Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.04.07Burlingame, California April 7, 1975 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting at 8:23 P.M. by Mayor Irving S. Amstrup following an on personnel matters. held on the above was called to order Executive Session PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by Gerald A. Nordstrom, Chief of Police. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Harrison-Mangini Council Members Absent : None MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of March 17, 1975, previously sub- mitted to the City Council, were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 1. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENT -A -CAR, 1288 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY PERMIT APPROVED FOR EXISTING SIGN 25 FEET IN HEIGHT IN -C-4 DISTRICT Mayor Amstrup announced this was the time and place scheduled to con- duct a public hearing on the appeal of Councilman Harrison from Planning Commission grant of sign permit for the above firm. At Mayor Amstrup's invitation, Councilman Harrison discussed the reasons for his appeal. After reading Planning Commission minutes and issues raised at that hearing, he was concerned with: 1. This sign is higher than what is presently allowed in the C-4 District. It is non -conforming. 2. As one looks at the sign, there seems to be a question of whether it is a roof or pole sign. The sign is affixed to three poles, one part an overhang of the entrance. Since the Council is studying a roof sign amortization schedule, it seemed there should not be carte blanche approval for time immemorial. 3. The sign has been on the property for several years. When the new owner took possession, he altered the sign copy. At the Planning Commission level, it was pointed out that the non -conforming sign should have been removed when ownership changed. The City Planner, responding to Mayor Amstrup, informed the Council that the permit was approved by the Planning Commission on a vote of 4 to 3. One commissioner requested that the sign be lowered from 25 to 20 feet, which is now the permitted height of pole signs in the C-4 District. The applicant felt that would be considerably more expensive than he wanted to experience. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup accorded the privilege of the floor to the proponents. Cyrus J. McMillan, Attorney -at -Law, appeared in behalf of the applicant and owner of the business, Thomas Leonardi. Mr. McMillan informed the Council there was a full and fair hearing by the Planning Commission, that all of the commissioners had opportunity to view the sign, and that there were no protests from other property owners in the area. He explained this is not an application for a new sign but for permission to change lettering on an existing sign. Under the circumstances, in his opinion, there is some uncertainty that a permit is required by ordinance. The sign was built in November, 1966, pursuant to a building permit duly and validly issued. The sign has been used for car rental purposes since 1966. The sign was conforming when constructed. The only change, other than repairs, was inserting "American International Rent-A-Car" in place of "Thrifty Rent-A-Car." Mr. McMillan continued: 1. The sign is higher than permitted height at 25 feet instead of 20. At the time of construction 25 feet was legal. 2. The question has been raised whether this is a pole or roof sign. Mr. McMillan handed photographs to the City Council to show supporting structures and to substantiate the applicant's claim that it is a pole sign. Furthermore, Mr. McMillan noted, the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing indicate the Commission felt it was a pole sign. 3. Sign copy was changed but the building was occupied for rent -a car purposes at all times. Mr. McMillan stated there are many car rental agencies in the area in close proximity to the airport. One of the problems is providing adequate identification to customers so they can return the vehicles to the proper agency. Five traffic signals in front of American's building can be confusing to people not familiar with the area. For these reasons, the applicant considers the sign necessary to the business. Mr. McMillan submitted that the Planning Commission was cor- rect in its determination. Because the sign was entirely conforming, a building permit was issued. In his judgment, there is no reason why the sign should not remain for the purposes for which it was approved. There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared closed. At Councilman Harrison's request, the City Attorney read the definition of a roof sign recently adopted by the City Council --Ordinance No. 1023. Councilman Harrison asked the City Attorney, based on the definition, if he would define the sign depicted in the photographs furnished by Mr. McMillan as a roof sign. The City Attorney responded that he was not sure. Councilman Harrison expressed the opinion it is a roof sign and asked that it fall under the amortization policy by limiting the permit to a specific time. The City Attorney, responding to Councilman Mangini's request for clarifi- cation on legality of the sign, explained that when a new business replaces a prior occupant, and there is a change in sign copy, a new sign is created under administrative interpretation. That was the reason the sign came to the Planning Commission --a new sign, non- conforming. The ordinance now requires a permit from the Planning Commission. Mayor Amstrup commented there appear to be two areas of question: 1. Is this a roof sign? 2. If it is, will the sign