HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.05.1760
Burlingame,
I'lay L'7,
California
1971
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the
above date. The meeting was caLled to order at 8:05 p.m.,
Mayor Irving S. Amstrup presiding.
PI';EDGE OF ATI,EGIANCE
At the Chair's invitation the City Planner Ied the assemblage in the
Pledge of All-egianee to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present Councilmen:Absent Councilmen:
Am s t r up - C r o sby - John s on -Irta ng in i -l,ta r t i n
None
MINUTES
The minutes of the preceding meeting of I'lay 3, 1971, subrnitted to
Council previously, were approved and adopted.
HEART}re
I. VARIANCE FOR APARTMENT CONSTRUCrION IN R.I DISTRTCT DENIED.
Mayor Amstrup announced that this was the t,ime and place scheduledto conduct a hearing in the matter of an appeal for denial of
variance granted by the Planning Commission for multi-family useof first residential property at 1516 Newlands Avenue; the appeal
was filed by Mr. Robert E. Andersen, 1I3 Crescent Avenue.
In announcing ground rules, Mayor Amstrup stated that the floor was
open to all interested persons and, is a method of expeditingproceedings, that an attempt be made to avoid repetition of issues
raised by prior speakers.
In declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup recognized I"1r. Les
Alexander and lr{r. tyrell Barker, principals in the application for
variance.
Commenting individually, the applicants explained that the proposal
is to construct a five-unit apartment building, replacing an existingdwelling that has been neglected and permitted to deteriorate,
thereby providing a new, functional building in a desirable section
of the city to meet increasing demands for housing. The speakerspointed out that there are persons in the community who no longer
care to maintain large homes, are interested in apartment living,
and prefer to stay in the immediate area; they stated that thecityrs adopted general plan contemplates eventual multi-family use
of the subject property and the general area adjacent thereto, that
there are severaL multi-family buildings on the block and a new
apartment buildinq under construction on the opposite side of the
street that was permit,tad by variance.
fhe city Planner distributed copies of the plan approved by the
Planning Commission.
Ehe City PLanner commented that, normally, where there is an appeal
to an action taken by the Planning Commission, he would prepare a
background letter for Council's benefit but refrained in the present
situat,ion because the circumstances are very similar to the property
across the street that came to Council on anpeal.
The City Planner distributed copies of a land use drawing of
Newlands Avenue from EL Camino Real to lentral Avenue, prepared at
the time of the hearing for variance at 1511 Newlands Avenue, Hestated that at the prior hearing there was discussion in connectionwith existing mul tiple uses on the street and it was pointed out,that the building at 1510 is a seven unit apartment building, con-
verted from single-family without virtue of permit. He reported
61
that the property is the subject of a variance request presently
before the Planning commission to conditionally legalize the
building.
Ihe City Planner stated that when the prooerty which is the subject
of the lpoeal came to the Planning commission, the Commission considerod
the block of :'e\4rland s Avenue from El camino Real to central Avenue
almost entirely multi-farnily in use--some leqal, others not--and
approved the variance on that basis.
In response to I{ayor Arnstrup, the city Planner confi rmed that, in
addition to the buildinc at 1510, the building at 15O7 is illegal,
having been converted to five units without benefit of Permit. He
stateA that 1510 first came to the city's attention in 1959; at that
time, there were t$ro separate units on the uPPer floor, u'i thout
kitchens, and one unit on the ground floor and the remaining work
was completed within the following year or two--the neighbors were
aware of what was taking P1ace.
The City Planner rePorted that no one appeared before the Planning
commission to either supPort or protest the variance that is the
subject of the Present hearing.
In response to the Chair, there were no further comments in favor-
In response to councilman Martin, the City Planner stated that the
presenl buiLding is old but not completeJ.y deteriorated and sin91e-
fami ly in use .
In response to councilman Manqinits query concerning a sign
property indicating that some form of commercial use exists,
applicants stated that it was removed within the Past week.
