HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1973.07.02I
Burlingame California
JuIy 2, L973
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was called to order on the
above date at 8:25 p.m., Mayor R.D. Martin presiding. Mayor Martin announced
the meeting was delayed because of an Executive Session dealing with personnel
matters and an interview with an applicant for the Park & Recreation Commission-
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The City C1erk led the Ptedge of Allegiance to the FIag.
ROLL CALL
i
Present:
Absent 2
Councilmen:
Councilmen:
Amstrup-Cro sby-Cu s ick-Mang ini-Martin
None
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of June 18 and the adjourned meeting of
June 20, L973, previously submitted to members were approved and adopted.
BID AWARD - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENIS
In a corununication dated June 28, L973, the Director of Public Works advised
that contractorsr bids opened on Wednesday, June 27, 1973, at 2:00 p.m., for
Job No. 73-2 "Water System Improvements", in accordance with published notice,
were declared as follows:
BIDDER TCEAL BID
Fairley Constructors
Dalton Constructors
Wenrick & Associates
$180, 5L4.25
r84, 837 .50
191, 958 .50
Engineerrs Estimate $L92,226.5O
In his communication, the Director of Public Works recommended award of contract
to the lowest responsible bldder, Fairley Constructors. In an addendum to the
communication, the City Manager concurred in the recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO. 53-73 "Awarding Contract - Water System Improvements, Job No. 73-2
(Fairley Constructors,$180r514.25)'was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who
moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and unanirously carried on roll
call.
I. RECLASS]FICATION R-I TO R-3A ARUNDEL ROAD DENlED
Mayor Martin announced this was the time and place, pursuant to public notice,
to conduct a public hearing for the purpose of considering the application of
Leon Richardson and other property owners for reclassification of Lots 2 through
5 in Bl-ock 23t subdivision of Block 22 and 24 and, resubdivision of Block 23,
Town of Burlingame, from R-l (First Residential) to R-3A (Low Density Mu1ti-
Family Dwellings). The properties are further identified as 800 BayswaLer/
IO5 Arundel Road, 109, II5, LL7, 125 Arundel Road.
The Chair acknowledged Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-73 "Making Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR 17-P) and the findings attached, and ResoLution
No. 3-73 wherein the Commission recommends to the City Council "that application
for reclassification be approved when water service problems, if any, existing
in the 100 block of Arundel Road are resolved and when provision is made to
bring the fire flow service to said btock up to current requirements of the
Fire Department. " /,
HEARlNGS
I
The Chair invited the City Planner to comment. He reported that the Planning
Conunission adopted the E.I.R. on a vote of 6 for to 1 against and recommended
the reclassification (with conditions as to water service and fire flow) by
a vote of 5 to 2. He stated that the owners of all 5 properties included in
the reclassification signed the petition.
The Planner reviewed a series of exhibits furnished the Council. He pointed
out that guidelines of the adopted General Plan indicate a dividing line between
medium high and medium density at Arundel Road, a distinct line between
residential densities. He ad.vised that in preparation of the E.I.R. other concerns
of the area were explored; studies were made of the 12 block area bounded by
Anita to Dwight Road, Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue, data was gathered
with respect to absentee property owners, relative assessed vafue of Iand to
improvements and extent of existing multi-family deveJ-opment within the 12
block area. (e .r.n. E)GIIBITS: A-Existing land use in Block 23, B-Net land
area, C-Residential density, D-Recent property sales and absentee property
owners, E-Under-improved parcels.) The City Planner stated that existing
residential development probably had a great deal to do with the category of
med.ium density when the General Plan was prepared and adopted. He referred to
Exhibit H before the Council wherein all of the properties marked in yellow
have at least two dwelling units.
As a point of clarification, tJre Chair stated that the proceedinqs apply only
to Lots 2 through 5; consideration to reclassification of Lots I and 1-A,
initiated on motion of the Planning Commission, was eliminated at the request
of the property owners. The City Planner soncurred.
Declaring the hearing open, the Chair accorded the privilege of the floor to
the proponents.