automatically be subject to amortization? The City Attorney suggested that the Council not presume this to be a roof sign. Councilman Cusick asked if the applicant's attorney would be willing to concede this is a roof sign that will exist until the City Council proceeds with amortization. Mr. McMillan indicated reluctance to give a firm answer until there is information as to the amortization ped.od and whether or not all other car rental agency signs will be removed. He stated his client will be willing to cooperate but will expect equal privilege if other rent -a -car signs remain. Councilman Crosby referred to a statement in the Planning Commission minutes of February 10 "It was established, however, that it was a pole sign." He asked the City Planner if the Planning Commission established this as a pole sign. The City Planner responded "yes." Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner whether it is a pole or roof sign. The Planner stated it is his understanding it is a pole sign. He explained that the building was constructed around the pole sign. There are poles in the foundation in the ground below the building floor slab and one of the poles is a free-standing member that goes to the ground. It appears as a roof sign but it is a pole sign. Councilman Crosby suggested that the applicant might be asked to reduce the height five feet to conform to the 25 foot maximum for pole signs. He com- mented that this appeared to be a matter of concern to the Planning Commission. Councilman Harrison noted that the Planning Commission minutes indicate 2, the sign encroaches into the front setback. The City Planner confirmed this, advising that the building and the sign both are non -conforming because of encroachment into the front setback. Mayor Amstrup asked Mr. McMillan to comment on a five foot reduction in height. The latter stated his client was not receptive because the sign was built according to a permit issued by the City of Burlingame and, further, estimates received indicate a cost of $5000. Mr. McMillan advised his client would be willing to consider lowering the sign if thereisuniform.application to all car rental agency signs and upon presentation of all of the facts concerning treatment of all competitors' signs. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Harrison, the City Planner reported it is a matter of Planning Commission policy to request an application for a new sign where there is new copy on a non -conforming sign. The sign code is clear, after a property is vacated, that the building inspector must give written notice for removal of the sign. That was not done in this case. A new company leased the property and made sign wording change without a permit. It was after the fact that the application was presented to change sign copy. Councilman Crosby asked for comments from Planning Commission members in attendance on why they thought the sign was proper and why the permit was granted. Charles W. Mink, Chairman, reported he voted against the sign for many of the same reasons recited by Councilman Harrison. Commissioner Everett K. Kindig explained he voted in favor because if there was going to be a sign there, one that he personally disliked, the difference between 25 and 20 feet did not make that much difference in his estimation. He reported he was not pleased that the applicant altered copy prior to obtaining a permit. A motion by Councilman Harrison to overrule the action of the Planning Commission in approving the permit, in view of his and other comments, because of roof sign amortization studies in progress, and because of precedent setting implications present in all City Council processes, was seconded by Councilman Cusick. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney advised that passage of the motion would require the applicant to pursue abatement of the sign. Councilman Crosby pointed out that the sign reduced to 20 feet would remain in the front setback. Councilman Harrison explained that the intent is not to prejudice any future application for a sign that would be conforming. During a period of comment, Mr. McMillan stated that setback did not appear to be of concern to the Planning Commission. Councilman Mangini commented that the sign is not defined as a roof sign. It was constructed as the result of a permit issued by the city. In his opinion, it would be unfair to require its removal. Councilman Cusick asked if approval of the sign as it exists will deprive the City Council of its legal options with respect to disposition of the sign when amortization is implemented. The City Attorney suggested the Council may wish to consider modifi- cation of the roof sign definition. Councilman Harrison endorsed the City Attorney's suggestion, commenting that a change in definition could encompass the subject sign and others like it, thereby eliminating the obviously gray areas in the present definition. Mayor Amstrup recalled that the City Attorney was reluctant, earlier in the discussion, to categorize the sign as a roof sign and felt it could be difficult to defend in court. Councilman Harrison announced, in view of the City Attorney's position, that he would withdraw his motion (Councilman Cusick, the second, acquiesced) and move to sustain Planning Commission approval of the permit. Motion seconded by Councilman Mangini, all aye on roll call.