Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1970.03.02Burlinqame, california !{arch 2, 1970 CALL 10 ORDE R A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above given date. The meeting was called to order at 8:O5 p m by l{ayor R. D.Martin. and1. At r.rord from the Chair, all in the Council Chamber arose gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag. 2. Upon Roll Call, those present lrere: Councilmen: Anstrup-Crosby- Johnson-Martin. 229 and rear, Di st ri ct 3. ltre Minutes of theto Council previously, Mayor Martin emphasized that the costs $rere obtained from other electrieal agencies mayreceiving lower estimates. regular meeting of February 16, 7970, sutmitted were approved and adopted. IIEARTNG S 1. CITY TIALL SITE UNDE RG ROT'IID UTITITY DI ST.#1 ESTABLISIMD Mayor llartin announeed that at a prior meeting of Council, a recommenda- tion to form an "Underground Utility District, in the area of the new City Hall, at the intersection of Primrose Road and Bellevue Avenue, initiated a CounciL action scheduling a public hearing on this date to ascertain \.rhether those affected would be interested in the forma- tion of the District. the Chair invited cotEnents from the Floor. Mrs. Gertrude Webbe r Green, proPerty ovrner, 518 Primrose Road, expressed her approval to the formation of the District and in re-ferring to a map designating the specific properties, questioned the exclusion of the new City HaIl and Properties on Floribunda Avenue. Uayor Martin explained that the Library site and the City HalI site, owned by the city of Burlingame, are not subject to assessment. To further clarify, the City Engineer stated that the City Hal1properties on Primrose Road adjacent, are served power from the therefore, no undergrounding is to be accomplished and that the was not proposed to extend beyond 1414 Floribunda. To urs. creenrs inquiry whether payment will be made through bond procedure, Mayor Martin briefly explained the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's conversion program and the allocation of funds to the cities, stating that the sole expenditure wilL be the aetual connection tothe individual property of the o\.rrner. In reply to an inquiry from Mr. Marion A. Strain, owner of property Iocated at 512 and 516 Primrose Road, concerning individual costs,the City Engineer referred to a tabulation setting forth cost estimes, sutmitted by a locaI electrical firm. only est j-mates and bidsresult in the o,'mer Trhe hearing $ras thereafter declared closed by the chair. Tlhe City Attorney notified Council that a resolution establishing an underground utility district requires that a date be inserted tospecify a time wherein affected Property cturners must be ready to receivethe underground service. 2so [1r. Zehms, Pacific cas and Electric Company's representative in charge of the underground conversion program, recognized by theChair, explained the procedure adopted by the cqnpany and thereafter recommended that July L, I97O, be selected to provide a sufficienttime period wherein property oldners may receive the service andthe eompany may remove its equipment. It{ayor Uartin suggested that the prepared resolution be re-subrnittedat the next regular meeting of Council, r^ri th the date included as reconunended. 2 BU RLINGAME AVENI'E AREA OFES?REET P NG DIST. #1 Mayor Uartin announced that this was the time and place scheduled toconduct a public hearing upon a report from the Engineer outliningassessments of the estimated cost -of .acquisition, work and improve-ments and to consider protests relating-to the Sr,rrlingame Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Distriet - Project No. 1969-I. Mr. Kenneth I. Jones, representing the legal firm of Wilson, Jones, Morton and Lynch, Attorneys for the District, was invited by the Ctrairto explain the background of the project and the matter of the hearing. Attorney Jones stated that the original Parki.ng District was formedseveral y6ars ago after extensive time, effort and study by manyindivi.dualsr that the project has resulted in the accomplishment ofthe existing Off-Street Parking program for the Burlingame Avenue di stri ct . Tthe present, project, is in substance, a supplement to the originalproject which will result, if it is approved, in combining additionallots whi ch v/ere actually a part of the original. project as conceivedi.n 1961. Attorney Jones referred to the report. prepared