. Geller stat.d that, It{r. Farkas main-tains that at no time did he know actual dimensions of the lot.
Mr. Gehart L. Bitter, 2673 l{artinez Drive, read from a prepared
statement citing the reasons for his position and, addition;rllyr
conditions of personal hardship that wil} result if the swimming pool
proceeds to completion. 1[tre statement was accepted by the City Clerk
for filing, as well as a series of photographs (10) to show loose
dirt in the area of the Bitter property resulting from excavation of
the pool site.
Irllr. Charles F. Hagar, 2949 ArgueLlo Drive, member of the Conunittee
For Tlre Preservation of lt{ills Canyon, read frorn a prepared statement
setting forth the Cornrnittee's position. 1[tre statement is on file.
fhe fity Attorney, in response to lqayor Crosby, reported that thecity has never officially declared ltlills Canyon a r:ark, that, essentially,it is a piece of Land that the city owns.
42
Additional comments from opponents were heard from Mr. Thomas Z.
Marshall . 27L5 t'lartinez Drive, ELeanor Wilkinson, representative Los
Prados Sierra Club, Mrs. Marie M. Teixeira, 1601 Granada Drive, Mr.
Herman H. Fit,zgeral.d, 3080 ArguelJ.o Drive, President,, MilLs Estat,e
ImProvement Association, l'lrs. ,Iune Bitter, 2673 Martinez Drive, Irlr.
Joseph S. Soto, 2536 Valdiviar Mrs. .Tohn R. Morgan, 2720 MartinezDrive.
Mr. Geller suhrnitted for the record six (5) photographs to show poolsite in relation to the Bitter property.
tlhe hearing was decLared cl.osed by Mayor Crosby.
Council was invited to corment.
Flayor Crosby recognized t'tr. Oliver who reported that, the revised plans,
incorporating additional detail equested by Council at the preceding
meeting were delivered to the City Planner for examination with an
accompanying letter (copies of the letter were furnished Council.)
Mr. OLiver requested consideration to the revisions, pointing out
that, basically the plans are identica} to those previously
Councilman Amstrup, stating that he was grieved that the situation
occurred, explained that he was primarily concerned that resolutionnot create a precedent whereby other persons will claim equil rightsto the canyon or to relief from the city in any number of instances
where the law may be violated, either innocently or deliberately.
Councilman Mangini referred to requests from persons in the audiencethat the Farkas family be permit,ted to purchase the Land at a reasonablecost and inquired as to the criteria to be applied in establishing
"reasonable cost. " He pointed out that city wiLI hold any construction
guaranteed against, slippage and require expensive finishings toinsure preservation of privacy.
Councilman Johnson recaLled that, at a prior meeting, she expressed
an inclination toward sale of the land as the proper solution,
explained that the public hearing was not mandatory but voluntary onCouncilrs part at the suggestion of a fel,Low Councilman, and that she
rrras grateful for the opportunity to hear arguments pro and con from allinterested persons and to consider new evidence that may arise.
Councilman ifohnson commented that sqne of the arguments advanced Jrythe opponents were valid--others Dot--r that personal researchdisclosed that more than one-half of the construction is on filledland, of itself a cause for concern because of the risk of slippage.Stating that she is convinced that Mr. and Mrs. Farkas are withoutfault and the victims of a series of unfortunate circumstances,
Councilman ifohnson declared her position in opposition to release of
open space to private use for the reason that it will be lost tothe city forever.
Councilman Martin thereaft,er introduced a motion to deny the reguest,of lt{r. }'lorris Farkas to purchase a port,ion of }liLLs Canyon. The motion
\rras seconded by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried.
ftre City Attorney was requested by Council to confer with the principal.sto determine procedure for restoration of the city-owned land.
RECESS
Following a recess at L2!20 a.m., Mayor Crosby reconvened the meetingat l-2:30 a.m.
HEARINGS (cont.)
