HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1972.05.01218
Burlingame, California
May 1, 1972
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held
on the above date. The meeting was called to order at
8:05 p.m., Mayor Victor A. l4angj-ni presidi.ng.
PLEDGE OF' ALLEGIANCE
The City Planner led the assemblage in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL
Pre sent
Absent
Councilmen : Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Mangini-{artin
Councilmen: None
MINUTES
The ninutes of the regular meeting of April 17 and the
meeting to canvass election returns on April 18, 1972, Pr€-viously submit.ted to Council, were approved and adopted.
CERTIFIED RAW MILK
Mayor Mangini announced that the presentation scheduled for
this evening by Mrs. W.E. Mussman of Hillsborough, in connec-
tion with certified ra$/ milk being made available for purchase
in Burlingame, will be postponed for thro weeks to the meeting
of May 15, 1972, at her request.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. REQUEST FOR BROADWAY PARKING STUDY
A letter dated April L8, L972, from the Broadway Burlingame
Area Merchants Association, signed by 19 members, requested
that any professional parking study authorized by the Council
be expanded to include Broadway, the additional costs to be
subsidized from Broadway parking meter revenue. The conununi-
cation suggested further that the Council name Mr. Ben Bruce
of AVR Realty Company to represent Broadway Merchants' on
the CiLizens Parking Committee .
A corununication from the City i,lanager dated April 27, L972,
reported that staff and the sub-corunittee of the Citizens
Parking Corunittee reviewed all of the proposals submitted by
firms interested in the Burlingame Avenue off-street parking
study and recommend four -- Conrad Associates, DeLeuw, Cather &
Company, George S. Nolte & Associates and Jones-Tillson &
Associates -- to be interviewed by the Council for possible
selection of one to perform the study.
In response to the Chair, the City l''l.anager recommended inviting
represLntatives of the four consultants to meet with Council
or, i-t Council prefers, with staff and the parking corunittee
or sub-co[unittee, for the purpose of discussing the proposals
in ctepth. He suggested that the subject of Broadway could be
broached to the consultants to determine their reactions to a
study simultaneous with Burlingame Avenue.
Councilman Cusick asked how the Burlingame Avenue study v,il-l be
financed. Both Councifman Amstrup and the City Manager advised
funds are availabLe in the Parking District.
249
Councilman Martin, Council liaison to the Chamber of commerce
Parking Connnittee, recommended that, rather than attempt to
meet with the consultants at a study meeting, Council schedule
a special meeting. He suggested that the Chamber of Commerce
sub-conunittee, John B. Cockcroft, Jr., Victor T. Subbotin and
James E. Delehanty, who are familiar with the proposals and
would like to participate in the discussion with the consul-
tants , be invited.
Thursday, trtay 11, 1972,City Ha11, was selected
meeting.
8:00 p.m., in Conference Room B,
the time and place of the specialat
AS
Referring to the Broadway Merchants reguest to be included in
the parking study, Councilman Martin pointed out that none of
the funds in the parking district can be expended for Broadway's
benefit--the funds are the property of the assessment district
formed to provide parking in the Burlingame Avenue area.
Councilman Amstrup reported there is a drive in progress on
Broad\^ray to collect funds to help defray the costs of a
survey. It was his position that Council should support the
merchants and attempt to provide the survey they have requested.
Councilman l,lartin objected to tvro districts being included in
one survey, stating it will have the effect of slowing down
the Burlingame Avenue project; however, if Council agrees to
tvro surveys, and selects one firm to do the work, the reports
should not be combined.
t{ayor Mangini recognized Mr. PauI Constantino, realtor on
Broadway and member of the Broadway Merchants Association, who
urged council to give Broadway representation on the Parkino
Study Committee if only for the kno$rledge that can be gaineal
through exposure to the Corunittee's discussions which, in turn,
will help the Broadway group L,hen it attempts to form a parking
district.
llr. Constantino referred to Broad$ray as the "gateway to
Burlingame" and spoke at length of problems that have beset the
area! congestion on the main street, created by motorists who
are not shoppers but interested only in using the street as a
route to other parts of the Peninsula, apathy among tenants
and owners and deficiency of adequate parking to sustain a
prosperous business climate.
Mr. Constantino stated that many of the merchants and owners
are ahrare that the area needs attention and recently a cam-
paign was initiated whereby all of the principal property
o$rners and tenants hrere asked for contributions to support
the costs of a parking survey. ile read the letter that was
mailed soliciting funds and reported, as a result, a total
of $1150.00 has been received to date. Mr. Constantino
stated it is not the intent to "jumble uprr the two surveys
but only to seek Council's approval to the same firm performing
both surveys, thereby effecting a considerable saving for
Broadway .