for the CentralParking Committee of Burlingame, by Wilsey, Ilam and Blair, datedAprll, 1961, and read the f ol l-or,ri ng excerpt frqn page 18 of thereport: "ft should be noted that the probability of the entire CityHall Eite becoming available for off-street parking within the next few years is unknourn at this time. When all City offices are re-located,this excellent site should be included in the permanent parking plan. " Attorney Jones also stated that the Post Office site proposed to beacquired as part of the current project was also bhol*n as part ofthe proposed project in the 1961 report. Attorney Jones advised that the current project vras initiated bypetitions circulated by the Parking Comrd ttee of the Burlingame Chanber of cqnmeree, that the petitions $rere circulated over a periodof hreeks and resulted in signatures representing approximatelyforty-four percent of the land area of the property to be assessed and approximately fifty-four percent of the assessed valuation of taxable real property of the District, the forty-four percent land area figure falls short of the requirements of Division Four for awaiver of an investigation and hearing under that Division, bysixty percent, therefore, one of the hearings this evening is on aninvestigation report under Divi.sion IV of the Streets and HighvraysAct, the law requires that the report be sununarized before the hearing is held and the surunary is presented as follotlrs: Tlhe purpose of the report is to subject ttre project to a finalanalysis. trhe anallds is in the form of a display of the assessedvaluations of land and irnprovements of each parcel of propertywithin the Districtr the so-called true value of each parcel established by statute formula is double the assessed valuation of 231 land which is a]-so shourn; the rePort also sets of outstanding assessments against the lands in comprised of the original district assessments. are as follo.rs: forth the amounts the District largel-y Trhe total figures Estimated project cost $ 272,680.OO 2 ,363 , 44O .OO 4,726,77O .OO 914, 158. 00 Total Land Assessed Valuation True Value Outstanding Assessments Tlhe outstanding assessments, Plus the proposed assessments, rePresent $I,186,248.00, approximately fifty Percent of the land assessed valuationt sueh a relationship well within t]re reconutended tolerancesfor financial feasibility. Attorney Jones advised that the second hearing scheduled coneurrently at this time is under the Municipal Act of 1913, which r^rou Id be required in any event, vri th or without a Petition; any Personinterested, may file a \.\rritten Protest against any phase of the project; only those protests submitted in writing, signed by the o\^rner, identifying the property and filed on or before the time fixed for hearing are to be considered in computing the percentage ofprotestst protests, documents, evidence and stat.ements may be presented during the course of the hearing and should be considered by the Council, but are not computed in the percentage comPutati on. I{ayor Martin invited Mr. Robert Ithompson, Chairman, Burlingame Chamberof comnerce Parking com[ittee to comnent. I*1r. ltrdnpson stated generally, that the object of this project is not only to provide additional parking stalls but also to imProve thetraffic flow in the area of Primrose Road, Park Road and Lorton Avenue and that professional studies have confirmed this; that the additionallots are located in the area of the greatest need and were recolunended as part of the 1961 study sulxnitted ty wilsey, Ham and Blairr that he considered the Post Office site acquisition to be essential to precl-ude some other use and its acquisition vrould ultimately be requiredfor multi-decking. Mr. Thqnpson stated that he did not, consider the pedestrian access to be finally essential but important from the point of view thatcirculation of pedestrian traffie from the Donnelly Avenue lots to Burlingame Avenue. Mr. fhqnpson further stated that the circulation of the petition hadresulted in very few reject,ionsi a good nruriber of owners had refusedto sign, stating at the same time that they did not protest. llfhe Chair then referred to the follo,,ring communications received inprotest to the supplement to the Parking Districts Iqr. S. N. vlhipple, orner of property described as being 65' on thenorth side of Burlingame Avenue by 125' beginning 434.58 feet fromLorton Avenue i Ur. Albert T. Declert, d,mer