- P � •'Y 3_/ 2. APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING TO EXCEED 35 FEET IN HEIGHT: CASA AMIGO - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL HOME FOR ACTIVE ELDERLY MYRTLE ROAD AND BURLINGAME AVENUE. Mayor Amstrup announced that he initiated the appeal hearing because there appeared to be a number of topics to be explored and decisions to be made by the City Council. The City Planner, invited by the Chair to comment, reported the prop- erties are in an R-3 District where maximum building height was 55 feet until an ordinance adopted last year established a threshold of 35 feet; any building exceeding 35 feet in height in R-3 is subject to special permit approved by the Planning Commission. This building is 52 feet in height. It satisfies all zoning ordinance regulations, including parking, and was approved by the Planning Commission on a vote of 5 to 2 after a public hearing. He stated there were references to utilities during the course of the Commission's hearing. Transparencies projected and discussed by the City Planner covered site and first floor plans, parking plan, typical floor plan, and elevations -- Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue. Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup recognized the applicant, Mr. Roy Johnson, 409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. Mr. Johnson stated the project will offer a form of housing important to the community. Size of structure and number of units were planned to qualify under FHA financing. Lower and middle-income people can be accommodated, which would not be possible under other types of financing. With respect to sewer and water services, Mr. Johnson stated the building will dispose of as much water into the system as a 20 to 25 unit apartment, approxi- mately 7,000 to 7,500 gallons per day. On the fire flow, Fire Chief Moorby appeared to consider the existing 2,500 GPM adequate, since this will be a fully sprinklered building. SUPPORT: Mr. Dean Meyer identified himself as a former 30 -year resi- dent of Burlingame and owner of vacant land presently used for parking opposite the Johnson property. Mr. Meyer supported the project because there has been little done in this City to meet housing needs of the elderly. He stated that this development will require less in the area of city services such as education, police and fire, than single-family dwellings for a comparable number of people. The location is unique, convenient to recreation, shopping, and transpor- tation. From the standpoint of traffic, impact should be minimal. OPPOSITION: Mr. Richard T. Perry, 601 Concord Way, stated this section of Burlingame Avenue is narrow, the street is parked solid daily from the tennis courts to the Recreation Center, and additional traffic to be generated by this development will compound existing hazards. High buildings with concentrations of population should not be permitted in predominantly single-family areas. Eunice Morrow, 301 Bloomfield Road, considered building design unattrac- tive and the use incompatible in an R-1 neighborhood. Mrs. Marjorie Taylor, 701 Burlingame Avenue, echoed Mr. Perry's comments relative to on -street parking. She maintained there will be impact on traffic directly related to the development because of additional delivery and service trucks coming into the area. Further, there are locations other than this community of small homes that can adapt more readily to big buildings. Because staff considers the sewer system "marginal," this suggests there probably will be problems. Mrs. Taylor requested the City Council to consider acquisition of some of the prop- erties on the opposite side of Burlingame Avenue from the Recreation Center for expansion of community park and cultural facilities. l_ +pmt' f There were no further speakers from the audience. The hearing was declared closed. Mayor Amstrup mentioned a proposed dining room, expressing concern this could be the start of a retail business if service were not con- fined to residents. He asked about the beauty shop and was informed by the City Planner that the applicant stated to the Planning Commis- sion this would be for the occupants exclusively. Mayor Amstrup stated his primary concern is with sewer and water. Councilman Mangini asked for clarification on Social Supplemental Income. Mr. Blaine Walling, Jr., responded that the term has been established by the federal government, replacing what was formerly welfare and OAS --Old Age Supplement. This is a form of grant given at the current time by the federal government under the Social Security administration to help people in this age bracket meet financial needs when entering a home such as Casa Amigo. People receiving some Social Security, supplemented with welfare, receive $303.00 a month; those receiving welfare only are granted additional funds for a total of $283.00 monthly. At the homes, a budget of $283.00 provides semi -private accommodations. The rate is $250 and the individual has $33 for personal needs. Those receiving $303 pay $270 for accommodations with an equal $33 for personal use. Councilman Mangini asked if people with incomes of $303 and $283 will be admitted to Casa Amigo. Mr. Walling stated this is correct. They would have all of their meals seven days a week, daily housekeeping, laundry and transportation. Medication is not included but persons on SSI would have Medical, which subsidizes drug costs. Mayor Amstrup asked Mr. Walling if he was speaking only of ambulatory. Mr. Walling explained that, for the most part, residents are ambulatory. Some considered non-ambulatory are assigned to first -floor rooms. They use pick-up walkers or wheelchairs but can make the move from bed to wheelchair without help. Mayor Amstrup then asked about treatment that can be expected when an 80 -year-old, for example, may become senile. Is this person asked to leave? Mr. Walling stated that the measure of determining whether or not a person can remain is that person's ability to comprehend and follow instructions to vacate the building in case of emergency. He stated that senility does not occur overnight. It is a progressing condition and when supervisors or administrators recognize the symptoms, relatives or the case social worker is alerted and arrangements made for transfer to a convalescent hospital where suitable care is available. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Harrison, Mr. Walling stated the building has been designed to accommodate active elderly persons. It will not lend itself to remodeling to a convalescent hospital. Councilman Crosby asked the City Engineer about adequacy of sewer system and whether tests have been made. The latter advised that studies have not been completed. Councilman Crosby asked if sewer facilities are considered adequate. The City Engineer responded they are marginal. He stated that if a new sewer system was designed for the area, and pertinent information was available on the Casa Amigo project, the new system would be larger than the existing. Councilman Crosby stated there have been occasions when the City requested developers to participate in new sewer construction. Councilman Crosby stated that two members of the Planning Commission who voted against the project were concerned with utilities. He, too, shares their concern but questions whether the problem can be resolved until engineering studies have been completed. Mayor Amstrup reported he has been discussing a 5 -year plan of sewer system reconstruction with the City Engineer. if The City Engineer reported that,/studies in progress show this to be a priority area, the system will be improved; otherwise, there will be no scheduled improvements. He mentioned a cost of $10,000. to replace sewer line on Myrtle Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue. Councilman Crosby asked who designates priority areas. The City Engineer stated that in the studies in progress he has asked for a rating of each of the sanitary sewers as to capacity and actual flow. In the event flow exceeds capacity, ratio will be established and the consultant will recommend to the City a 5 -year capital improvement project to abate excessive ratios. Whether or not Myrtle Road will be a priority area depends upon ratios. In response to inquiries from Councilmen Crosby and Mangini concerning financing improvements, the City Engineer expressed a personal prefer- ence for the 5 -year capital improvement project financed through general fund and income from sewer rental fees. Further in response to Mayor Amstrup and Councilman Crosby, the City Engineer said that the City has installed new water lines and, in some instances, requested developers to contribute to costs. Water main improvements program is being financed through general. fund and water sinking fund. Councilman Harrison asked the extent of improvements covered by the $10,000. The City Engineer responded- the sewer line on Myrtle Road from Burlingame to Howard Avenue. He mentioned there have been continuing maintenance problems at Howard and Myrtle Road. Councilman Harrison asked the City Manager if water and sewer improve- ments in East Burlingame would meet the criteria for Housing and Community Development Act funds. The City Manager confirmed this would be an eligible activity under the Act. Mayor Amstrup asked when engineering studies will be completed. The City Engineer advised the contract requires completion by the end of June. There probably will be a draft final report in May. The City Attorney advised that a parcel map will be necessary if the project is approved. Conditions with respect to public improvements are normally a part of the map. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Cusick, Mr. Walling stated there will be 104 residents, possibly 20 will be accepted under the SSI program. Councilman Cusick stated a recent press item quoted monthly rates at $400 and $500. Mr. Walling stated the figures were accurate but a certain number of SSI people will be accommodated. Councilman Harrison asked if the situation might develop where, if the facility proved very successful because of the number of applicants willing to pay maximum fee, that SSI applicants would not be admitted? Mr. Walling stated the developers work closely with State and County agencies and believe it is to their advantage to accommodate SSI people. Councilman Harrison asked if the permit could be conditioned upon a minimum of 15% SSI guests being admitted. The City Attorney indicated this would be possible. Mayor Amstrup recommended that the permit be conditioned upon the use extending to the total property, not just the building. Mayor Amstrup asked for comment from Fire Chief Moorby. The latter 0 �0 stated that fire flow meets requirements under present conditions. There is sufficient flow at 2,500 GPM to satisfy the underwriters for sprinkling the building. The system is adequate with the exception that there might not be full 2,500 GPM available if there are other developments in the area. This situation is developing all throughout the City. In reponse to Councilman Harrison, Mr. Johnson reported the sprinkling system is mandatory throughout the building. It is a requirement of the State Fire Marshall and the building cannot be built without it. The Chief Building Inspector raised questions of compliance with State requirements for the handicapped. Mr. Walling stated there will be full compliance; plans were reviewed and accepted by San Mateo County Department of Social Welfare. Following a