3. NORTHPARK APARTIpNT COMPLEX.
Iqayor Crosby announced a continued hearing from the meeting of
March 15, L97L, on the proposaL of L,eon M. !{hed.ey and Richard B.Oliver, Palo ALto, to const,ruct, a 510-unit apartment complex on a par-
cel of acreage which is the subject of a Land use agreement betweenthe present owner, Burlingame Shore Land Company, and the city.
4.3
sutrnitted, except for crosg sections and certain d j,rnensions. He
suggested, if the pLans are acceptable, the matters of variance and
the parcel map be referred to the Planning comnission for recomnendation.
Mr. Oliver reported that the preaent cnrrner has stated he will aasumeresponsibility for development of the "reserve" parcel on the basisof a restaurant of quality and reputation and that final site plans\ti1l be suhnitted for Council approval.
Tthe City Planner reported there are three matters requiring considera-tion by the Planning Cot nission -- the parcel map creating a single lotfor the apartment construction, an applieation for variance to allcr',
more than one residential building on a single lot and, assumingrestaurant use of the "reserve" parcel, a variance for connercial useof land classified R-4. The City Planner stated that the plans meetall other zoning requirenents.
In responEe to councilman Martin, Mr. Oliver reported, and Fire Chief
Uoorby confirmed, that the lssues of fire zone classification have
been resolved, including potential commercial use of the ,,reserve,.
trnrce1 .
irli th respect to the use of "Romex. !tr. Oliver, responding to Council-nen Amstrurr and Uartin, stated that two cost estimates have beenobtained on the electri. wiring system, both include alternatives on
NMc (Romex), that Mr. Eric Mausser, a local electrical contract,or, ispreparing a third bid with alternative eosts, that a final decision hasnot yet been made and that, hopefullv, Council wilL decide the landuse on its merits, independent of the issue of ,, Romex.,'
Councilman Uartin stated that he made his position clear at a priormeeting, that he considered the density excersive and will conlinueto oppose the proJect on the grounds of too many units on theproperty.
Mayor Crosby reconmrended that !fr. Oliver takF the necessary steps toinitiate proceedings at the pranning cornmission level and, throirgh the,'ity Ma_nager, a rrange to appear before council at a study meetin! forin-depth study of the project plans.
Mayor Crosby thereafter announced the hearing continued to the mectingof May 3, 1971, for a report fron the planning Conrriission on thezoning matters.
COMMUNICA ION
I. ovE E NCROACH}4ENT.
A cornrnunication from the city Manager dated I'{a rch 13, 197r, subrnitteda requeat from Mr. Ha]r$rard Mansergh of plunk Associates, Burlingame,architects for a warehouse-office-building in the indusirial area,for permission to a1loi.r encroachrnent of a roof overhang into anexistlng ten foot public Utility Eaaement.
llhe city }lanager's cornnuni ca ti on stated that pacific Gas & Electriccompany has consented to the request and the city Engineer indicatedno objections.
Mr. Robert cunn represented the project architects, advising that thearea of encroachment is 19 feet above and a maximum of two iz) r."tinto the easement.
ur. Gunn stated that th-e building use vras changed during the planningstage to an office-warehouse building, that a iascia ovErhang- around -
the office portion was added for aeathetic purposes, hrith theresultant encroachment.
Tlhe city Attorney reported that he will prepare the proper documentfor Council's consideration at the next meeling, if Lhe- essentialmaterial is made available by the applicant.
NEW BU SINE SS
44
I. MINI.BIKE VIOIATIONS.
councilman Martin requested Chief of Police Iollin to order investi-
gation of mini-bike riders on the streets on both Hillside and
Trousdale Drives.
2. AUXILIARY LICE DINNER
Tihe city llanager requested council to consider scheduling a date for
the annual dinner meeting lvith Auxiliary Police Officers.
UNFINI SHED BUSIIIESS
1 VICTORIA PARX RES TRTOOMS
ACKNOWI.EDGMENTS
c ations-Referrals .
A cotmunication from the city l4anager dated uarch 31, 1971, stated that
neither the Park or Recreation DePartments feel there is a need for
restrooflls at victoria Park. Ttle letter recited reasons given by the
two departments.
