Loading...
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 ,