HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.04.21J66
Burlingame, California
April 21, 1975
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above
date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to
order at 8:08 P.M. by Mayor Irving S. Amstrup.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members: Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Harrison-Mangini
Absent : Council Members: None
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 1975, previously sub-
mitted to the City Council, were approved and adopted with (1) an
addition to the motion approving the special permit for Casa Amigo
(Page 7 of draft minutes, Page 359, Volume 17 Minutes) providing for
"15% of the occupants to be SSI (Supplemental Social Income) recipients,
and (2) on Page 12 of draft minutes, Page 364, Volume 17 Minutes,
fifth paragraph from bottom of page, Line 5, change "still agree with
them" to "possibly not agree with them."
STATE OF THE CITY CONCLAVE: Mayor Amstrup extended an invitation to
the audience to attend a first in this City, a meeting to be held at
the Recreation Department building at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, April 29
where there will be the opportunity of informal discussion. Each
department head will make a brief presentation on the activities of
his department, and there will be a question and answer period when
the audience can communicate with the Council and people on staff.
The purpose is to open a new form of communication between citizen
and government.
HEARINGS
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE
25 ZONING. (EIR-30P)
Mayor Amstrup announced this is the time and place scheduled, pursuant
to public notice, to conduct hearings on code amendments recommended
by the Planning Commission. The hearing will be in two parts, first,
the Environmental Impact Report, then the Ordinance.
At the Chair's request, the City Planner initiated the discussion,
explaining the EIR treats of five different code amendments. Two
expand landscaping and setback regulations in the M-1 District, the
third refers to increase in off-street parking requirements for
restaurants in C-4 District only, the fourth excludes use variances;
the present code provides for certain structures --arbor, lathe house,
garden shelter, etc., to be excluded in lot coverage computation. The
fifth amendment to be considered will void that exclusion.
The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission approved the
amendments on a vote of six to one. Subsequent to that action,
questions were raised by citizens interested in landscaping and set-
back requirements in the M-1 District. The City Council referred
the questions to the Planning Commission for study and agreement was
reached after citizens', Planning Commission and staff review. The
amendments before the City Council reflect that agreement. The City
Planner stated the EIR is to be certified by the City Council as pre-
sented, or with such modifications deemed appropriate. Following
certification of the EIR, the Council can then consider adoption of
the Ordinance to implement such amendments.
Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments from the
floor in opposition to the EIR. There were none. Nor were there
supporting comments. The hearing was declared closed,
RESOLUTION NO. 22-75 "Certifying
posed Code Amendments To Title 25,
Councilman Harrison, who moved its
gini and unanimously carried.
367
Environmental Impact Report For Pro -
Zoning, EIR-30P" was introduced by
adoption, second by Councilman Man -
la. ORDINANCE NO. 1037: "Amending Chapter 25 Of The Municipal Code
Concerning Off -Street Parking Requirements In C-4 Districts, Lot
Coverage, Setback And Landscaping Requirements In M-1 Districts, Lot
Coverages In Residential Districts And Eliminating Use Variances."
Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments from the floor
pro or con. There were none. The hearing was declared closed.
ORDINANCE NO. 1037 (Title recited above) was given its second reading.
On motion of Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Harrison, said
Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll
call.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-32P):
RECLASSIFICATION OF 10 LOTS FROM R-1 TO R-3; LOTS 3 AND 6, BLOCK 2,
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 3 AND LOTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 4, ALL OF
BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2; AND LOTS 11B, 21A AND 22, BLOCK 22, TOWN
OF BURLINGAME.
Mayor Amstrup announced that the City Planner will review the project
covered by EIR 32-P.
The City Planner reported that every property owner within 500 feet of
the subject properties received written notice of the proposed reclas-
sification.
Burlin ame Park #2: A transparency of the map (Exhibit A, EIR 32-P)
tit ed "Proposed rezoning from R-1 (single family residential) to
R-3 (apartments: multi -family residential)" was reviewed by the City
Planner. The map identified by street address the seven lots, the
owners, existing use and land area in square feet. A second map
encompassed the area bounded by E1 Camino, Occidental Avenue, Chapin
and Howard Avenues with subject lots crosshatched. (Property
identification: 1500 Burlingame Avenue, 1508 Burlingame Avenue, two
City parking lots, 1501 Ralston Avenue, 1500 Howard Avenue.)
The City Planner referred to a statement in the EIR that "only two of
the ten lots are subject to change" namely, 1500 Howard Avenue, zoned
R-1 and R-1 in use at the present time, adjacent to a vacant R-3 lot
at the corner of E1 Camino and Howard. Both lots are in one ownership
and could be developed with an eight to 10 unit multi -family building.
The second lot is 811 Burlingame Avenue, 15,000 square feet in area,
estimated development 10 to 12 units.
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission, in its delibera-
tions, considered means to make the General Plan very nearly consistent
or close to the zoning map. He traced existing zoning district
boundaries in Burlingame Park, explaining that accomplishment of the
reclassification will implement the idea of about 150 feet, or about
three 50' lots, back from E1 Camino Real in the R-3 District. A dashed
line on the map indicated the new R-3 District boundary, which would
also become the new R-1 District boundary. He stated that densities
in the two districts will be discussed later in the meeting when amend-
ment of the General Plan is considered.