Leon Richardson, 625 No. Delaware Street, San Mateo, owner of Lot 5, lL7
Arundel Road, stated that the proposed reclassification wiII allow a S-unit
apartment building on his property, replacing a 60 year o1d single-family
dwelling. He pointed out that his property is adjacent at the rear to the
R-3 zone on Anita Road. There are two existing apartment buildings next
to his lot, and a duplex at the corner of Arundel and Bayswater; there are,
in fact, just his and the Fricke property that are improved with single-family
dwellings in this R-l block. He stated that a petition circulated within the
past few days opposing the recl-assification referred to a "cracker-box"
structure and stated that it is his intention to build an attractive building,
to live in one unit and to be selective with the tenants. Further, it would
seem that a new building, replacing the existing, should be a welcome improve-
ment to other o\^,ners in the area. I,1r. Richardson announced his intention of
participating in costs of water improvements that may be required.
In response to the Chair, Mr. Richardson confirmed he was owner of Lot 5
and that the reclassification, if approved, will include Lots 213,4 and 6.
With reference to water improvements he, again, indicated willingness to
participate f inancially.
Further, in response to the Chair, I4r. Richard.son advised he has owned the
property for 4 years, Iived there for a tjrne and then rented it. He did not
consider the buitdj-ng worth extensive repairs, because it is in poor condition.
When asked by the Chair why he purchased the property, he explained it was
acquired in a probate sale at a low price. The Chair then pointed out to
Mr. Richardson that it would appear the property was purchased because it was
cheap and with the thought it could be redeveloped to something other than
single-famiIy.
I{r. Richardson protested. that everyone seemed to be against his proposal; in
fact, one mernber of the Planning Commission went to his tenants and asked their
reactions to the proposed construction.
Councilman Cusick stated she made a survey of the R-3 zone on Anita Road and
discovered that many of the properties are underdeveloped. There are single-
family homes in the R-3 zone on Anita between Bayswater and Peninsula on the
east side and, while there may be rentaL units, the l-ots are not developed
to the full potential of R-3. She pointed out that multi-family construction
in the proper zone can be processed at staff level, without recourse to either
Planning Conunission or City Council, and asked I"1r. Richardson his reason for a
1L)
not purchasing an apartment zoned lot. She pointed out further that just 43% of
this City is devoted to R-I.
Mr. Richardson answered he did not wish to purchase R-3. Councilman Cusick
stated that R-3 and R-4 remain undeveloped because purchase costs are high;
it is much cheaper to buy an R-l lot and then come to the Council with the
expectation that a profit can be made on an investment.
Councilman Cusick stated that at the time of the Planning Cornrnission hearing
there were several- l-etters and petitions in protest; the notes of the hearing
make reference to these. She stated she copied down at least 50 addresses and
asked why this material was not forwarded to the Council.
Council-man Crosby asked Mr. Richardson about repair work to tle dwelling. He
stated that a new kitchen unit was instalted and the exterior painted. Nothing
has been done to the roof; the building has not been allowed to disintegrate but
the plumbing is bad and there is progressive structural decay. Councilman
Crosby commented that the building does not appear to be an eyesore from the
street.
The Chair asked for further conrments in favor. There were none at this time.
Acknowtedg'ment was made of a series of letters from the Director of Public Works,
the Chief of the Fire Department and the former City Planner, George A. Mann,
dated 1964, and more recent communications from the Director of Public Works
and the Fire Chief. Under date of April 19, L973, the Director of Public Works
wrote to the PJ-anning Commission stating "The fire flow conditions in our
existing mains have not changed since the proposed rezoning in this area was
submitted and discussed in L964. The only change woul-d be in the estimated
cost, which has increased about 25% in the last 9 years." In a letter dated
June 6, L973, tJre Fire Chief reported "in 1964 eight fire flow tests were made
in this district. The minimum flow was L,3L4 gpm at 20# and the maximum Lr784 gpm
al 2O#. The construction being proposed for this area at this time is the same
as proposed in L964. The required fire fl-ow would be 3000 9Fn."
In response to an inquiry from the Chair, the Director of Public Works confirmed
it woul-d be necessary to increase main size if the present application was
approved; conditions are no different than existed in L964 with the exception
that, at the earlier date, there was a much larger area involved, but this
present block was a part of that area.