Councilman Crosby pointed out that before the consultants can
be expected to submit a bid, the scope of the work must be
clefined; on Burlingame Avenue, the city is asking essentially'for double-decking, on Broadway, the situatj-on would be totally
different. Councilman crosby recommended that the Burlingame
Avenue survey be expedited and that Council proceed to inves-
tigate ways and means of accomplishing the Broadway study.
A suggestion from Mr. Frank Ingersoll, Chairman, Burlingame
Avenue Parking Study eorunittee, suggested that, prior to
the May 11 meeting, the eonsultants be made aware that Council
250
is j.nterested in a Broadway study was endorsed by Mayor Mangini
and CounciLman Amstrup.
Councilman Cusick asked at what point in the proceedings will
the public have an opportunity of being heard on the double-
clecking proposal. Mayor Mangini noted that all of the consul-
tants indicate they will go directly to the consumers for
reactions. Councilman Martin referred to the governing statutes,
requiring noticed public hearings before there can be any
changes or modifications in the Parking District.
The City Manager $,as requested by the Chair to alert the consul-
t.ants that the matter of a Broadway study probably will be
discussed at the May 11 meeting.
The City Attorney informed the Council that none of the Bur-
Iingame Avenue Parking District bond money can be sPent on
any area outside of the boundaries of the District, that if
any assessment district funds are to be used for Burlingame
Avenue stud.y, a1I bookkeeping for BurJ-ingame Avenue and for
Broadway must be kept separate; there must be separate
contractsi the two studies must be separate in every respect.
2. BAYFRONT PARK LIGHTING AND BID ADVERTISING
3. B ROADWAY PARKING LOT
Under date of April 27.1972, the City l4anager submitted a
communication from the Parking Commission, signed by
J. Donald Refvem, Chairman, concerning off-street parkinq in
the Broadway commercial area, renewed interest on the Part of
property owners and tenants in the formation of a parking
district and six properties considered suitable for off-street
parklng.
The communj-cation requested the City Council to authorize
purchase of one of the properti-es, preferably bet$reen Paloma
ind California Drive, from funds allocated in the L97l-72 budget.
Mr. Paul constantino commented on the six properties and the
purchase prices shown, explaining that, for the most Part, the
prices weie educated guesses on his part. Mr. Constantino
proposed that a committee of Broadway merchants meet with
bouircit at the May 10 study meeting to select one of the six
lots for purchase.
A cornmunication from the City Manager under date of April 27 'L972,submitted a cost estimate from the Project architect for
additional lights at the practice soccer field in the amount of
$13,700.00. It r^,as the City llanager's recommendation that the
expenditure was unwarranted, because existing lights a:e Suf-
filient for practice and the fietd is not to be used for league
soccer garmes.
Mr. Celesino Romoli, manager and coach of a loca1 soccer foot-
ball team, confirmed that lighting is adequate for practice.
The matter of advertisinq for bids for Phase II improvements
was referred to the study meeting for discussion of possible
modifications in the scope of work, for the reason that Littl-e
League will not be using the field this year.
Councilman crosby suggested that the better
wait for the results of the survey--the lots
by the merchants and Parking Commission may
parking consultant's criteria.
approach may be to
being considered
not meet the
Mayor Mangini and Councilman Martin suggested that the Council
25t
could be helpful in assisting the merchants to cure theirparking problems. Councilman Iqartin pointed out there are
members of the Council and city staff with broad experiencein acquisition of properties for parking 1ot purposes.
RECONVENE
!-ollowing a recess at 9:05 p.m., the Chair reconvened themeeting at 9 :15 p.m.
UNT'INISHED BUSINESS
I GEORGE P.
DRAINAGE
NEEL REQUEST OT' CITY TO ACCEPT
EASEMENT (DENIED)
Mayor Mangini announced that he was personally acquainted wj.th!lr. and I'Irs. Nee1i they were co-chairmen of his recent carnpaignfor re-election to the City Council.
Mayor l,langini acknowledged receipt of a memo from the CityManager dated April 26, L972, submitting an opinion from theCity Attorney that the request of ceorge p. NeeI to the cityto accept a drainage easement across his property be denied,The City Manager, in his communication, agreed with theAttorney's opinion, for the reason that granting the requestwould not be appropriate and would require assumption ofdrainage maintenance contrary to the city's poJ-icy.
The City Attorney's report to the City Engineer on the subject,dated April 27, 1972, was read wherein the first statement"It is the opinion of this office that the request should bedenied" \"/as supported by a series of statements recitingthe history of rivate draina e channels that were installedwhen the Mi 11s Estate t sl-de su s ons \,re ):e deve lopedand the city's policy in relation thereto.