Town of Burlingame: A transparency of the map (Exhibit B, EIR 32-P)
titled "Proposed rezoning from -R-1 (single:'family residential) to
R-3 (apartments: multi -family residential)" showed location of the
three lots in Town of Burlingame, the owners, existing use and land
area in square feet. A second transparency showed the block bounded
by Burlingame Avenue, Howard Avenue, Anita and Arundel•.,ROads with the
three lots crosshatched, and the new boundary line whereby one lot
on Burlingame Avenue and two on Howard Avenue will be reclassified to
R-3. (Property identification: 811 Burlingame Avenue, 812 and ,.816
Howard Avenue.j
The City Planner explained there is mixed zoning in this block, partly
R-1 and partly R-3. There was a consensus at the joint study meeting
of the City Council and the Planning Commission that the boundary
between R-1 and R-3 be fixed by a new line through the middle of the
block from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue. The Planning Commission
conducted a hearing and recommended that action to the City Council.
Following an announcement of ground rules and clarification from the
City Attorney on procedure, the Chair declared the hearing open on
EIR 32-P.
Councilman Cusick asked how the audience can speak to the EIR when it
does not have copies.
The City Planner read from the EIR, Item 6, Page 3 under the heading
"Environmental Impact Of Project" --"There are no irreversible environ-
mental changes from this project," and from "CONCLUSIONS; Pursuant to
recent public meetings concerning decreasing the residential density in
Burlingame Park and East Burlingame, consensus has been reached by the
City Planning Commission and the City Council on the proposed reclas-
sification of certain parcels. It is considered advisable to reclassify
these parcels for several reasons: They may have one lot in one zone
and the rest of the parcel in another zone; they,may hold existing
non -conforming buildings or land uses; and they will provide a zoning
district boundary consistent with the General Plan. The possible
increase in population will be minor. It is unlikely that the proposed
reclassification will have significant effect upon the local environ-
ment. There will be little or no immediate change to the project area
or its immediate neighborhood."
Councilman Cusick repeated her question asked when the implementing
Ordinance was presented for introduction: Is it possible for the
City Council to release some of the parcels before making an EIR?
The City Attorney agreed this is possible. Mayor Amstrup asked
Councilman Cusick to identify the lots. She responded 15013 Burlingame
Avenue and the two City parking lots, and that there probably would
be more lots she would like deleted than the rest of the City Council.
Councilman Harrison asked if the EIR is certified, then, as a result
of the discussion on the Ordinance there is a decision to delete
certain parcels, can the Council proceed with such deletions and not
be inconsistent with the prior action certifying the EIR? The City
Attorney advised that elimination of lots will affect the Conclusions
recited in the EIR. It will make for some inconsistency in the EIR
process.
Mayor Amstrup asked for comments in favor of the EIR. There were none.
Boyd D. Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue, asked for clarification on the
blocks in question. The transparency of Burlingame Park area was
shown and the blocks identified.
Opponents were accorded the 'privilege of the floor.
Dr. William Rosenzweig, 1519 Ray Drive: Referred to the existing apart-
ment building at 1501 Ralston Avenue that occupies three lots, part of
the land zoned R-1. He asked by what process the City approved that
project.
Councilman Crosby advised it was approved by variance. Dr. Rosenzweig
declared that the zoning map is being made to conform to the General
Plan in this instance because of a fait accompli. The City granted
a variance for apartment use of an R-1 lot, the building was built,
the product of that action is an R-3 lot, which should be an R-1 lot
in reality. He stated that is precisely what the citizens do not want.
They want to protect single family areas against multi -family develop-
ments. The City Attorney stated that type of variance is no longer
legally possible; that type of use would take rezoning processes rather
than use variance.
Mrs. Joseph Karp, 1920 Carmelita Avenue: Was variance rather than,f,
r/d
rezoning the accepted practice in the City when the project was approved?
Councilman Crosby confirmed it was accepted practice at the time.
Joseph Karp, 1920 Carmelita Avenue: This was standard method 15 years
ago for investors and those who wished to build.
Mr. Perez, 1533 Ralston Avenue: To his recollection, the building was
built approximately a year ago. He did not receive notice of hearing
on the variance application.
Councilman Crosby stated the use variance was granted several years ago,
but construction was delayed.
Robert Delzell, 1345 DeSoto Avenue: Primarily concerned with increased
density resulting from proposed reclassification. Any change that will
increase density will have strong negative impact on the quality of
life, health and welfare. Burlingame is located on one of the narrowest
corridors on the Peninsula, situated between Bayshore Freeway, the
railroad and 280 Freeway. Because of the narrow corridor, the entire
community is exposed to high pollution resulting from excessive traffic.
Anything done to increase traffic between the bay and the mountains
will have a significant impact. The EIR reports it is unlikely that
the reclassification will have significant effect on the environment.
Apparently, this is not the opinion of a major segment of the popu-
lation considering the number of people in attendance this evening.
It would appear the EIR does not properly state conditions that exist.
Charles Wehking, 912 Toyon Drive: No longer able to see the bay from
his home because of build up of rubbidh at the dump site. Enjoys the
bay but risks life and limb in attempting to go there.
Mrs. Charles Harford, 112 Crescent Avenue: Experienced a sewer problem
about five months after moving to Burlingame that required two days of
roto -rooter service to correct. Has heard that Burlingame does not have
the best sewer system. Can the present system serve more people?
Mrs. Donald A. Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue: With five possible lots
on which to build apartment houses, there is a related potential for
increased population with resultant change in the environment.