On the basis of an approxi:nate total- land area of 351000 square feet, representing
the 5 lots, and a cost suggested by the Director of Public Works of 9Q per square
foot to providerequiredfire flow, the Chair estimated a cost of $3150.00 for
improvements. He asked if mains and fire ftow could be provided to the 5 lots for
this amount. The Director of Public Works replied "nor " explaining that to bring
the water and circulation in, new mains would be required, not only in this area
but outside of the area, and that the total cost could be at least $201000.00.
Councilman Mangini cornmented that the $20,000.00 figure would indicate a cost of
$4,000.00 per 1ot, as opposed to $700.00, an updated figure from the Director
of Public Works. The latter stated that $700.00 was predicated on a much larger
area of reclassification, comparable to that discussed in L964. The Director
of Public Works suggested that probably some time in the future a Iarger area
would be rezoned and the costs of water improvements could be spread to these
properties. He al-so recommended consideration to establishment of some form of
reserve fund to eventually upgrade the system.
Councilman Ivlangini asked about fire protection in the area at the present time.
The Director of Public Works explained it is fairly adequate for R-l use;
there should be no problems unless there is a change to multi-family when the
fire underwriters will require 3000 gpn flow. Councilman Mangini noted there
are existing apartment buildings on the street. The Director of Public Works
reported there are some R-3 areas throughout the City deficient in fire flow.
Councilman Mangini then referred to the action just taken by the City Council
approving a contract for water system improvements and asked if, in the course
of the normal work schedule, this area would be improved. The Director of
Public Works indicated it might be two to three years, because it is necessary
I
{
ll
The Chair noted that apparently owners of Lots 2r3t4 and 6 were not present.
He asked I4r. Richardson if he would be willing to deposit $151000. to $20,000.for the improvements with the understanding that he receive a pro rata refund
as other owners elected to improve their properties. Mr. Richardson indicated
he would. be wil-ling to spend some money but not an excessive arnount.
La\^Trence Stack, 105 Arundel Road, one of the principals in the application,
declared that petitions being circulated seem to be not welL founded. There
are objections to the heavy volume of traffic on the street but the people
apparently do not recognize that some of this originates from the automobile
service shops on auto row, just three blocks away. He suggested that persons
concerned about density should live away from cities. He stated that his
property is d.eveloped to its capacity, but he would be will-ing to assist
Mr. Richardson in gaining the required water service.
The chair acknowledged a petition dated June 20, L973, signed by 8 property
owners on Howard, Bayswater, Bloomfield and Dwight, and a communication from
a resident of 3II Lexington Way, protesting on the grounds of inadequate fj-re
flow, increased traffic with resultant increase in noise and air pollution,
and establ-ishment of a precedent for future rezonings. In addition, thepetition requested the Councilrs consideration to acquisition of the property
at 125 Arundel Road, adjacent to the school, for preservation in open space.
Comments were invited from opponents.
Charles Dreschler, 225 Bancroft Road, spoke of his personal experience in
another area when a single-family neighborhood was rezoned; rezonings continued
with the result that the majority of residents sold their homes and moved away.
Costas Triggas, 60I Burlingame Avenue, protested that the underlying theme inreclassification applications seems to be speculation. This is what is being
discussed at this time; rezoning gives special favors to certain property
owrrers at the expense of other ownersi on numerous occasions, the Council
has heard the citizens object to selective rezoning.
T. J. McNamara, 120 Arundel Road, stated. there is a quality of life in Burlingamethat will be destroyed by increased density; more housing will mean more people
and more traffic.
I'Irs. John Barton, 734 Winchester, discussed the problems existing at Washington
School due to insufficient yard area. She requested the Council's considerationto acquisition of the Iot next to the school on Arundel as an open space area.In discussing the recent increase in enrollment at the school, Mrs. Barton
spoke to the issue of increased traffic that multi-family buildings willgenerate. She stated her objections to rezoning of the l-ot next to the school_.
Charles Nolan, 22L \Iictoria Road, stated that single-family dwellings generally
do not interest speculators except where a Iegislative body makes them attractivethrough rezoning actions. He pointed out there are areas in this City suitablefor increased density and where an area is predominantly R-I, it should be
preserved.
Robert Delze11 stated that the city has the tool-s to control density. Thisparticular series of lots is a very important key issue because the Council just
recently passed a resolution declaring the general plan and the zoning ordinanceto be consistent. Any action that the Council takes now will set a precedent
on which the future of the City will grow. He requested denial of the reclassi-fication on the basic reason of density.
