Loading...
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