Mayor Amstrup asked how many properties are presently improved with
apartment buildings. The City Planner responded two, 1500 Burlingame
Avenue and 1501 Ralston Avenue. Of the remaining improvements, there
is a fourplex, two City parking lots and a single family dwelling.
The City Planner noted that the EIR states that "growth inducing impact
from the project would be limited to future housing for 30 to 40
people." The statement refers to 1500 Howard Avenue and 811 Burlingame
Avenue. If these were developed, estimated population would be 30 to
40 people, about the same as a 20 unit building at one location.
Mayor Amstrup pointed out there is just one property in Burlingame Park #2
with potential for future multi -family use if the reclassification is
approved.
Councilman Harrison asked the City Planner for a breakdown in density
between 1500 Howard and 811 Burlingame Avenue. The Planner estimated
10 units in the former, 12 in the latter.
Edwin P. Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue: Agreed with the EIR finding of
,.no immediate effect on the neighborhood" for the reason that builders
would have to have time to construct a 50 foot high building. Judging
from the rapidity with which the Planning Commission and the City Council
approved the 52 foot building for Casa Amigo, it would not take long.
Multi -family development at 811 Burlingame Avenue plus multi -family on
the two lots on Howard Avenue would have far greater long-range impact
than the EIR infers.
Dr. Rosenzweig, Ray Drive: It is conceivable that the fourplex at
1508 Burlingame Avenue could be demolished for apartment construction
and the two City parking lots sold to private developers. These
alternatives should be discussed in the EIR.
Mrs. Robert Craig, 157 Occidental Avenue: Asked a series of questions,
concerning non -conforming structures and high density. The City Attorney
and City Planner responded. She stated the people are concerned with
long-range effects of the proposed zoning boundary changes, what will
happen in 10 to 20 years.
Joseph Karp, Carmelita Avenue: Advised that the building at: 1508
Burlingame Avenue is a five -unit building, not a fourplex. The correct
address at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and E1 Camino is 1500 Bur-
lingame Avenue, not 301 E1 Camino Real indicated on one of the City's
maps. He supported the reclassification and, as far as the buildings
with which he is concerned, agreed to maintain existing density.
L.S. Welch, 141 Costa Rica Avenue: All of the buildings within the
area of reclassification are ancient with the exception of 1.501 Ralston.
Owners will not hesitate to take advantage of rezoning if the opportunity
exists.
Harriett Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue: Echoed the sentiments of the
pse+vious speaker. Also, considers the present zoning a safeguard against
more cars, more people. At a City Council meeting some years ago, the
statement was made there would not be parking lots nor apartment develop-
ments west of E1 Camino. Events dispute this statement. Both of these
have happened. Existing zoning boundaries should remain to prevent
grief and hard feelings.
Town of Burlingame: S. Marenco, 207 Clarendon Road: Resident of
Burlingame for 31 years, attached to the area in which he lives. Has
observed gradual encroachment of multi -family buildings and fears
that "old timers" will be forced out. There is talk that Burlingame
High School will be forced to close because of declining school popu-
lation. Apartments will not bring young families into the City. Most
apartment owners do not allow children. Apartment building=_ serve a
need in every city but this type of development should be confined to
apartment zoned areas and not permitted to intrude into single family
neighborhoods.
Richard T. Perry, 601 Concord Way: Agreed with Mr. Marenco. Considered
need for growth a wrong philosophy. Asked if anyone had applied for a
rezoning permit for the property on Burlingame Avenue and the two on
Howard Avenue. The City Planner responded no, the Planning Commission
was the applicant in this case. Mr. Perry referred to earlier comments
that the new zoning boundary was agreed to for the purpose of straightening
the line between R-3 and R-1. He termed this "pure sophistry" because
the present zoning map shows lots and blocks divided in many ways and
many shapes. It is time to call a halt to creeping "apartmentism."
Mrs. John Barton, 734 Winchester Drive: Opposed increased density in
the vicinity of Washington School and the Recreation Center. There is
confusion and hazard where children cross Burlingame Avenue near the
Recreation Center. Further density in that area should not be permitted.
Edwin P. Taylor, Burlingame Avenue: On -street parking generated by the
Recreation Center extends a block and a half down to Burlingame Avenue
and Bloomfield. Multi -family use of the three lots could result in
buildings 55 feet in height overlooking adjacent single family homes.
This can only result in loss of privacy to homeowners, which certainly
must be considered a negative impact.
Mrs. Brian Sixt, 1016 Morrell Avenue: Opposed any attempt to increase
density.
Mrs. Barbara Bruton, in behalf of her parents, owners of 1500 Howard
(Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Burlingame Park #2): Stated it had been her
understanding that Lot 3 was partially zoned R-3 and partially R-1,
but it appears now that the zoning is R-1. She asked if it is true
that a variance can no longer be used to change zoning under- present
rules and regulations. The City Attorney responded yes. Mrs. Bruton
stated this then would negate any future change of zoning or use through
variance only. Thus, it would be impossible for Lot 6 (1508 Burlingame
Avenue) to be used for apartment purposes through a use permit. At
her request a transparency was shown of the opposite side of Howard Avenue
S,
r9 g
and the solid line marking the proposed boundary between R-3 and R-1.