Councilman Amstrup referred to I,Ir. Richardsonts comments regarding old anddeteriorated property, and mentioned that some of the lovliest homes in theCity on Cortez Avenue are over 50 years old; all that is required is tender,loving care. He stated that most of the residents sel-ected Burlingame becauseit is a special city and they want it kept that way.
John Rhea, 100 Arundel Road., stated that the Councit should recognize that thevicinity of Washington School is horribly congested at certain times of the day
because of pedestrian and automobile traffic " 4
1 ")Ld
Anthony psaila, 1277 BaLboa Avenue, stated the need does not exist for expanded
multi-family areas; in the apartment zone along EI Camino Rea1, many "for
rent" signs indicate there is no shortage of units. Speculators should not
be encouraged, nor should homeowners be subject to pressure from investors
attempting to acquire properties. !'7tren the proPer time comes, when there is
an actual need for apartment buildings, the people then may be willing to
favor expanded multi-family zoning.
Mr. Weaverr 2g Arundel Road, agreed there is heavy traffic on the street, but
he expressed the opinion this is created by personnel from the near-by auto-
mobile service shops testing vehicles. He stated the situation has been brought
to the attention of the Police Department numerous times without result. Mr.
Weaver endorsed the reclassification because of multi-family dwellings existing
throughout this Part of the CitY.
The City Manager was requested to investigate Mr. Weaver's charge concerning
the automobile shoPs.
Randal Wardlaw, 116 Bloomfield Road, commented it appears that aII of the
arguments have been presented; however, for the Councilts information he
presented a copy of the petition bearing 120 signatures that was filed with
the Planning Commission.
The hearing was declared closed.
In response to the Chair, the City Attorney advised that the Council may take
an action to approve, disapprove or modify the action of the Planning Commission.
Further, in response to the Chair, he stated that an E.I.R. is not necessary
where there is disaPProval.
Councilman tunstrup introduced a motion to disapprove the action of the Planning
Commission in recommending reclassification from R-I to R-3A of the five
properties on the westerly side of Arundel Road in the 100 block. The motion
,." "."orded by Councilman Cusick and unanimously carried on ro11 call.
Mayor Martin commented that considerable time and effort have been expended
by the applicant, staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council- He
asked the City planner if such proposals can be discouraged in the future,
because of the fire flow situation.
The City planner reported that after this meeting, the answer was definitely
"yes.,' Prior to this tjme he knew no way of approaching the problem. He
acknowledged the Mayorts comments as an "historic monumentr" establishing a
good precedent.
RECONVENE
Following a recess at 9:55 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m-
CONSERVATION ELEMEM OF THE GENERAL PI,AN
Mayor Iulartin announced that this was the time and place scheduled, pursuant
to public notice to conduct a hearing and to consider adoption of the proposed
Conservation Element of the General PIan prepared by William Spangle e
Associates, with subsequent modifications by staff and the Planning Commission.
The Chair referred to material furnished Council by the City Planner: Planning
Commission Resotution No. 5-73 "Approving The Conservation Element Of The
General plan" and a cover memorandum from the City Planner dated June 12 , L9'73,
advising that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Conservation
Element with amendments set forth in Exhibit A, an addendum to the above cited
Resolution.
The Chair acknowledged a communication from David H. Keyston, Executive Vice
President, Anza Pacific Corporation, dated June l-4, L973, requesting the
Council's consideration to deletion of the second sentence in the paragraph
on page 3 entitled "The Conservation Element as Part of the General P1anr"
the sentence reading as follows: "fn case of any conflict, the Conservation
Element is intended to supersede previously adopted material but only to the ;
I3
extent of the conflict." In his communication, Mr. Keyston stated "Your
former general plan, in my opinion, is much more protective of private property
rights than is the Conservation Element which is about to be adopted. There-
fore, the deletion suggiested a-bove would maintain the more protective tenor
of the present general plan, where and if it might conflict with the Conservation
Element. "
A conununication was acknowledged from Robert o. Delzell, 1345 De Soto Avenue,
dated June 18, L973, proposing a series of 14 changes in the Conservation
Element as amended by the Planning Commission.
Declaring the hearing open, the Chair invited comments from David Keyston of
Anza Pacific Corporation. He advised he had none beyond the recommendation
outlined in his letter on file dated June 14, L973.