A letter dated l.{arch 19, 1971, from william Beuttler, Chai rman, Park
and Recreation corunission, was acknowledged, opposing installation of
the restroorns and reasons therefor.
the City Uanager vras requested to send a coPY of his letter to llr'
Angelo bellacasa, who raised the issue.
1. A request from Dale Perkins, Art Consultant, Burlingame school
District, for the California Art Education Association to tour
iurfingaire city HalI on APril 30, 1971, as part of Lts annual
confer;nce program, was referred to councilman Johnson.
2. s. H. cantwell, Jr., county Englneer and Road cotunissioner,
extending an invitation to a meeting on April 8, L97I, 2:-OO P'm',-ounty srlpervisors chambers, Redr^'od city, to discusE. Problems common
t" riii, t. iaier dischargers in San tlateo county, the City Manager and
city Engineer confirmed they li'ill attend.
3. Recomnendation of Park and Recreation Conunission to include recon-
Aitioning of Weshington park tennis courts in 1971-1972 budget \.ras
referred to the study meeting.
4. Arnigos de las Anericas, Peninsula comrnittee, san !lat'eo, . requeEting
council endorsement of its youth progran--referred to councilman
Johnson.
5. Mr. Tom Evans, 360 I€xington way, and lilr ' Ronald w' Briley'
g-b;iot Avenue, ietters concerning eity's treatment of waate water--
r"i"it.O to the city I'tanager for reply with copies to counci lman
Martin.
6. Ur. DaIe Perkins. Art Consultant, Burlingame School -Dlstrict'piop""ir- t"i irt aisiray in council chambers -- referred to Etudy
meeting .
7. SuPervisor Robert B. St. Clair letter to !{ayor CroEby regarding
iiv c"ii""r"aiion and Development commission--referred to city Planner
for reply.
councilnan Martin reported he discussed the matter of urban design with
triro medbers of the cormission -
8. Department of TransPortation, FAA,- bulletin concernlng aPPli-cation
tor initaffation of antinna torer Ln the industrial diEtrict. the
city planner hras requested to research the matter of regulating such
structures.
Corunendations to park department, crews and police department personnel
from tdchard ltoehlig, 974 ChuLa Vista Avenue and the Bank of CaLifornia,
1887 El Camino neal, respectively; League of Women Voters, Central
San ltat,eo County, endorsing Regional Planning Conunlttee request for
special bond eLectionr Department of Housing and Urban Development
birtletin re "Legacy of paiks; "City Attorney rrRePorts of Residential
BuiJ.ding Recordl" dated April 1, 1971; Supervisor Robert B. St. Clair
regardiig 'ir poLlution from jet aircraft; lt{r. Paul J. Constantino,
presidenL, Broadway Ivlerchants Association "Beautification Broadway,
Burlingamei" R. C. ltleuer, Chairman, Heal.th, Safety and Traffic
commisiion, expressing appreciation for Council-Conunission dinner
meeting at Airport Marinac Mrs. O.P. YeLton, Jr., 1901 Garden
Drive, comment,ing on community problems.
15.
cations General
Ivlin uteg I
park and Recreation Commission, March 'l6r L971; Planning Commission,
Ir{arch 22, L97L; Parking Conunission, Irlarch 24, 1971.
I'{EETINGS SCHEDUIJED
Prior to adjournment, CounciL agreed to meet in Executive Session at
5:00 p.m., ot Wednesday, April T, and to hold the monthly study meeting
on idednesday, April L4, L97L, at, 8:00 P.M.
A TOURNIIENT
ftre meeting -as regularly adjourned at 1130 a.m., in respect to the
melnoqf of lr{rs. rlla Crosby, mother of Uayor Crosby, and lt{r. Kenneth U.
Hqrrer Sf,.1 member of Burlingarme civil Service Commission.
ResPectfullY eubmittod,
T?erbert K.city Clerk
I.lhite
APPROVED:
dru;+A'--/'(
willian J. Closby, uayor