Mrs. Bruton pointed out that the first two lots on the south side of
Howard are R-3 in zoning and R-3 in use. On Lots 2 and 3, the first
two lots on the north side of Howard, there is a 65 -year old single
family residence that crosses lot lines. In all probability, if the
land were developed in R-3, there would be a building 35 feet in height
of not more than eight to 10 units, modern, architecturally pleasing,
replacing the existing 65 -year old building.
Car1D. Minerva, 36 Arundel Road: About a year and a half ago, a
gentleman came to the Planning Commission and City Council with plans
for a fiveplex at 111 Arundel Road. The variance was denied. The
then mayor, R.D. Martin, made a stipulation that water lines in the area
of Howard, Arundel and Burlingame Avenue were too small to accept any
more buildings except single family homes. Now there is a movement to
bring more apartment buildings in despite the former mayor's statement
there should be no more applications for multi -family until new sewer
and water lines can be installed. Mr. Minerva commented he has seen
neither.
There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared
closed.
Councilman Harrison stated that the City Council has before it an EIR to
be certified. He asked if the Council can delete any of the eight points
mentioned on Page 3. The City Attorney responded that the Council can
make modifications in the EIR based upon testimony heard this evening.
Councilman Harrison advised he has circled points 1,2,5,6,7. He asked
what the effect would be if those were deleted. The City Attorney
advised that the City Council cannot delete. Those are the elements
to be covered by the EIR. Councilman Harrison then stated he questions
points 1,2,5,6,7. The City Attorney advised they can be modified if
that is the wish of the majority of the City Council.
Councilman Cusick asked that point 8 be modified by deleting "Only
properties next to the two lots" and substituting "The neighborhoods
surrounding the two lots."
Councilman Harrison read the modifications he desired.
Councilman Mangini stated he would be satisfied with the EIR either as
presented or with modifications. Later in the meeting when this state-
ment was challenged from the floor, Councilman Mangini explained that
the City Council is legally bound to make an EIR for this reclassifi-
cation project. The Council has no alternative. That was the reasoning
behind his earlier statement.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-75 "Certifying Environmental Impact Report For
Reclassification Of Ten Lots From R-1 To R-3; Lots 3 And 6, Block 2,
Lots 5 And 6, Block 3, And Lots 3, 4 And 5, Block 4, All Of Burlingame
Park. No. 2; And Lots 11B, 21A And 22, Block 22, Town Of Burlingame -
EIR 32P" was introduced by Councilman Harrison, second by Council-
man Cusick.
Points 1,2,5,6,7, modified by Councilman Harrison to read:
1. The immediate impact from the proposed project could result in
physical change.
2. The increment of change that would be permitted by rezoning could
be considered significant.
5. There could be an appreciable difference between short term and long
term use of private property in the project area.
6. There could be irreversible environmental changes from this project.
7. The minimum growth -inducing impact from the project would be future
housing for 30 to 40 people.
8. (Modified by Councilman Cusick) The neighborhoods surrounding the
two lots which might be redeveloped would be significantly affected by
the proposed action.
The Resolution with the modifications was unanimously adopted on roll
call.
l_ ,
RECONVENE: Following a recess at 9:30 P.M., Mayor Amstrup reconvened
the meeting at 9:45 P.M.
2a. ORDINANCE NO. 1036 PROVIDING FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVEN
LOTS IN BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 AND THREE LOTS IN TOWN OF' BURLINGAME.
Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments from the
proponents. There were none. Opponents were invited to speak.
Dr. Rosenzweig, Ray Drive: Referred to comments relative to improve-
ment of the property at 1500 Howard Avenue with an architecturally
pleasing building, limited in height. Staff indicated that number of
units would be limited by parking requirements. Dr. Rosenzweig asked
about underground parking. The City Planner stated such parking must
be totally below grade and that the Planning Commission has the respon-
sibility of reviewing the landscaping plan. Dr. Rosenzweig pointed
out it is possible, then, that on-site parking requirements need not
necessarily restrict building density considering the possibility of an
underground garage.
Councilman Crosby stated that a developer probably would be limited by
economics. He questioned that any knia]edgeable builder would attempt
to build something that would not be a paying proposition; underground
parking can be very costly.
Arnold Rodman, 905 Morrell Avenue: There is sufficient undeveloped R-3
and R-4 zoning in the City without creating additional R-3. Once
R-3 and R-4 are developed to their extent, let there not be any more
apartment buildings.
Robert Delzell, DeSoto Avenue: Recommended the Ordinance not be adopted
because there has been no strong evidence of benefit to the City.
Mrs. Charles Harford, Crescent Avenue: There are people who believe
cities have no right to restrict population. In the May, 1975 issue
of McCalls, an article "Suburbs Shut Their Doors" concerns three
different places that have been criticized for restricting or attempting
to restrict population. In each case, the city was concerned with
environment, public services and preservation of small-town atmosphere.
Mrs Harford stated her family settled in Burlingame, paying twice
as much as they intended for their home, but they wanted to be part
of a small community and hope that Burlingame will not change.
Edmund Barberini, 1553 Drake Avenue: Relatively new to the area.
Moved to Burlingame because he wanted to raise his children here.
Believes that any development on the west side of E1 Camino Real should
be R-1. The time will come when apartment buildings now on R-1 lots
will reach the stage of demolition because of age; the land then can
revert to R-1 use. He asked by whom the Planning Commission was instruc-
ted to recommend this rezoning.