recess at 9:55 p.m., Mayor Amstrup reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Mayor Amstrup asked for a consensus of the Council. Councilman Harrison felt the type of project was long overdue. Approval should be conditioned upon acceptance of a minimum of 15% of residents receiving SSI benefits. Councilman Crosby indicated no objection to the project and believed it would fill a need in the community. He asked if the developer would be amenable to a stipulation on financing of sewer improvements. Mr. Johnson stated that when this subject was discussed at the Planning Commission he thought a quarter of a million dollars was involved. If the City Council is discussing $10,000, he will not worry about it. In response to questions from Mayor Amstrup concerning a condition that the building use not be changed from that discussed, and from Councilman Mangini concerning restrictions on dining room and beauty shop to occupant use exclusively, Mr. Johnson informed the Council that the FHA 40 -year mortgage specifically spells out the uses and conditions, the operation will be audited annually by FHA. The City Attorney stated he would be interested in examining the FHA document. Councilman Crosby moved to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission in approving a special permit for a building exceeding 35 feet in height at Myrtle Road and Howard Avenue for the purposes of Casa Amigo, a residential building for the elderly, in accordance with preliminary plans on file, on the condition that the developer's agreement to contribute a sum of $10,000 for sewer system improvements on Myrtle Road between Burlingame and Howard Avenues, shall be forwarded to the City Council concurrent with the Parcel Map. Motion seconded by Councilman Mangini. Unanimously carried on roll call.1z. COMMUNICATIONS 1. PARCEL MAP CREEKSIDE NO. 2 In a communication dated March 28, 1975, the Director of Public Works forwarded to the City Manager for City Council consideration a parcel map of the property at 1521-23 Cabrillo Avenue providing for a minor property line adjustment to eliminate an encroachment of an existing building over a property line, approved by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on March 24. In an addendum to the communication, the City Manager recommended approval of the map. A motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Crosby and unani- mously carried approved "Parcel Map, Creekside No. 2, being a resubdivi- sion of Lots 2 and 3, Creekside." 2. RENEWAL OF COUNTRY ROAD DANCE PERMIT 1425 BURLINGAME AVENUE. Consideration of the above matter was postponed to the meeting of April 21, upon advice from Mayor Amstrup that he had received a telephone request from Mr. Frank Perez, owner, for a continuance. 3. SIMULATED BATTLE OF LEXINGTON AND CONCORD LOCAL INTERMEDIATE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS A communication dated March 31, 1975, was acknowledged from A. Hugh Livingston, District Superintendent, announcing the above event to take place on Friday, April 16, in parts of Millbrae, Burlingame and San Mateo. In his letter, Dr. Livingston expressed appreciation to the City Council for the high degree of cooperation received from the City Bicentennial Commission, the City Police Department and other personnel of the City Staff. Councilman Mangini, Assistant Principal at Burlingame High, School, stated that the battle will take place two different times at the Washington Park outfield,and the last activity will be a skirmish along the Southern Pacific right-of-way from Murchison Drive to Burlingame Avenue. MAYOR'S REPORTS INSPECTION OF HOMES: For the benefit of the audience and the two Council members absent from the last study meeting, Mayor Amstrup announced he requested that the City Council not initiate the home inspection program. The members who were present supported his position. It was agreed to abandon the idea. PRIORITY PROJECTS: A priority list was discussed so that staff would be aware of the City Council's aims. It was decided, that the police station and parking would be pursued simultaneously. Councilman Cusick asked for additional information on the precise increase in size considered for the police station. She recalled that former Chief of Police Lollin believed there would not be additional police facilities needed, nor additional officers, as a result of the Anza development, because Anza would have its own patrol. Councilman Harrison mentioned that depression of the Southern Pacific tracks at Broadway to relieve traffic congestion there was also con- sidered a priority project. There will be assistance from other agencies to help the City finance. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 21-75 "Accepting Grant Deed From Wayne Florin Rhoads and Anita M. Rhoads, Dated March 18, 1975" was introduced by Councilman Harrison who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Crosby and unanimously carried on roll call. Mayor Amstrup explained the City is acquiring a parcel lying along Mills Canyon to provide an access road for maintenance crews. ORDINANCES -- Second reading: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1033 (continued) "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 Chapters and Sections of The Burlingame Municipal Code." Acknowledgment was made of a communication dated April 7, 1975, from Thomas J. Hunter, Business Manager, Plumbers and Steam Fitters Local Union 467, 1519 Rollins Road, requesting that adoption of the above legislation be delayed to another meeting because a prior commitment precluded his attendance at the meeting this evening. Mayor Amstrup and Councilman Cusick both mentioned they had questions concerning some of the provisions of the Ordinance. In response to Mayor Amstrup's inquiry, there were no objections voiced by Council members to a continuance to the meeting on April 21. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1034: "Amending Section 17.04.210 Of The Municipal Code Concerning Automatic Sprinkler Systems In Certain Buildings." Robert H. Brown, 840 Hinckley Road, Real Estate Broker, addressed the Council. He stated that between the Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Code, there is adequate protection and whatever small benefit would derive from the sprinklers, the cost is very high and the burden unevenly distributed. He stated that his concern is that the City Council will be as concerned with the budgets of the people who build and own warehouses as they are with the budget of the City. Following comments from the Chief of the Fire Department expressing accord with the legislation, Ordinance No. 1034 was given its second reading. On motion of Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Cusick, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll call. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1035 "Amending Section 15.04.030 And Adding Sections 15.04.050 And 15.04.060 To The Burlingame Municipal Code Concerning Water Connections" was given its second reading. On motion of Council- man Harrison, second by Councilman Mangini, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll call. ORDINANCES - Introduction of: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1036 "An Ordinance Amending Section 25.12.010 Of The Burlingame Municipal 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 2, Town Of Burlingame, From First Residential, R-1 District, To Third Residential, R-3 District" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Crosby. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1037 "Amending Chapter 25 Of The Municipal Code Concerning Off -Street Parking Requirements In C-4 Districts, Lot Coverage, Set -Back And Landscaping Requirements In M-1 District, Lot Coverages In Residential Districts And Eliminating Use Variances" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Cusick. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1038 "Amending The Municipal Code By Adding Sub- paragraph (u) To Section 13.36.010 Prohibiting Parking On Airport Boulevard" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Harrison. STAFF REPORTS 1. Determining Conformity With General Plan: Under date of April 1, the City Planner forwarded to the City Council the following Planning Commission documents pursuant to Government Code Section 65402: 1. Resolution No. 5-75 "Resolution Determining Conformity With General Plan - Barnett Property," 2. Resolution No. 6-75 "Resolution Determining Conformity With General Plan, Lot No. 4, Viewlands Estate," 3. Resolution No. 7-75 "Resolution Determining Conformity With General Plan, Lands Of Kliewer And Molakidis." 2. Cost of Bus Shelter Glazed On Three Sides: In a communication dated April 3, 1975, to the City Manager, the Transportation Officer described features of the Sunshade Canopy type of bus stop shelter that is available at a cost of $1537 installed on site, and a standard model with glazing on three sides at a cost of approximately $3200. In a memorandum to the Council, the City Manager suggested installation of one model with glazing, the more -enclosed shelter, to test its feasibility. Following a brief period of discussion, Councilman Harrison. moved to authorize an expenditure of approximately $3200 for the glazed structure. Motion seconded by Councilman Crosby and unanimously car- ried. There appeared to be agreement by the City Council that the shelter will be installed on California Drive opposite Burlingame Avenue Southern Pacific Depot. STUDY MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS FOR OFFICIAL ACTION 1. Classification and Salary Survey: Councilman Crosby moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into and sign an agreement with the State of California, State Personnel Board, Cooperative Personnel Services Division, for the purpose of performing a position classifi- cation and salary survey for the City of Burlingame along with review period and appeal analysis. Motion seconded by Councilman Harrison, all aye voice vote. 2. Community Development Act: Councilman Mangini moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into and sign the First Amended Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Mateo for the purpose of their using our population base, and enabling the county and city to cooperate in undertaking essential community development activities under the Community Development Act of 1974. Motion seconded by Councilman Har- rison, all aye voice vote. 3. outfall Line Appraisal: Councilman Harrison moved to authorize hiring of appraisal assistance for the acquisition of an easement for our sewer outfall line through City and County of San Francisco property. Motion seconded by Councilman Mangini, all aye voice vote. 4. Second Appraisal of Carolan Avenue Properties: Removed from consent calendar. COUNCILMAN MANGINI REPORTS 911 Emergency Number Plan: The Civil Defense and Disaster Council met on March 6 and endorsed the approach for 911 funding taken by AB 416 introduced by Assemblyman Warren which would tax intra -state telephone calls. These funds would be distributed to local agencies for planning implementation and other on-going 911 costs. The Civil Defense and Disaster Council is going to the San Mateo County Criminal Justice Council for over $100,000 grant for microwave improve- ments and technicians to help all cities in planning communications upgrading, whether they join one of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) or stay by themselves. At the present time, there are three PSAP_`s being planned, north, Central and south county. Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Redwood City and Menlo Park will go alone at this time. All facts gathered from all of the studies will be available to all jurisdictions and each jurisdiction can make its own decision as to its policy and direction. Regional Planning Committee: At the meeting on March 27, RPC adopted bylaws. The purpose of RPC, basically, is to review and coordinate county -wide planning programs, which would require concerted action by a number of cities or by cities and county. RPC will not make value judgments; it is an advisory body and not a directing body; coordinated does not mean to make value judgments; it is a harmonizing and advisory body; final say will be left with the cities. Councilman Mangini explained these were the answers when he raised the question of interference with city councils' perogatives; nor will RPC interfere with any fund in any way that might be coming to the cities. RPC serves as an advisory body to the San Mateo County Transit District. In setting up Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of the RPC, there were several options to choose from in an attempt to limit the size of the Committee which, of itself, is a subcommittee of RPC. Burlingame was left out of one of the options and made an alternate member in another. Councilman Mangini stated, after he raised some question, it was agreed that ALUC membership would remain as is but with Foster City and the County added. The options raised were in the area of being contiguous by land to the airport. Not only is Burlingame contiguous, Burlingame has over 300 acres of San Francisco International Airport on the assessor's rolls. This was not recognized at the time the options were drawn up, but there has been agreement Burlingame should be a continual member of ALUC no matter how this subcommittee is reorganized. Council may also wish to know there was a meeting March 7 with the SanrFrancisco committee on SFIA. This is a joint policy committee and will be meeting quarterly to look into mitigating circumstances surrounding ground transportation, air pollution and noise. This joint policy committee will also be meeting with operating airlines and SFIA staff. Among some of the mitigating measures to be looked into are staggered working hours. United Air Lines has agreed to revise schedules, air movements will be rescheduled with neighboring airports such as San Jose and Oakland, and scheduling of materials for delivery into the airport will be studied. City -County Task --Force: Comprised of managers, planners and engineers of the county and cities. This group is recommending a special census and a date has been reserved for March or April of next year. This census could bring in $12 to $15 per head of gas tax money to the cities and about $7 to the county. Base of this census will be the 1970 census. The census will cost over $300,000 but there could be a gain of over $500,000 in benefits. Each city could be asked to pay its share. RPC approved the idea of the special census in concept, which is still in pre -planning stages. It is anticipated that all funding could come from the Transit District and the county on a fifty-fifty split of expenses. Cities will keep their share of any monies gained from the census. The county could not gain anything unless all the cities entered into the census. There will be a regular 1980 census. UNFINISHED BUSINESS GENERAL PLAN HEARING Councilman Cusick moved that the matter of amendment of the General Plan so that the map of the General Plan is the same as the map of the zoning ordinance be set for hearing at the meeting of April 21, 1975. Councilman Harrison asked if it was the intent of the motion to remove further hearings on this subject from the Planning Commission to the City Council, and the City Council will conduct a hearing on bringing the General Plan into accord with the zoning ordinance. Councilman Cusick stated that the Planning Commission has been studying this subject for 10 months. The Planning Commission has designated areas "A"thru "T" where there is non -conformity between General Plan map and zoning ordinance. Many of these areas are tiny. Commission proceedings could drag on forever. Councilman Crosby asked the City Planner if the Planning Commission is working on the General Plan and if the City Council, in effect, will be taking an on-going project away from the Planning Commission. The City Planner stated the Planning Commission conducted studies and hearings on two areas of the city ---Burlingame Park and Town of Burlingame. A report to the City Council dated January 28 concerned the findings of the Commission on these two areas. At that. time it was the position of the City Council to delay implementation of the Commission's recommendations pending resolution of rezoning mat- ters affecting three properties in Town of Burlingame and seven in Burlingame Park No. 2. The Planner stated it was his understanding that reclassification of the properties recommended by the Commission and amendment of the General Plan map to gain conformity with the zoning ordinance could be concurrent hearings. Councilman Crosby suggested that the proposed procedure may be improper. On matters relating to the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, the Council expects a recommendation