of property loeated at 1426 Chapin Avenue; of property located at 111L-1113 Howardlrlrs. Crissie !1. Avenue; and Uanley, cr,'mer fhe United States Carbon Corporation, 205 Park Road, protesting theinclusion of a hralkway bet$reen Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue. Itre proteEts lrere referred to the city Engineer for computation. RECE SS A recess was declared by the Chair at 8:5O p.m CALL TO ORDE R The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m. e,e? Follo'ring a review of the protests, the City Engineer reported thatthe valid tinely protest represented 1.47% of. the area of theproperties assessed. Attorney Jones advised that this was not legalty sufficient and that,Council could properly proceed with the hearing and determine thefinal outcome of the project. Mr. Hugh ir{ul1in, Attorney-at-Law, represent,ing the Bank of Atnerica,and Trustee, under the name of John Porsythe, addressed Cor:nci1stating that he had filed a letter with Lhe dity C1erk objecting tothe proposed pedestrian access-lvay but not to the project itself. Mayor Martin opened the hearing to oral protests, questions, cdltrnents and testimony and the foLlor,ring persons addressed Council. Mrs. Freda Freund, Donnelly Avenue property o\,rner, questioned why herproperty was assessed for land so far removed from her property. Mayor llartin responded that the benefits frorn the original Districtproject established bBnefits f-em the e-igi.lal Dis€riets rrej€€tffi for all property within the District; the currentproject is considered to be a supplement to the original and thereforof benefit to the same area. Irlr. Robert IaMar, property ovrner, 303-305 Californi-a Drive, posing aseries of inguiries t.o Council, referred to the possibility of preservingr the o1d City HaII as a City historical landmark, stating that tle renovation of the building to house small shops would serve the Cityto greater benefit than the few parking stalls the site would provideif the building were removed. Uayor Martin advised that a survey conducted some years prior by astructural engineer indieated that the building is unsafe and that remodelling eosts \.rou1d be excessive. Ur. Donald Spencer, property c,brner, 153O Rollins Road, questioned whether it is possible to delete the city Hall building only, $rith Attorney Jones replying affirmatively. Mr. Allan F. Hunt, Jr., property o\^rner, 347 Primrose Road, stated that he had received no notice regarding assessmentst that furthermore,he considered the pedest.rian access unnecessary because of theavailability of private stores for euch purposes. Itlr. walter H. vi ef.baum, Highland Avenue property o$zler, stated that the proposed lots t^rould serve to no advantage to business in his area. Attorney ifones, in response to the request of Mayor Martin, stated thatthe original Parking District to which his firm had served as bond counsel, vras based upon a careful professional survey of parking needsin the Burlingane Avenue areai the project as then designed, provided off-street parking facilities to all properties within the assessmentdistrict based upon a distance formula, which he recalled to be a minimum of three hundred feet; the original 1961 report on \"rhi ch thatproject was based, called for the acquisition of both of the proposed sites noe, contemplatedr that it is an established fact that the general area of these sites is badly congested from a traffic point of viev, and that more parking is needed in that part of the district. Attorney Jones.further stated that the availability of such additional parking in this particular location will make it possible for shoppers who now leave the area because they cannot find parking space to park and will thereby er*rance conunercial activities throughout the district; that this fact, p].us the improved traffic flor', \,thi ch the two additional lots will provide, establishes Iegal benefit to all properties within the District. 