Councilman Harrison explained that the Planning Commission :is comprised
of seven dedicated people who give of their time freely, serve for
hours on end. These people have in mind a conceptual picture of what
areas should be like. Any good planner should do this. From a
planner's viewpoint there are different approaches in planning a city
from the start and planning for an older city. Burlingame is an
older city. In trying to correct what has been done, decisions will
be made that may not be right. The work of the Planning Commission
is admirable. At a joint meeting of the City Council and the
Planning Commission, the two bodies were at variance because of
different approach - the Planning Commission is responsible to the
City Council, the City Council to the people.
Mr. Barberini, 1553 Drake: In referring to Burlingame as an older
city does this not raise the issue of new multi -family developments
requiring new sewers, water and electrical systems. Everyone in this
City has heard from the county assessor. The people do not want any
additional assessments.
Mayor Amstrup reported he spent a great deal of time in Redwood City
recently and learned that the State requires the assessor to assess 7,
every property at 25% of its fair market value. The assessor will
ask the owner if he can sell his property at the indicated value,
the answer will be yes in most cases. Mayor Amstrup explained that
only a very small part -of the property tax supports the sewer system.
Further, the members of the Council have listened to the people's
comments and must attempt to reach a fair and logical decision.
Mayor Amstrup commended the Planning Commission, a group of seven
citizens who have done their job and done it well.
Edwin P. Taylor, Burlingame Avenue: Agreed that the City is served
well by the Planning Commission and the City Planner. However, there
are two things to be considered: People who want to build and provide
jobs, residents who want the City to remain as it is. Within a day
and a half,he and two others circulated a petition in the vicinity
of the three lots proposed to be reclassified in Town of Burlingame.
The petition opposed the reclassification. Without any difficulty
137 signatures were obtained, about six people refused to sign.
The consensus appears to be in favor of keeping the City as it is.
Mr. Taylor asked that the petition be incorporated in the minutes.
Mayor Amstrup agreed.
Joseph Karp, Carmelita Avenue: Commended the City Council on listening
patiently for close to two hours with little comment. He spoke to
the potential of any new units from what appears to be one or two lots.
Most of the lots, other than City parking lots are built with improve-
ments; the possibility of more units is probably insignificant.
Applying Dr. Rosenzweig's logic, and selecting one lot at random, it
would be economically unsound to build underground parking. The
people want no growth, but the arguments are not germane.
1500 Burlingame Avenue is a good example. From the standpoint of traffic
noise alone, it is inconceivable to consider building a single family
dwelling on that corner, just as it would be inconceivable to build a
single family dwelling at the corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino.
There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared
closed.
Councilman Mangini asked the City Attorney to clarify ownership of the
City parking lots. The Attorney responded they are owned by the City,
the City Clerk reports they are not encumbered by bonds or debts. In
this case, it is conceivable they could be sold.
Councilman Crosby stated he shares the concerns expressed by the
people here tonight, but there are some citizens who do not feel as
strongly about maintaining rigid R-1 areas. He referred to the many
meetings held by the Planning Commission on the subject and to a
joint study meeting of the Commission and the Council where there was
in-depth discussion of increased densities in residential areas. fie
stated it was his understanding that the City Council and Planning
Commission had reached agreement, but tonight there have been comments
to the contrary; he did not recall that there was opposition to
rezoning of the ten lots when the joint meeting was held. Ile stated
that he cannot be swayed by 200 people when there are 28,000 people
in this City, but the people here tonight have expressed their feelings
and made their positions known. While he has not agreed with Council-
man Cusick that the General Plan should conform with the zoning map,
he will support the opposition to the reclassification of the 10 lots.
Mayor Amstrup referred to a comment earlier from a gentleman in the
audience to the effect that the important issue is to keep the west
side of E1 Camino in R-1. Mayor Amstrup stated he lives on the west
side but recognizes there are many wonderful people who live on the
east side; they have equal rights to maintain their residential areas,
and, in his opinion, the Oxford and Cambridge Road area, is one of the
prettiest in the City. He concurred with Councilman Crosby's position,
stating that he has fought long and hard to maintain the integrity of
the City's residential areas.
Councilman Harrison stated that the reclassification process resulted
from a joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission. A C
consensus of the two bodies and staff led to the hearings to seek input
from the public. He concurred with Councilman Crosby and Mayor Amstrup
with respect to the proposed reclassification.
Councilman Cusick stated that, after hearing three councilmen say they
are opposed to the rezoning, she will move to reject Ordinance No.1036
"An Ordinance Amending Section 25.12.010 Of The Burlingame Municipa
Code And The Zoning Maps Therein Incorporated By Reclassifying Lots
3 And 6 Of Block 2; Lots 5 And 6 Of Block 3; And Lots 3,4 And 5 Of
Block 4, Burlingame Park No. 2; And Lots 11-B, 21-A, And 22„ Block 22,
Town Of Burlingame, From First Residential, R-1 District, To Third
Residential, R-3 District."
Motion to reject the Ordinance was seconded by Councilman Harrison and
unanimously carried on roll call.
Relative to the above hearing, the following communications were
received by the City Clerk and accepted for filing:
1. Communications from Olga Corbelli and Carolyn Corbelli and
Anastasia Cole opposing rezoning in Burlingame Park.
2. Petition "We, The Undersigned, Urge That The Zoning, Scheduled To
Be Discussed At The Burlingame Council Meeting April 21, 197,75, Be Kept
R-1 (Single Family Residential) For The Lots At The Following Addresses:
811 Burlingame Avenue, 812 Howard Avenue And 816 Howard Avenue. We
Further Urge That The Burlingame General Plan Be Changed To Conform
Thereto."