Robert Delzell was recognized.. He read a statement wherein comments were made
on the 14 changes reconmended in his letter of June 14. (The statement is
on file in the office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Delzell objected to the deletion
recommended by Mr. Keyston on the grounds that Mr. Keyston, in effect, is stating
that the Conservation Element has secondary relevance to the policy of the City.
As I,Ir. DeIzelI read his statement, there was rebuttal from the Council on
certain remarks having to do wi-th paragraphs 632 and 633 "Water Quality."
Mr. Delzell was enlightened concerning storm water run-off, the Chair pointed
out that the City does not run this water through the sewer treatment plant,
nor d.oes the City deliberately bypass treatment of sewage, even during the
stormiest weather when the run-off is the heaviest. Further, Mr. Delzell was
informed. of the joint outfall project mandated by the Water Quality Control
Board, whereby Burlingame and the City of Millbrae will be required to parti-
cipate in the Central Bay Outfall System.
Deborah Randall, Secretary, Executive Committee BurJ-ingame-Hillsborough Area
Group of the Sierra Club, read Resolution No. 1, wherein it was resolved
"That the Executive Committee of the Burlingame-Hillsborough Area Group of
the Sierra Club did on June 27, L973, end.orse the recommend.ations regarding
the Conservation Element which have been presented to the City Council by
Robert DeIzelI, Chairman of the Group. "
Charles Nolan, 22L VicEoria Road, requested consideration to a general- master
plan for the bayfront, particularly for the Anza area. This should be well-
conceived and a complete plan in conjunction wj-th the people who own the area.
He stated that the existing fishing pier, the canal and the ballpark are equal
to or better than bayfront improvements in many other cities.
Avrum E. Pastor, M.D., L525 Ralston Avenue, and Joan C. Stenberg, 1533 Howard.
Avenue add.ressed their remarks to Appendix IV-Sub-Area Descriptions, specifically
A-IV-IOrAREA 18. They protested the statements "Older homes, which are within
a block of EI Camino Real and which are slow1y d.eteriorating because of in-
sufficient maintenance, are now being used as rental- units. Care need.s to be
taken to protect the entire area, maintaining existing single-family uses but
allowing for transitions in some portions to multi-family use. Special
zoning needed. " Both maintained that homes, by and large are not deteriorating,
they are cared for and gard.ens are beautiful. Multi-family dwellings that do
exist, for the most part occurred years ago, and where there is property
deterioration it is primarily due to these buildings. Mrs. Stenberg requested
that the statement on page 25, paragraph 659, "Develop and implement special
zoning for areas in transition" be deleted from the document.
Robert V. Ohlson, 2LL Occid.ental Avenue endorsed the comments of the two
speakers, commenting that the residents of the area have made their positions
known on numerous occasions before the Planning Commission and the City Council
when there have been proposals for intrusion of multi-family uses into this area.
Mr. Ohlson reiterated requests that have been made to the Council in the past
that the single-family character of the area be maintained.
Evelyn R. Hughes, 105 Howard Avenue expressed interest in comments relating
to AREA 14, A-fV-7, particularly references to poverty and welfare cases and
stated that, in practice, welfare has nothing to do with proverty areas. She 6
L4
expressed the hope that the single-family dwelling zoning classification that
now exists will be maintained and termed it "a waste of time to be fightingthis continualIy. "
The City Planner explained that al-f of the area descriptions were updated from
background information in preparing the general p1an. Mr. Spangle stated thatthe data in the instance of AREA 14 with reference to "welfare case load" was
1959 information from the records of the County Health Department by censustract, which is a much larger area.
Randal M. Wardlaw, 116 Bloomfield Road, stated that, for the most part, the
Conservation El-ement is a fine document but some parts are not geared to enhancepresent and future needs of the City. Rezoning ol-der areas to commercial and
apartment uses is not consistent with the needs and wishes of the resid.ents.
Why should residents who have maintained their properties suffer because ofthe City's laxity? lhe citizens want the general plan and all its el-ementsto protect their needs, they want general plan zoning to conform to existing
zoning and to be maintained in the future; they want eljmination of variancegrants and reclassifications, neighborhoods to be stabilized and not subjectto higher density.