Mr. Neel was accorded the privilege of thtirat a number of people in city governmenproblem--the existence of an undergroundthat collects an accumulation of surfaceone property; the pipe carries the waterdrainage system; the pipe is not dedicateto his knowledge, is the only such pipe icarrying multiple drainage not dedicated
e f l-oor. He explainedt are aware of thepipe on his property
water from more thanto a city-ownedd to the city and,n the Mi1ls Estateto the city.
the existence of
an accumulationthe City Engineer
The City Engineer referred to maps fited by Mr. Neel. Identi-fying the location of the pipe on the Neel property, the CityEngineer stated it was installed by the suUaiviaer, withoutbenefit of a public easement. The City Engineer identified theLocation_of the city's easement. fxpl-ining that the pipe wasdJ.slodged when the split of the uppei slope occurred a- f6wyears ago, the City Engineer explained that Mr. NeeI intendsnow to install another pipe in a dj.fferent location.
In response to Mr. Neelb question concerningany other pipes in the Mil1s Estate receivingof wat,er, that. are not dedicated to the city,reported he 4&1 of none.
The City City Engineer stated that acceptance of the proposedeasement will create problems of maintenance--it wiIl be impos-sible to enter the easement without encroachj-ng on other privateproperties and extremely difficult to bring in equipment.
.'1r. Neel emphasized that the situation is unique. There is nohrater from his property enterj,ng the pipe. AtI of the watercomes from five properties to the h,est of his. ?he pipecarrj.es the water to a city-owned easement. f.rom hi! view-point, it is incomprehens ible that he should be the owner ofa piece of pi.pe that conveys water from other properties. uequestioned the City Engineer's statement that maintenance would
252
be difficult
the offer of
the ovrner of
in the city,
and declared that by the city's rejection
easement, he will have the distinction of
the only non-conforming piece of drainage
of
l:e ing
p ipe
In response to Mayor l4angini, the City Attorney stated that
the question is not one of legality; the city can accept the
pipe and assume the obligations noted in his communication.
Councilman Martin reported he inspected the site. He stated
that the clrai,naqe system was installed by the developers to
function without Sipes and that he was at a loss to under-
stand why the pipe-was installed in the first place, or the-
need for a new one. Councilman Martin cornmented that, should
the city accept the easement, it would necessarily follo$'
that it must have control of reconstruction of the bank,
because of the potentia)- for liability if the bank and pipe
fail again.
Councilman Amstrup and Crosby agreed with
Each expressecl complete sympathy hrith t'lr.
eclged their duty as councilmen to abide
opinion.
councitman cusick stated that if it is true that this
only privately owned underground drainage pipe in the
the Cluncit slould take the necessary steps to correct
situation.
Councilman crosby pointed out that where the City Attorney
advises 4ainst the- city assuming liability, a . councilman. can
be subject to personal- Iiability by disregarding the advice'
A motion introduced by Councilman Martin to deny the offer of . 1
dedication of easement proposed -by Ml.. Georqe Neel was seconded
Iny-E""""ii.an crosby ani cirried on the following ro11 call:
Councilman l4artin.
Neet, but acknowl-
by the CitY Attorneyt s
is thecity ,
the
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT COUNCILMEN :
Councilman Martin suggested
i'1r. Neel, with the helP of
Ams trup-CrosbY-Mang ini -Mar t in
Cus ick
None
that PerhaPs the citY could assist
the ciiy i,lanager and City Engineer'
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ANGELO DELI,ACASA COMPLAINT :FENCE HEIGHT1
Acknowledgment was made of a communication dated AptiL 25' 1972 'ii"^ enq.io Dellacasa, 14I Victoria Road, alleging that a
-i;;;" "; his neighboris property, 139 victoria Road, exceeds
ieqaf maximum height of iix- feet. The communication stated
titii tir. situatioi was brought to the attention of the
Building Inspector some time ago, without result'
Accompanying the cornmunication was a sketch.prepared bY- --.j"t" "Cafi,'.f i, Cniuf Building Inspector, indicating fence height,
and inclurling cornments from the city taanager that the.fence
was built ibout five years ago and, apparent-Ly' rs r//r"
over six feet.
Council hearrl from Mr. and Mrs. Dellacasa that their fence
;;; i" place first, tr,ui the neighbor's fence was built against
theirs ind the sPace betlteen will encourage breeding of rodents;
i"itn.t^".u, the neighbor's fence is bginning to lean and he
t"" ir"a to Place additional supports on his fence'
The Council heard an opinion from the City Attorney that-there
appears to be a private rather than municipal probrem' rne
Chair, thereafter, concluded the discussion with the suggestion
that the Dellacasas might consider seeking private lega1
counsel, since the City Attorney finds that this is not a matter
for the city to decide.