3. Petition °I, the undersigned resident of Burlingame, enjoy the
residential character and quality of our city. I am opposed to
increased population density. I favor amending the General Plan to
reflect identity with existing zoning regulations."
3. GENERAL PLAN DENSITIES TO CONFORM WITH ZONING CODE IN R•-1 AND
R-2 DISTRICTS - - ND - 51P
Under date of April 16, 1975, the City Planner forwarded for the
Council's consideration a draft resolution to amend Part II:[ of the +�
General Plan, a list of documents regarding General Plan amendments
and copies of listed documents.
Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments :From the
floor.
Richard Perry, Concord Way, asked for information on residential
densities permitted by the zoning code. The City Planner read the four
density factors appearing on the General Plan diagram. He explained
that they are not consistent with nor identical with what is in the
zoning code. Very few people understand the purpose of the General Plan,
it is a recital of guidelines and objectives for future development of
the City. The zoning code is a legal document of specific :regulations
for land use. The Planning Commission recommended revisions to the
General Plan and rezoning of 10 lots to implement General Plan objectives.
In Burlingame, land area is so small in some areas that parking determines
number of dwelling units. With the exception of three built in the last
two years, every apartment building in the City is non -conforming because
they fail to satisfy existing parking regulations. Through its parking
requirements, Burlingame has effectively limited number of people.
At Councilman Harrison's request, the City Planner read the following
from the resolution prepared for the Council's consideration:
"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND DETERMINED THAT:
1. With the exception of Area A (Reference Exhibit H of Part III
General Plan, Staff Review dated November 25, 1974) which is the
Pringle Apartment complex located at the corner of Trousdale and
Skyline Boulevard and that portion of Area F which fronts on Capuchino
between Carmelita and Broadway, Part III of the General Plan shall be
amended so that the General Plan Map will be made identical with the
present zoning code in those R-1 and R-2 Districts where Part III of
the General Plan now projects a higher density or a different use than
that allowed by the present zoning code.
2. The various land uses authorized by the zoning ordinance
(Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25, ZONING) are compatible with the
9.
375
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General Plan.
3. The Burlingame Zoning Ordinance and the Burlingame General Plan
are consistent within the meaning of Government Code Section 65860."
Robert Delzell, De Soto Avenue, requested the City Council to bring the
General Plan down to the density generally found in the zoning laws.
There were no further comments from the audience. The hearing was
declared closed.
In response to an inquiry from Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney
stated the testimony heard by the City Council has been legally suf-
ficient.
Councilman Crosby asked if conformity of the General Plan with the
zoning code will prevent an owner from rebuilding a non -conforming
building destroyed by fire. The City Attorney responded that the
building must be rebuilt in conformance with building and zoning
codes. Councilman Crosby asked if the City can be subject to legal
action as a result of making the General Plan identical with the
zoning ordinance. The City Attorney responded no.
RESOLUTION NO. 24-75 "Amending Part III General Plan To Restrict Resi-
dential Densities In R-1 And R-2 Districts To Those Permitted By The
Present Zoning Code," was introduced by Councilman Cusick, who moved
its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini, unanimously carried on
roll call.
RECONVENE: Following a recess at 10:30 P.M., Mayor Amstrup reconvened
the meeting at 10:40 P.M.
HEARINGS (Cont.)
4. ORDINANCE NO. 1033: UNIFORM BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING.CODES,
1973 EDITIONS, AND OTHERS (cont. from meeting of 4/7/75
Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments from the
floor in favor of the Ordinance, introduced for first reading at the
meeting on March 17, 1975.
Carl Marberry, San Diego, representing the Plastic Pipe Institute,
addressed the Council, reporting he has been to the Peninsula several
times and listened to Thomas Hunter, Plumbers and Steam Fitters Union
Business Manager, talk about why plastic pipe should not be included
in the plumbing code. Mr. Marberry requested the City Council to
accept the recommendation of the City's Chief Building Inspector, who
has taken time to review the Uniform Plumbing Code and has no objec-
tion to plastic pipe. With reference to Mr. Hunter's claim that there
is new evidence which should be presented to the Council, Mr. Marberry
stated plastic pipe is in a constant stage of improvement and develop-
ment, and that he is aware of some new features, but there is nothing
at this time that would require or even suggest a change in the
plumbing code.
Councilman Harrison referred to undated material furnished the City
_. Council containing references to lethal toxic fumes. He asked the
date of the article. Mr. Marberry reported five or six years ago.
He stated this is not a new proposition and the debate has been going
on for about 10 years.
Chief Building Inspector Calwell stated that the Uniform Plumbing Code
in the City of Burlingame has permitted plastic pipe for the past five
years; there has not been one complaint. This form of pipe gives the
home owner the option of either repairing his own plumbing or hiring
a plumber. If he is not allowed to use plastic, he must rent $200 to
$300 worth of equipment to do his own work; all plastic requires is a
toothbrush and a hack saw. Plastic pipe is limited to single family
dwellings not over two stories. Inspection does not cost any more,
it requires the same amount of time for plastic as cast iron. The
/D
Building Inspector stated he would like the home owner to have the option
of doing the work or hiring a plumber.
Councilman Mangini asked if the home owner has the choice of selecting
type of pipe. The Building Inspector responded yes.