There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was decl-ared closed.
Speaking to the issue of procedure, the City Attorney explained that the StatePlanning Law provides that when the Planning Commission has approved an el-ementof the general plan and sends it to the City Council for adoption, and theCity Council d.esires changes, it then must send those changes back to the
Cormnission for consideration and report back to the Council.
There followed a period of total review of the Conservation El-ement by theCouncil with the resuLt that the following changes were d.eemed appropriate to
be returned to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation:
Page 3, paragraph titled "The Conservation Element as Part of the General plan."
Delete second sentence "fn case of any conflict, the Conservation El-ement isffiaea to supersede previously adopted material but only to the extent ofthe conflict. "
Page 8 - "objectives." Add new paragraph "g"': "To promote economic growth
which is consistent with an improvement in the quality of the environment. "
Page 8 - "Stmmary Recommendations." Paragraph b) to state: The City shouldinitiate a study by the P1 anning Commission of the remaining natural areas to
determine the effect of development on or near these areas.
Page 9, paragraph g) At the end of this sentence, add "and in the community. "
Page 19 under "Progiram" Second sentence to read: Extend a sewer outfall to the
deep water of the Bay, preferably through cooperative action with other jurisdic-
tions if federal grants are received
Page 25, Item 659, add:
For areas in transition monitor the needs of the areas and d.evelop programs
accordingly.
fnsure that urban services meet the demands.
Develop a maintenance cod.e for all private properties, to eliminate fire hazards
and to improve appearance and public safety.
Page 25, Item 659 del-ete: Study the urban services and utilities needed in theseareas, develop a program and implement. - ;^.,v-
Page A-IV-5 - AREA 1I - Line 5: Amend to read:
conveniently accessible.
Elementary schools are not
Page A-IV-6 AREA 11 - line 7: Delete "special zoning controls or, ,'sentence
to read "Rehabilitation program needed. "
Page A-IV-8 First sentence 7desirable. "
delete "Special Low income housing program may be
15
Page A-IV-8: Third paragraph, amend to read: "Area requires careful treatment
to maintain quality. Rehabilitation and code enforcement programs are needed."
Page A-IV-10: AREA 18. Third paragraph. First word. of second sentence to
be ttSome.tt
Page A-IV-10: AREA 18. Fourth paragraph. Delete all except "Care needs to
be taken to protect entire area. "
With Council concurrence, the Chair thereafter referred the foregoing amendments
to the Planning Conunission with the request that a report be available to the
Council at its first meeting in August.
COMMUNICATIONS
I DANCE PERM]T PENGUIN LOUNGE
fn a conununication dated May L4, L973t Ivan Chiolo, President, 26l- Cd,ifornia
Drive Corporation, requested a permit for dancing at the Penguin Lounge | 26L
California Drive, between the hours of 9:00 p.m., and 1:00 a.m., niqhtly to
live music. Reports fited by the Department of Police, May 17, 1973 and the
Fire Department, June 5, L973, indicated no objection. Mr. Chiolo and his
associate, Angelo Lena, Jr., were present. In response to Councj-Iman Amstrup,
Mr. Lena advised that, except for the dance area for the patrons, there will
be no other form of entertainment.
A motion introduced by Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Amstrup and
unanimously carried, approved the permit for a period of six months, renewal
beyond that time to be subject to review by the Police Department with report
to the City Council.
2. ''FISHERMAN'' DANCE PERMIS RENEWED
Under date of June 27 t 1973, the City Manager submitted a report from the
Department of Police recommending that the dance permit granted the Fisherman
Restaurant for a period. of six months (to June 4, L973) be continued. fn
him memo, the City Manager concurred..
On a motion introduced by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Crosby and
unanimously carried, the Council accepted the recommendation arvl authorized
issuance of a continuous permit.
3. SPANGI,E & ASSOCIATES GRANTED E)CENS]ON
A request from William Spangle & Associates for an extension of tjme to
August 15, L973, to complete contract work for planning services and preparation
of General Plan elements, submitted by the City Manager under date of June 28, L973,
was unanjmously approved by the City Council.
4. BTIRLfNGAME AVENUE RESURFACING ACCEPTED
Acknowledgment was made of a communication dated June 28, 19'73, from the
Director of Public Works recommending acceptance of Burlingame Avenue resur-
facing work performed by Lowrie Paving Company. The City Manager concurred.
in the recommendation in an addendum to the communication.