238 I'1r. I{ul1in suggested t}rat Council, rather than disturb the businessact.ivilies of Kern Jewelers, consider re-locat.ing the accexs-way betl"reen properties slightly to the west of the proposed site. Tlhe City Engineer, in reply to llayor Martin, advised that the costset forth for the acquisition and eonstruction of the access way, is $42,000.00 and the cost would be comparable if it were re-located. Mr. Bruce Kirkbride, 1229 Surlingame Avenue, stated that he hadcirculated a petition and in approaching the Dessin family, owners ofproperty on Primrose Road and on Iorton Avenue, they refused to signbut did indicate they v.rere in favor of the access-way to Burlingame Avenue. A recess was declared by the Chair at 1O:05 p.m. The meeting was again called to order by the Chair at 10:20 p m The hearing was continued from tJrose in attendance. by Mayor lrlartin inviting further eo[unents lilr. P. R. (Bud) Taylor, 33O Burlingame Avenue, identified as beingactive in the formation of the original Parking District, spoke infavor of retaining the lots and to provide an access-t ay and conmented upon the advantages it will serve the "mercantile arearr inthe future. Mr. Ho^rard Gunderson, associated lrith Levy Bros. Department Store, spoke on his experiences while circulating the current petition and wherein a "maj ority of the merchants were in favor of including thelots within the District. " Mr. ceorqe carbuio, 840 Linden Avenue, residents of the city do not favor thepreferring that it be preserved as the landmark. expressed the opinion that the razing of the city lta11,city of Burlingame's last Itre Chair referred to Mr. lr}ronas Sine, civil Engineer, who comented on the increased costs to renovate the building since a structural survey three years prior, indicating an overall expenditure of at least $3 50, OO0 . OO . Mr. Tlhompson, in issuing a final statement, stated that the present city HaIl is a "bottle-neckI in the floi^, of traffic from El camino Realto lirton Avenue which this proposed project will remove and further- more the establishment of this project will facilitate the accomplish- ments of the down-town beautification program which is being sponsored by the Chamber of conmerce. Mr. Edvrard Torello, 1145 Drake Avenue, Burlingame Avenue and areaproperty cnrrner, completed the list of interested persons speaking onthe issue, entering his obJection to adding further assessment to hisproperty holdings. The Chair thereafter referred to Council. Counci Iman Johnson commented on her aPproval to including the City Hal1 within the Parking District, reversing ber previous stand, statingthat while maintaining an attachment for the building, it has been declared unsafe. Councilman Johnson stated that she was opposed, hovrever, to the aceess- way at the location proposed and would be in favor of continuing thepresent hearing to consider alternate sites for the access-way. RE CE SS CALL TO ORDER ?.34 Councilman knstrup stated that his decision was based upon '\rhat is best for Burlingame; " that it would be poor inveatment to forego the $11OrOOO.O0 revenue the city would receive from the ParkingDistrict that could be reserved for improvements to up-date the present Library facilities. Councilman Anstrup concurred with tle statements of Councilman Johnson, with reference to the access-way. Councilman crosby indicated his approval to adding to the present Parking District, stating that he was in favor of an access-lray other than at the site proposed. Counci lman crosby, stating his opposition to expending funds torestore the city Hall, expressed himself also as favoring the allocation of funds toward improvement,s to the Library. !.layor Martin voiced his approval to the proposed addition to theParking District, but re-stated his opposition to providing an access-hray to Burlingame Avenue. Attorney Jones, in reply to an inquiry fronr the Chair, advisedthat Council may adopt legislature to make changes and amendments and to set a time for an additional hearing on the re-location ofthe walk-way. Counci 1 thereafter concurred to continue the hearing on the ParkingDistrict to April 6, L97O and that in the interim a resolution beprepared to include an alternate site for the access-r^ray for intro-duction at the next meeting for consideration at the April 6, 1970,Parking District hearing. PRE SENTATION BSHALF OF BURLTNGA}4E HIGH SCHOOL Ivlayor llartin announced the digression from the regular order ofbusiness to introduce lrlr. I'{ike Carboni, Burlingame High Schoolstudent, \,tro had requested pemission to speak before Council onthe issue of "phasing out" Burlingame High School,. ItIr. Carboni comnented briefly on the proposed of^Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall to elose Burlingame High Schooll'"fequested councilto publicly and officially oppose the closing of the facility bythe adoptj.on of a resolution and that Council support the