The city Planner, responding to further inquiry
stated that certain commercial uses defined as
are 1egal in R-l Districts.
l,ilayor Amstrup acknowledged letters in opposition from Itlr- Robe rt
E. Andersen, 113 Crescent Avenue, who initiated the aPPeaI, I*trs.
llartha Herou, I12 Crescent Avenue, Mr. and Mrs. Richard I'tcArdle,
1720 Ralston Avenue, Mr. and lvlrs. L. P. Cusick, 1716 RaLston Avenue,
Dr. and Mrs. A.B. Collom, 310 Chapin lane, Mr. and l{rs- George K.
Koenig, a petition signed by Mr. and Mrs. E1don J. Rogers, 1575
rewLands Avenue, Helga A. Hasard and EIsa Sharin, 1569 Newlands Avenue
and Bruno V. Jerkie, 1565 Newland s Avenue.
on the
the
from counci lman Mangini,
"home occupations "
Mayor tunstruP invited oPponents to sPeak.
Mr. Robert E. Andersen, 113 Crescent Avenue, sulnnitted a Petition,
stating that it was his understanding there $rere apProximately 336
signatures.
Mr. Andersen read from a prepared statement requesting denial of the
variance on the follovring grounds:
Trhe area is one of the oldest but, nonetheJ.ess, one of the finest
residential seetions in the city, generally in good condition;
A recent influx of younger families has resulted in refurbishing
of homes that had been neglected--the area is not deterioratingt
Intrusion of aPartment buildings wiLl destroy the incentive of
or^rners to maintain their proPerties;
Neglect of some proPerties does not constitute a valid reason
for change in zoning;
lltre city has tolerated nume rous zoning violations in the area,
which has contributed to deterioration that does exist;
fhere has been no action taken by the city to Protect homeowners
who protested the existenee of such violations;
lntrusion of additional aPartment buildings could have been fore-
stalled had the city undertaken proPer enforcement of zoning rules
and tha t, it is unreasonable to insist that the existence of such
violations should be the basis for reconunendation of higher density
land use;
A situation of incompatibility of use develops where a multiple
building is permitted adjacent to single-fami Iy--the homeov,rner isdeprived of quiet enj oyment of his property and privacy and issubject to financial loss in attempting to se11 the property.
62
Trhe statement referred to therequisite to variance grants
application fails to cqnply.(l{r. Andersen's statement was
permanent record. )
four conditions recited by code as
and, in detail, cited areas where the
accepted for filing as part of the
Additional conunents in opposition were heard from Mr. and Mrs. J. P.Murray, 1525 Newlands Avenue, Robert V. Ohlson, 211 Occidental Avenue,I'lrs. Eldon Rogers, 1575 Newlands Avenue, and a Mr. Yaeger whorecently purchased the home at 200 Occidental Avenue.
The protestants reguested consideration to: preservation ofrighEs of establislied owners who have maintai;red their proper
many years in an effort to protect the residential characterneighborhood, establishment of precedent, refurbishing by newof neglected properties, invasion of privacy and deterioratioproperty values, increased traffic and noise nuisances.
propertyties for
of the
owners
nof
Mrs. Helen Rader, 301 Occidental Avenue, stated that she has been
@,rner,/occupant of the property for 13 years, that within the past
few years property valuations have been steadily decreasing; thereare dwellings in the area that, should be demolished and replacedwith new buildings.
Mayor funstrup recognized Mr. Barker vrho stated that the intention isto improve rather than depress property values and that it wasil1ogica1 to assume that a contractor hrould attempt to purchase any
one of the better properties for redevelopment. He stated that thereare buildings in various stages of deterioration that add 1ittle tothe area.
Mr. Barker stated that parking exceeds code requirements and that itwas questionable that traffie generated by a five unit building \"rouldcreate problems throughout the entire district.
Mr. Andersen stated that normal in and out traffic from an apartmentbuilding can become a nuisance to an adjoining homeowner--the numbe rof car movements is greatcr; there is more noj-se and headlightreflections can be annoying.
Ihere were no further connents fromdeclared closed.
the audiencei the hearing was
Replying to Counci lman alohnaon, the City Planner stated t}at thebuilding is in poor condition but not beyond repair.
Councilman Johnson stated that it has been her policy to uphold thedecision of the Planning Commission whenever gossibLe but that, inthe present situation, it would appear that the application failed to
meet code conditions requisite to variance grants.