RESOLUTION NO. 54-73 II Accepting Burlingame Avenue Resurfacing, Job No. 73-3"
was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved its adoption, second by Council-
man Mangini and unanimously carried on roII calI.
The Director of Public Works, in response to the Chair, reported he had word
from the brick contractorrs office that the work of replacing bricks on the
Avenue will commence on JuIy 15, but there has been no written confirmation
to date. He was requested to inform the Council as soon as further information
is received from the contractor..f'
l6
6
5. ACCEPTfNG CONSTRUCTION ROILfNS ROAD
A conununication from the Director of Public Works dated June 20, 1973, advised
that Anza Engineering Corporation has satisfactorily completed its contract
for widening of a portion of Rollins Road. His recommendation that the project
be formatly accepted was concurred in by the City Manager in an addendum to
the communication.
RESOLUTION NO. 55-73 "Accepting Improvements Construction Of City Street In
San Mateo County, In Burlingame, On Ro llins Road Between Edwards Court And
Mills Creek, TOPICS Project, \-3072(63), OI'CC No. SM-DOT-(H)-1-73-02I" was
introduced. by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Mayor
Martin and unanimously carried on roII call.
ADDfTION TO BUILDfNG CODE--DANGEROUS BUILD]NGS
A reconmendation from the City Manager under date of June 28, L973, that
legislation be adopted to incorporate Volume 1v-Dangerous Buildings-into
the Building Code was accepted and the matter referred to the City Attorney
to prepare appropriate legislation for the Council's consideration. The Chair
requested there be some form of appeal procedure included.
RESOLUTIONS
l_. RESOLUTION NO. 56-73 "Regulating Parking On Lot A Burlingame Avenue Area
Off-Street Parking District" was introduced by Councilman Mangini,who moved
its adoption, second by Councilman Cusick and unanimously carried on roII call.
Mayor Martin asked that a separate record be kept on meter collections from the
long-term portion of the lot.
ORDINANCES
I. ORDINANCE NO. 99O "Amending Section 25.70.030(b) Title 25(Zoning) Of
The Municipal Code Regulating Off-Street P'arking Requirements For Apartments,
Apartment Hotels And Condominiums" was given its second reading.
There were no comments from the floor in response to the Chair.
On motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Mangini, the Ordinance
passed its second reading and was unanimousty adopted on roll call (a11 members
present) .
2. ORDINANCE NO. 99L "Adding Chapter 10.60 (Prohibition Of Nudity fn Public
Pl-aces) To Title 10 (Public Peace, Morals And Safety)of The Municipal Code"
was given its second reading
Mayor Martin announced his intention of voting p, for the reason he objects
to a type of ordinance where the city attempts to regulate morals of the
populace. He stated he does not believe the city or anyone else should tell
him what he can and cannot see. The Ordinance contains no restrictions as to
age and arbitrarily draws a distinction between what can be viewed in a theater
and what can be viewed in a bar. He pointed out the Ordinance specifically
exempts theqters.
On motion of Councilman Mangini, second by Council Crosby, said Ordinance
passed its second reading and was adopted on the f,ollowing roll:
AYES: COUNCfLMEN: Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Mangini
NOES: COIINCILMEN: Martin - (for the reasons stated above)
ABSEIfI COUNCTLMEN: None
3. ORDINANCE NO. 994 "Extending Interim Urgency Zonj-ng Ordinance No. 9a4
Requiring A Special Permit For The Erection Of Certain Structures Within Certain
Districts EMERGENCY" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption,
second by Councilman Cusick and unanimously carr
present) .
ied on roll call (a11 members 4
17
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
t. STEPS BETWEEN ALVARADO AliD EASTON: A report from the City Manager under
date of June 28, L973, was acknowledged. The matter was referred to the
Council study meeting scheduled for JuIy 11 and the City Manager requested
to so inform j-nterested parties.
2.
Ci
THOMPSON PROPERTY MILLS ESTATE: At Councilman Amstruprs request, the
ty Attorney agreed to ate the status of an illegal structure on this
property.