Councilman Cusick asked if plastic pipe is permitted in the houses. The
Building Inspector reported that, presently, plastic is used for under-
ground services from the street to the house, not within the building.
There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared
closed.
Mayor,Amstrup advised he has been informed by staff that the building
department is working at a disadvantage without the new coders. For
that reason, he would recommend that the Ordinance be passed. If
Mr. Hunter does make a presentation to the Council, and individual
Council members wish to make comments on the plumbing code, this can
be done later.
Councilman Harrison announced he will withhold his comments until that
time.
ORDINANCE NO. 1033 "Adopting By Reference The Uniform Building Code,
1973 Edition, And The Appendix Thereto, Making Findings Concerning
Changes And Modifications Of Said Code, The Uniform Building Code
Standards, 1973 Edition, The Uniform Mechanical Code, 1973 Edition, The
Uniform Plumbing Code, 1973 Edition, The Uniform Code For Abatement Of
Dangerous Buildings, 1973 Edition, And The Uniform Housing Code, 1973
Edition, And Amending Adding And Repealing Certain Sections Of The
Burlingame Municipal Code" was given its second reading. On motion of
Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Crosby, said Ordinance passed
its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll call.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED: Acknowledgment was made of a communi-
cation dated April 16, 1975, from Herbert S. Tanner, 1345 Columbus Ave.,
and Leo Kriloff, 2315 Easton Drive, appealing the front setback variance
granted to Charles Terry, 2301 Easton Drive, by the Planning Commission
at its meeting on April 14, 1975. A hearing before the City Council was
scheduled for the regular meeting on May 5, 1975.
2. KOHLENBERG FORD SIGN HEARING: In a letter dated April 11, 1975,
Joseph D. Putnam, President, Putnam Buick, Inc., asked that the hearing
on his appeal from Planning Commission approval of Kohlenberg Ford sign
be postponed from May 5 to May 19, because of another commitment on
the fifth.
Under date of April 16, 1975, Norman I. Book, Jr., attorney for
Kohlenberg, asked that the hearing be continued to the Council's regular
meeting on June 2 to accommodate the owner of the property occupied
by Kohlenberg.
It was the decision of the City Council to conduct its hearing on
June 2, 1975.
3. ANZA AIRPORT PARK ACCESS ROAD: A communication dated April 10,1975,
from David H. Keyston, Executive Vice President, Anza Pacific Corpora-
tion, concerned improvement of the access road to Anza Airport Park
and requested the City Council's authorization for an application to
be prepared and submitted to BCDC for the necessary permit to carry
out the improvement.
Mayor Amstrup stated he understood Anza Pacific wants authority to go
to BDCD so that the improvements can proceed, subject to the discretion
of City Council and staff.
The application to BCDC was authorized on motion of Councilman Harrison,
second by Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote.
i
377
4. PETITION RE PARKING METER RULINGS: Staff members of Grubb & Ellis
Company, 330 Primrose Road, un er date of April 9, 1975, expressed
objection to the present regulations that prevent placing additional
monies in parking meters after one hour of parking. It was pointed
out that this works a great hardship, not only on GrubD & Ellis employees,
but on many of the people working in the area. The. City Council was
requested to investigate.
Mayor Amstrup announced that he has decided to appoint a committee of
six, he, Councilman Harrison, the City Manager, Director of Public
Works, Traffic Engineer and Planning Commissioner Sine to sift through
all of the reports, letters and recommendations on file relative to
the parking situation. The committee will be charged with preparing
a list of feasible projects on which the City Council can make some
progress. Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission will be depended upon
for study and input and recommendation when the committee's findings
are complete.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Renewal of dance/entertainment permit, Frank Perez dba Country Road,
1425 Burlingame Avenue: The Department of Police, in a communication
dated March 31, 1975, expressed no objection to renewal of the license,
assuming the principals maintain the same type operation.
A motion by Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Mangini, to renew
the license for a period of one year, subject to review at that time,
was carried on voice vote.
2. AB 664 providing for toll bridge revenues to be used for transit
on transbay corridors and their vicinities: A communication from
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission requesting City Council
endorsement of this Bili was referred to the study meeting of
May 7, 1975.
3. Public Systems inc. request of April 9, 1975, for a month's exten-
sion to complete its contract with the City for a communication systems
study and report was approved by the Council.
4. On -Street Parking Limitations:
(a) Communication from Director of Traffic, March 26, 1974, with
concurrence of Traffic Engineer, recommending change in parking limi-
tation on northeasterly side of Primrose Road from Douglas Avenue to
Floribunda Avenue from one hour to two hour. City Attorney requested
to prepare ordinance providing for two-hour parking between 8:00 A.M.
and 6:00 P.M.
(b) Recommendation from Director of Traffic for temporary removal
of two-hour parking limitation on 1200 block of Floribunda from
California Drive to northeasterly curb line of Primrose Road to allow
all day parking. Communication of April 4 from Director of Public
Works requested authority to remove two-hour signs on a temporary basis
to determine if existing limitations are necessary. In his communi-
cation, Director of Public Works stated that a report and recommendation
will be sent to the City Council after the block is observed, perhaps
for a month or two. Director of Public Works authorized to proceed.