Councilman Johnson inquired why the protestants failed to make theirpositions known to the Planning commission.
Mr. andersen referred to prior actions taken on the Jenkins property
at 151I Newlands Avenue, wherein the variance was denied by the
commission and subsequently approved by Council on the owner's appeal.
l'1r. Andersen stated there was a feeling that any concentrated effortin opposition \,ras futile at the Commission 1evel.
counci l-man Johnson stated there appears to be a trend tovrard -']
introducing multiple buildings into R-L districts by the vari.anceprocedure. She agreed that one building may not seriously affectdensity or traffic but, if the patt,ern continues unchecked, single-family
neighborhood s in time may become predominantly apartment.
Councj.lman .rohnson acknowledged that the PLanning Commission adheredto general plan reconurendations in approving the variancei notedthat the plan was i"ntended to be a guide for future development-not afixed zoning law-that every application must be judged on its merits
and, where circumstances justify, there will be departure fromgeneral plan reeornmendations .
In conclusion, Councilman Johnson stated that she deplored the
existence of illegal buildings and opposed mixed zoning.
Counci.lman Martin initiated a discussion in connection with the land
use map prepared by the City Planner, during whieh every property
srhere a zoning violation was indicated was discussed.
Councilman Martin noted that of the 14 lots fronting Newlands Avenue,
between E1 camino ReaI and centraL Avenue, nine are multi-family inuse--four apparently converted il1egaIly, the remainder possibly
non-conforming.
Ivlr. Andersen stated that the drawing would appear to be incorrect
on the basis of a survey that he made, to the extent of two andpossibly three properties. He reported that 1521 and 1527 have
been converted recently frorn Sup1ex to slngle-fani).y.
63
commented that the block is divided equaLly--
50% single-fami ly--consid ering the changes mentioned
councilman Martin
50$ multiple and
by Mr. Andersen.
Councilman Crosby mentj.oned that several of his neighbors on
Occidental Avenue have referred to a prior study of the triangle
bounded by E1 Camino Real, BarroiLhet and Hillsborough city limits
and are concerned about impending rezoning.
fhe City Planner confirmed that he made a very comprehensive studyin 1963, toured the area, checked every property and suggested inhis report that apartment uses gradually would develop from
E1 Camino Real $rest. IIe stated that the study was undertaken simplyto anticipate future changes and that no recotnmendations were madefor rezoning.
Mayor Amstrup announced that the City Clerk had verified that there
were approximately 225 signatures on the petition filed by Mr.
Andersen.
Councilman Crosby expressed the opinion that apartment buildings will
be permitted in the area eventually; he supported the Planning
Commission's position that the proposed improvement conforms togeneral plan proposals but agreed with Councilman Johnson that the
varj,ance procedure was not the proper approach to orderly redevelop-
ment.
I{ayor Amstrup, expressing confidence in the Planning Commission,
explained that because of strong aversion to spot zoning, he concurred
vri th Councilmen Johnson and Crosby that the variance be denied.
I,layor Amstrup announced that upon resolution of two court cases inwhich the city is presently involved in connection with zoningviolations, he wilI request Couneil's consideration to the illegal
apartment buildings mentioned earlier in the discussion.
Councilman litangini extended an invitation to the audience to provide
the Planning Commi sd.on and Couneil vrith assistance if and when thetime comes for implementation of general plan proposals. He pointedout that.thg-city is in a stage of transition, that permanent changesare ].nev]-tabl.e and the city will need the community. s help.
CounciLman Mangini agreed with sentiments expressed by felIow-councilmenin opposition to the variance.
Councilman Martin eommented that there has been a proposal before thecity for a period of close to six months which will have a tremendous
impact upon density but there appears to be little or no eorununityinterest. He commented that the people apparentty are concerned onlywith their own neighborhoods .
64
Counci lman Martin stated that he intends to support, the council in
denying the variance and was influenced by reason of the illegal
status of the building at 1520 Newlands Avenuei he stated that had
the building been legaI, he would have considered the zoning classifi-cation apartment by use and the proposed development a suitable
improvement.