opposition by attending future public hearings on the issue. A letter was ackncnrledged at this time from t{r. and Mrs. Robert F.creen, 2112 Carmelita Avenue, urging Council to exert its influencein retaining Burlingame High School. In the discussion that arose, Couucil meribers individually expressedtheir opposition to the proposal, indicating, hor.rever, that to takean official position collectively would be irnprudent. I{r. {homas Sine, Civil Engineer, at the suggestion of Counci lrnan crosby, spoke on his preliminary study of the issue and reported that hisfindings were f,avorffie ia "saving Burlingame High. " Mr. Sine advised that it was his intention to visit the Office of the State Division of Architects to obtain information on remodelling andthat he anticipates that he will be able to sutrnit a definitivereport that vrill retain the campusses of Burlingame, Capuchino and San Mateo High Schools, that will be at variance with the DMi, and Ir1report. Further discussion concluded with Mr. Carboni advised by Council ofits complete endorsement of efforts to defeat the proposal. Mrs. Betty Hallock, 824 Acacj-a Drive, expressed her approval to theposition taken by Council and spoke on the circulation of petitions 235 to the residents reguesting their suPPort in the retenti.on of a high school in the City of Burlingame. IIEARIIIG S (continued ) NAI,IE CHANGE "BAYSHOBE EIGHWSY " PROPOSED TO "AIRPORT BOUIJVARD " fhe City Planner, at the reguest of the Chair, outlined procedure applicable to the re-naming of streets as set forth in a netr provision of the ordi.nance code and thereafter refefred to public hearings before the Planning Commission on the proposaf to change the name of (o1d) Bayshore Highr^ray to Airport Blvd. and the diversified recommendationsof members of the Planning Commission wherein a consensus \.tas not indi cated . The City Planner stated that the proposal to change the entire street from the city boundaries of ttillbrae at the north and San Mateo at the south, no,v bearing several street names, to "Airport Blvd. "originated from the East of Bayshore Highway Improvement Association and the proposal subnitted to council was endorsed by several Property orrners within the area. !.{ayor Martin suggested that Mr. Leonard C. lfaldo, Secretary, East of Bayshore Improvement Association and Mr. Richard crey, vice-President, Consolidated Test & Equigrent, Inc., serve as spokesmen for the Pro-ponents and opponents respectively. Letters hrere acknor'rledged from the following, in favor of the proposed street name change: Burlingame Hyatt House, 1333 Bayshore Highway, Bay Air Investment co., 1669 Old Bayshore Highway, tlobert M. Blunk, A.I.A., 1310 Bayshore Highway, I€ Baron Hotel, 1380 aayshore Highway and Air Travelers Association, 1849 O1d Bayshore Highway. lhose in opposition to the proposed street name change rrere ackno^rledged and entered into the record as follorrrs: consolidated Test & Equipment, Inc., 1330 Bayshore Highway, Pneumatj.c Scale Corporation, 1499 Bayshore Highway, Sure-Tite Fasteners Corp., 1499 Bayshore llighway, Chicago Show Printing Co., 1799 Bayshore Highway, F & F laboratories, 1290 Bayshore Highway, Graphic Sciences, Inc., 1290 Bayshore Highway, Nationwide Design & Drafting Corp., 1330 Bayshore Highway, Mohawk Data sciences corporation, 1799 Bayshore Highway,Pacific Marketing company, 1330 Bayshore Highway, Silge Engineering, 1849 Bayshore Highvqr, wyandotte Chemicals Corporation, 1330 Bayshore Highway, U. S. P ll^"rood, Alan William Coon, 129O Bayshore Highway, Sanders Associates, Inc., 1799 OId Bayshore Highway, Princeton Applied Research corporation, L299 Bayshore ltighway, Tihomas A. Schutz Company, Inc. 1299 Bayshore Highway, Rohrer, Eibler & Rep1o91e, 1799 Bayshore Ilighway, All-steel Equipnent rnc., 1499 Bayshore lrighway, Paul v. Irliles Company, 1499 aayshore High$ray, Felton chemical company, 133O Bayshore Highway, Ardine Goss, A.I.D-, L29O Old Bayshore Aighway, Engineering Representa- tives cdnpany, 1499 Bayshore Highway, canberra Industries, 1499 Bayshore Highhray, Chase uetals Service, 1499 Bayshore llighway, Pacific coach and Ambulance Sales, 154O Bayshore Highway, American wood Preserves Institute, 1499 aayshore Highway, General Dlmamics, 1499 Bayshore High- way, Armour and Company, 1330 Bayshore Eighway, Ron Bailie School of Broadcast, 1330 Bayshore Hiqhway, Secretary, Research corporatj-on, 1290 eayshore Highway and a memo