-- (c) Recommendation from Traffic Engineer, memo 3/31/75 to Director
of Public Works, for temporary removal of one-hour parking limitation
on southwesterly side of California Drive between Carmelita and Oak
Grove to allow:all day parking, and change in parking limit from one
to two hours on southwesterly side of California Drive from Broadway
to Carmelita. Director of Public Works authorized to proceed.
5. Additional 24 -Minute Parking Meters, Burlingame Avenue: In a
memorandum dated April 17, 1975, the City Manager concurred with the
Traffic Engineer and the Director of Public Works that these additional
meters be installed as noted in the Traffic Engineer's memorandum of
March 24. A motion by Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby,
all aye voice vote, authorized the installation.
iz.
RESOLUTIONS
1. RESOLUTION NO. 25-75 "Resolution Of Public Interest And Necessity?
(permanent easement sanitary sewer pipeline lands of San Francisco)
was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved its adoption, second by
Councilman Harrison, carried unanimously on roll call.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 26-75 "Accepting Director's Deed From State of
California by its Director of Transportation, Dated February 25, 1975"
(3.315 acres Skyline Boulevard) was introduced by Councilman Harrison,
who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and unanimously
carried on roll call.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 27-75 "Authorizing Execution Of Release And
Dismissal With Prejudice In Favor Of Rockwell International Corporation,
Neptune International, Inc., And Badger Meter, Inc., (Action No. C-50949
In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of
California) In Connection With Water Meter Antitrust Case" was intro-
duced by Councilman Cusick, who moved its adoption, second by Council-
man Harrison, unanimously carried on roll call.
ORDINANCES
Second reading:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 1038 "Amending The Municipal Code By Adding Subpara-
graph u) To Section 13.36.010 Prohibiting Parking On Airport Boulevard"
was given its second reading. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second
by Councilman Crosby, said Ordinance passed its second reading and
was unanimously adopted on roll call.
2. (Introduction) ORDINANCE NO. 1039: "An Ordinance Repealing Section
22.60.031 And Amending Section 22.60.040 Concerning Sign Ordinances"
was introduced for first reading by Councilman Cusick.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Bus Fares: Councilman Cusick stated that a recent newspaper
article stated that the new fare for children will be 254. She sug-
gested that, if the number of children riding the buses drops off
considerably, the Council should consider re-establishment of the
10� fare. Mayor Amstrup explained the change was necessary to
coordinate with San Mateo. Burlingame's senior citizens ride free,
San Mateo's pay. Wayne Swan, Transportation Officer, advised that
ticket books are being ordered and will be available shortly; the
net price to those using books will be 15C. New fares become effective
May 1, and books will be available no later than two weeks. In
response to Councilman Crosby, Mr. Swan advised that banks will be
invited to assist in sale of the books, and perhaps the water depart-
ment office and Southern Pacific.
2. Traffic Study, Hillside Drive: Mayor Amstrup reported he spoke
with Rick SkErka, County Engineering and Road Department, and asked
if there were statistics available to show that all of the traffic
in Burlingame has moved from one place to another. Mr. Skierka
advised there were no statistics, that this was his opinion. Mayor
Amstrup stated he asked Mr. Skierka if he would object if this state-
ment was repeated. Mr. Skierka responded no.
3. Traffic Enforcement Program: Councilman Harrison referred to the
article in the San Mateo Times concerning the success of the Police
Department's Selective Traffic Enforcement project. Councilman Crosby
asked if there are more recent statistics available than the last `.
report received by the Council in February.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Sanitary Sewerage Maintenance And Operation Agreement: The City
Manager advised that this document has been forwarded to the Town of
Hillsborough for execution. When it is returned, the City Attorney
will prepare a resolution for Council's consideration.
2. Commissioners' Anniversary Dates: The City Clerk's communication
of April 7, 1975, concerning reappointment of commissioners was referred
/3,
to the study meeting on May 7.
PROCLAMATIONS
1. Mayor Amstrup proclaimed "GOODWILL WEEK - MAY 4 - 10, 1975,"
and "NATIONAL INSURANCE WOMEN'S WEEK'- MAY 18 - MAY 24, 1975."
APPROVALS
Warrants Nos. 8953 through 9318 in
audi ed, were approved for payment
second by Councilman Harrison, all
Payroll March, 1975, Checks Nos.
$296,154.74, approved on motion of
Councilman Harrison, all aye voice
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the amount of $583,598.83, duly
on motion of Councilman Cusick,
aye voice vote.
8078 through 8805
Councilman Cusick,
vote.
379
in the amount of
second by
1. Communication from Rod J. O'Meara concerning rats in easements:
Director of Public Works reported he has talked with the Department of
Health and with Mr. O'Meara.
2. Request from County Planning, Research & Development Unit,
dated April 9, that the City Council designate someone who can serve
as a contact and resource person relative to Revenue Sharing and
social service planning in Burlingame. The City Manager advised
he will discuss this with the Director of Finance; perhaps he will be
interested.
Minutes: Library Board, April 15, Park & Recreation Commission,
April 18, Traffic, Safety & Parking, April 3, 1975.
Reports: Fire Department Monthly Report, City Planner Report of
Planning Commission meeting, April 14, 1975.
Transit: Councilman Cusick referred to a letter written by
Mayor Battaglia of South San Francisco to the Council of Mayors
urging implementation of the sales tax increase authorized by the
Transit District Bill. It was Councilman Cusick's position that
the Transit District already has a huge stockpile, and that she
opposed the additional tax when there are unused funds.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Herbert K. White, City Clerk