3.3'SAN FRANCfSCO I}fIffi.NATIONAL ATRPORT E.I.R.: Councilman CusicK recalled
that the Council placed itself on record protesting the draft Environmental
Impact Report for the airport expansion, because of traffic and noise impact
on Burlingame. She stated that the final document does not address itself
to either of these matters and asked that the Council again make its position
known to the proper bodies. With Council concurrence, the Chair directed the
City Manager to forward appropriate communications to the San Francisco
Airport Cormnission and the San Francisco Planning Commission.
1. SPECIAL LEGAL AND PARKING ASSESSMEIflI DfSTRICT SERVICES: The City Manager
advised that Kenneth Jones will be present at the next regular meeting to
discuss the'Burlingame Avenue Area Parking District and the Safeway matter.
In the meantime, he will attempt to have material for the Council's informatj-on
at the July 11 study meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGMEI{IS
I. STAFF REPORTS
City Planner report dated June 20, L973, relative to "Permits for Gasoline
Service Stations" was accepted for filing.
City Attorney re: Ba'yside Park - Phase I1, dated June 26 | L973, concerning
Iiquidated damages as applied to the above project. In a detailed statement,
the City Attorney found, based on a recent court case, that the liquidated
damages provision of the Burlingame contract with Sorensen & Marsh is unenforce-
able. At the Chair's request, the City Attorney agreed to investigate to
determine whether the City may have suffered actual damages by reason of the
delay in completion of the project.
Director of Public Works: "Repairs to Brick Planter, Burlingame Avenue."
Councilman Crosby furnished the Chair with a copy of a letter he received
from the Director of Public Works wherein the project architect indicated a
price of $500.00 for replacing brick and installing reinforcing as indicated
on a submitted revised drawing. The cost of repair to be deducted from
the $500.00 would result in a net cost to the city of $350.00. ft was the
consensus cf the Council that the General Contractor shall be responsible for
whatever repairs are necessary at this time. The questi-on of redesign and
reinforcement can be explored if the planter is damaged agai-n.
2. MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNfCATIONS
Hillhaven Convalescent Hospital expression of appreciation for the Library
Outreach program. The Librarian was requested to eonvey the Council's commenda-
tion to the Library Board and the volunteers participating in the program.
Bernard J. Lycett, Councilman of Daly City, submitting nine month report of
BASSA.
City of Foster City, tfilliam E. Welker, Mayor, concerning use of SB 325 funds
for a Pedway System on the Bay.
Peninsul-a Commute & Transit Cormnittee objections to new terminal building
proposed by Southern Pacj-fic Company at Fourth and Townsend Streets./c
NEW BUSfNESS
1U
San Mateo County Local Bus Transit Study schedule of seven public meetings to
be held during the month of JuIY.
Bay Land Area Study Team (BLAST) re: Bay Farm Island Reclamation District 2105.
Gordon l(rlapp: "Knapp Reapportionment PIan-rr
Conrad Associates re: Parking Expansion PIan-
California State Automobile Association congratulations to the City for winning
a pedestrian Safety Citation award in the 1973 AAA Pedestrian Safety Inventory
Program.
R. R. Ivliller comments regarding "No Left Turn" sign at Burlingame Plaza Area.
This communication was referred to ttre city Manager for reply.
L. P. Gibbons comments re: City Parking Facilities.
3. REPORTS AND MINUIES
Treasurerrs report - Moneys on Deposit - (Inactive Public Funds) as of June 20, L973.
Cj-ty planner report of Planning Conunission Actions and Reconunendations, June 25,
L973.
CONTROL OF UNI.EASHED DOGS
fn response to Councilman Amstrup, the City Manager reported that the City of
Millbrae does not care to participate in a joint program with Burlingame at
this time because of costs involved.
DAIVIAGED RESIDENCE The Council heard a report from Charles Nol-an, 22L Victoria
Minutes: LibrarY Board, June 19,
Commission, June 11, and June 25,
Road, on the condition of a
Road, badly damaged bY fire
home at the corner of Howard Avenue and Victoria
approximately a year ago, and the hazards that
Park s Recreation Commission, June 12, Planning
L973.
exist there now. The City Manager was requested to investigate.
ADJOURNMEI{"I
There being no further buslness for transaction, the meeting was regularly
adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
RespectfullY submitted,
K City Clerk
APPROVED
R.D.N, MA
1/