2. BICYCLE ROUTES
Letters were read from Mrs. Steven Evans, Leader, Brownie Troop
2975, McKinley School, and Leona Moriarty, Health ancl Safety
Chairman, Roosevelt Elementary Schoo1 PTA, concerning the city's
proposed bicycle route. The latter communication questioned
inclusion of the 1300 block of Bernal Avenue, because of the
hill and heavy on-street parking.
The City Planner reported that the Bikeways Committee recently
substituted Cabrillo Avenue for Bernal, vrhereby the route will
take advantage of the new light, at Cabrillo and Hillside, the
fourway stop at Easton and Cabrillo and pass two schools and
]:ranch Iibrary.
The letters were referred to the City Planner to pass on to the
Bikeways Committee; the City l,lanager was requested to inf orm
Mrs. i,ioriarty of the Planner's comments and ref erral to the Com-
mittee.
3. GE}.IERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACKNOWLEDGED
253
interesL
being
Soroptimist CIub of Burlingame-San Mateo reaffirming its
in the Burlingame Community Arts/Cultura1 Center project
continued to completion of a building.
County of San Mateo Veterans' Service Office requestingi endorse-
ment of Proposition l, a bond act on the June 6 baltt to
provide $250 million in loans for Caljfornia veterans to purchase
or build homes and farms.
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
program to improve quality of public access
report on
along the
Burlingame's
shoreline.
REPORTS & MINUTES
City Planner report of Planning Commission actions, meeting of
April 24, L972. Minutes - Arts & Cultural Committee, ivlarch 30,
Park & Recreation Commission, April 11, Health, Safety & Traffic
Commission, April 13, Planning Commission, April 10 and 24,L972.
U},]FINISHED BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS RE: LITIGATION
The City Attorney advised that Robert D. Moore Construction,
general contractor on alteration of the Recreation Center
building, has commenced an action to recover the balance of his
money; this follows an action pending in Municipal Court in
San Francisco where Central Electric sued him and he cross-
complained against the City of Burlingame.
At the City Attorney's request, a motion introduced by Council-
man l4artin, seconded by Councilman Crosby and unanimously car-
ried, authorized the City Attorney to defend the City in the
litigation.
The City Attorney also commented on items in the press recently
indicating that West Bay Associates had filed a suit with
respect to title to tideland and submerged lands. He explained
that the articles he read would lead the reader to believe this
is new litigation; it is not.; it is West Bay's first formalpleading j"n the action which State Lands Commission initiated
two years ago, and in which City of Burlingame is a party-
defendant. He stated that his office was directed by the
254
Council, at the time the action was initiated, to remain
active in the litigation.
NEW BUSINESS
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Mayor Mangini announced
Councilman Amstrup:
the following committee appointments:
San Mateo County Convention &
Visitors Bureau,
Member City Budget Committee, Chairman Golf Course
Development Committee, Greater Transportation Committee
of San Mateo County.
Councilman Crosby: Liaison to City Employees Association,
Representative to BurlingameLiaison to Library Bo ard,
Days Committee.
Councilman Cusick: Finance Comrnittee, Liaison to Planning
ffison to Sister City Committee.
Councilman t{artin: Chairman Budget Committee, Representative
l
to ABAG, Represent
Liaison to Burling
to Parking Commiss
Mayor Mangini: Civil Defense and
of Commeide, L iaison to Juvenile
tion Commission.
PROCLAMATIONS
r{ayor Mangini proclaimed the month of
POSTURE I'4OI.ITH" and the week beginning
INFORMATION WEEK. ''
ative to Regional Planning Committee,
ame Hi1ls Improvement Association, Liaison
ion.
Disaster, Liaison to Chamber
Protection & Crime Preven-
May, L972 "CORRECT
I\{ay 1, L972, "CoNSUMER
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
James E. Delehanty, President, Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged
Mayor l,langini's appointment as the new Council liaison to the
Chamber and, in turn, presented Mr. Wayne Van llorne, Chamber
liaison to the City Council.
JOINT MEETING WITH I\,IILLBRAE
L1ayor Mangini acknowledged the City Manager's memorandum of
April 26, L972, confirming the date of May 23, L972 at 7 230
p.m,, in the Burlingame City HaII as the time and place of a
joint meeting with City of Millbrae City Council to discuss
outfall project.
ADJOURNMENT
Prior to acljournment, aII in the Council Chambers arose and
observed a period of silence in tribute to Granville Browning,
Burlingame Chamber of Commerce General Manager from 1937 to
1967, whose passing was announced by Mayor Mangini.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m., to reconvene on
Thursday, May 11, L972, dt B:00 p.m., in Conference Room B,
City flall, f;or the purpose of conferring with the consultants
on parking study proposals.
Respectfully submittede&d-k##
APP
g17cr
D
ayor
City Clerk
,