from the Planning Commission before taking a definitive action. Councilman Harrison suggested that staff with a minimal amount of effort can determine the changes that have to be made to arrive at General Plan and zoning ordinance conformity. Following a recess at 11:04 P.M., Mayor Amstrup reconvened the meeting at 11:11 P.M. Mayor Amstrup asked if the Planning Commission has extended its studies beyond Burlingame Park and Town of Burlingame. The City Planner stated the Planning Department did a little more than what was -presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission heard only preliminary discussions of the Corbitt Tract and a listing of all areas to be considered for revision of General Plan to be in greater consistency with the zoning ordinance, but no official actions were taken. Councilman Mangini asked if the Planning Commission has a charge to proceed. He stated that, at the joint study meeting of the Council and Commission, Planning Commissioners left with the impression that, even if they did a great deal of work, the City Council would still agree with them. He asked if that was the understanding of all of the people who were present at that meeting and if Councilman Cusick was asking the City Council to undo that. Councilman Cusick stated that in reviewing the Commission minutes, nothing has happened.. It has been 10 months since her request was sent to the Planning Commission for recommendation of conformity of General Plan and zoning ordinance. She questioned why there should be any greater expenditure of time on staff's part and the Commission's part when the City Council appeared to be in favor of not wanting any higher density. She repeated that nothing has happened. Again commenting that most of the areas considered by the Commission are small, Councilman Cusick suggested there 'should be a last made available by the Planning Department of legal variances granted for apartments in R-1, and reclassification of such properties accomplished. In response to Councilman Crosby, the City Planner explained it was his understanding there would be no further work on the review of the General Plan by the Commission, and that the Commission left the joint study meeting feeling, individually and collectively, that it would go no further until there was direction from the City Council. The Commission made two recommendations to the City Council and both were denied. The Planning Commission scheduled no further work. Staff asked what project is to -be given top priority for the next year, and the Planning Commission directed staff to complete manda- tory elements of the General Plan to meet the September, 1,975 dead- line. Mayor Amstrup recommended, as a method of resolving the situation, that the City Council schedule a hearing on April 21 to consider amendment of the General Plan to conform with the zoning ordinance in R-1 and R-2 Districts where density proposed by the General Plan is greater than that provided in the zoning ordinance. There were no objections voiced by Council members. NEW BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL 1. PUTNAM BUICK, INC., REQUEST FOR APPEAL HEARING TO BE RESCHEDULED Because of the number of matters to be heard at the meeting on April 21, Mayor Amstrup asked that Mr. Joseph Putnam be approached concerning postponement of his appeal hearing on the Kohlenberg Ford sign to the meeting of May 5. 2. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE QUARTERLY REPORT: On motion of Councilman Mangini, second by Councilman Crosby and unanimously carried on voice vote, the statement filed by the Chamber of Commerce for the period April 1 through June 30, 1975, was accepted. 3. COMMENDATION TO POLICE PERSONNEL: Councilman Harrison related an incident that occurred two houses away from his home on Easter Sunday night involving an elderly, handicapped lady, who was rescued from her burning home by Sergeant Gerald McDonnell whose quick thinking and quick actions probably saved a life. The Fire Department, too,did an excellent job. Councilman Harrison stated he will write a letter of commendation for Sergeant McDonnell's personnel file. 4. FIRST BURLINGAME "STATE OF THE CITY CONCLAVE": Mayor Amstrup announced this informational meeting will be held in the Burlingame Recreation Building on Wednesday, April 30 at 7:30 P.M. The date was changed, subsequently, to Tuesday, April 29. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Amstrup announced that a formal commendation has been prepared for presentation to the Burlingame Rotary Club on the occasion of its Fiftieth Anniversary. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Minutes: Beautification Commission, March 6, Park & Recreation, March 11, Planning, March 10 and 24, Library Board, March 18, 1975. City Planner report of Planning Commission meeting March 14, 1975. Communications: Resolutions of the Cities of Rosemead and Pico Rivera opposing the passage of Senate Bill 275. Protest from A. Burke, Balboa Avenue, to proposed "home inspections." Richard Battaglia, Mayor of South San Francisco, letter to members of the Board of Directors, San Mateo County Transit District, submitting: recommendations concerning organization and future operations of the County's new bus system. Mayor Amstrup reported that he conveyed the views of the City Council at the last Council of Mayors' meeting with respect to a federated bus system that it be considered as an option. The vote was 10 to 5 on the federated system. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was regularly adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Herbert K. White, City Clerk