reporting a telephone message from Mr. James Mccready, Encyclopedia Brittannica, I33O Bayshore Highway and a communication from the Penn I'{utual Life Insurance Company, 1849 Bayshore Highway, not objecting to the change providing it is not accompl-i shedprior to a two year period. Mr. Waldo, initiating the discussion, comnented on the confusion createdin gi-ving traffic directions by reason of the three "Bayshoresi " "Bayshore Blvd., " Bayshore Freeway " and the "Bayshore Highway " andthe added confusion in the names of city streets on the continuous 286 major thoroughfare from the Peninsula overpass to the Airport. Mr. ltaldo reiterated the position of the Improvement Association inthat the "tenants are tlle problem of the landlord and not the Association's or the City'sl that trith the street name change to "Airport Blvd. " hotels within the area hrill attract a greater clientele and that with respect to an inquiry at a prior meeting coneerning "maps" Rand-McNally has indicated that street maps are revised every two years. lilr. Richard Grey advised that the entire area had been re-canvassed and that none of the tenants have indicated a..decision other than opPosingf the street mme change r that the greatest concern is thatof "traffic; " and that a lthough the taxes are assumed by the property owners, the assessments on properties are reflected in the rentalsof the tenants. !1r. crey referred to a copy of a letter received from CongressmanPauI N. Mccloskey, Jr., in reply to his letter, in which congressman Mccloskey commented upon the fairness of the Burlingame City Councilin rendering decisions and expressed his sympathy with'the majorityof tenants r^rho have opposed the street name change. Following a brief period of colunents from members of Council, MayorIrlartin invited other interested persons to speak. Mr. w. E. wi11iams, Regional Vice-President, U. S. Plywood, 1545 O1d Bayshore Highway, l1r. John Mccurdy, Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, I?99 Bayshore llighway, representatives from the Nationvride Design andDrafting Corp., 1330 Bayshore Highway, the Silge Engineering, 1849 Bayshore Highway and severaL other industries within the area, entered objections to the proposed name change, particularLy in referenceto the increase in traffic that vrould result because of the name "Airport, " the future readjustment to the address change that would be an inconvenience to the businesses presently located on Bayshore Highway and that the street name rtBayshore " is more appropriate tothe area. A. Itlr. Robert Celetti, identifying himself as being an "embryonic "in the Eubject area, offered a new street name to describe the area - "We Try Harder Boulevard. " His suggestion was endorsed by Mrs. Jeanne Mi11er, who added that the name would indicate that the tenants in the area are "different"and "creative, " Mr. David Keyston, developer, Anza Pacifie Industrial Park, stated that he would have no objection to ehanging the street nnme to one name for its entire length, provided the "Bayshore " frontage road rrere changed to avoid confusion. Folloring further discussion, Council concurred in an action as fo116,rs: 1. That tfie entire subject street be given a single name;2. Trhat the name "Airport Boulevard " is not acceptabler and3. Tlhat the PJ-anning comndssion conduct a public hearing on (a) a single name for the entire street, nolrr referred to as "Airport Blvd.,'the "extension of Broadway, " and "Bayshore Ilighway. " BOY SCOUT E'I,AG S Councilman Johnson advised that the Dads' CIub, associated \,ri th Boy Scout Troop No. 10, responsible for the PLacing of flgs uPon city street.s on special occasions, are vrithout space to store the flags and have questioned whether space may be made avai]-able in the City. fhe city Manager \"/as requested to investigate. ?,3.2 CITY HALL ART WORKS Counci Iman Johnson, Ci. ty HalI liaison, questioned Council eoncerning the department heads' selection of art works for their respectiveoffiees. Mayor Martin suggested that authorization be given to the department heads to select art works of the Burlingame Elementary School student artists and that additional art works desired, be purchased individualLy. ADJOURNIVIENT lhe meeting was regularly adj ourned at. 12:35 a.m. by Mayor llartin to meet at 8:00 p.m., on wednesday, March 4, 1970. ResPectfullY submitted, CTTY CI,ERK APPROVED: R. D . I4AR?IN, MN:'OR -r'MHERBERT K.'MIIIE