Counci lman Martin pointed out that rezoning by variance gives to the
city the advantage of architectural control. He cited successful
aPartment buiJ.dings developed on Capuchino through this method and
suggested that the block of Newlands Avenue might be treated
simi larIy .
A motion introduced by .ounci lman Crosby to overruleof the Planning Commj"ssion and the vari=nce be denied
construction at 1516 Newlands Avenue was seconded by
Johnson and carried unanimously on roLl caLl.
the decisionfor apartment
Counci Iman
RECE S S
Prior t,o deelaring a recess at 9:20 p.m., Mayor Amstrup displayeda copy of the "Villager, " a new 1ocal publication and sugqested the
audience's consideration to the current issue, devoted primarily
to coverage of "Burlingame Days" activities.
Ir{ayo r Amstrup acknowledged Mr. Jerry Ezrin, reporter, l.lilIbrae teader,
expressing Councilrs appreciation for the extensive coverage given
the City of Burlingame by the paper.
RECONVENE
!1he meeting was reconvened by Mayor funstrup at 9:35 p.rn.
COMMI'NICATION'
1. I'TEE CANDLELIGH']ERS" DANCE PEI1MIT
A letter dated April 29. 197!, from " TEr CANDIILIGHTTRS, " 866Monterey Ebulevard, San Francisco, signed by Dave Hopkins
requested permission to hold a public dance on Friday, May 28, 1971,in the Marquee Room of the Burlingame Hyatt, House from 9:o0 p.m.,
to 1:00 a.m, for single persons between the ages of 25 Eo 55,
admission subject to charge.
llhe Chair acknowledqed receipt of investigation reports filed byfire and police departments and the county sanitarian indicating no
ohj ect,ion to the permit.
Upon inquirv by the Chair, it was determined that the applicant was
not present nor represented.
During a period of Council comment, Mayor Amstrup and CouncilmanMartin stated they would prefer not taking an action at this t,ime,referring to prior similar situations where permit.s were delayed by
reason of the applicant's nonappearance.
counci lmen Crosby, Johnson and Mangini noted that the request was
for a single function on a date prior to Councilrs next meeting
and that, a continuance woul-d have the effect of disall"ot^ring thepermit.
A motionto table
introduced by councilman Martin and
the matter was declared defeated on
seconded by Uayor Amstrup
the following roll caJ-I:
AYE S : COUNCI Ll.{8N :
NOES: COUNC IIJMEN:
ABS:ENT COIJNCILMEN:
Anstrup, Martin
Crosby, Johnson, Ivlangini
IiIone
A motion was introduced by Councilman Mangini and seconded by
Councilman Crosby to approve issuance of a dance permit to "IIIE
bc
CANDLELIGHIERS, fi restricted to May 28, 1971, between the hours of
9:00 p.m., to 1:00 a.m., ?t the Marquee Room, Burlingame Hyatt
House, subject to management of the Hyatt House complying with fire
department requirements in connection with a padlocked gate on the
Bayshore Highway frontage (fire Inspector's report dat,ed May 4, L97L,
on file.) fhe motion was declared carried on the following ro11 call:
AYIES: COUNCIL!{EN: Crosby, Johnson, ManginiNOES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup, I{artin
ABSENT COUNCILTvIEN: NONe
CHANGE IN ORDER OT BUSINESS
Mayor Amstrup announced a departure from the agenda order to allow
consideration of items under ,'UNFINISIIED BUSINIESS."
1. REVOCABIjE PERMIT, P]LClrrC TEL,EPHOIIE AND lEr.,EG PH
A request subrnitted to Council at the meeting of May 3, L97L, from
the Pacifie Tel-ephone and Telegraph Company for an easement to
underground installations on the cityrs parking lot, adjacent to
Standard Oil Company property at Burlingatme Avenue and El Camino
Real, was referred to the City Attorney and city Engineer for
investigation and report.
Mayor Amstrup requested the City Attorney to eomment. lfhe latter
advised he discussed the matter with Mr. P.f. Quandt, right-of-way
agent for the telephone company, explained that the city may
encounter certain difficult,ies granting the requested easement but
that, these could be surmounted by grant of License or permit subject
to certain conditions, incl-uding a revocability clause. The city
Attorney reported he received a letter from Mr. Quandt subsequent to
the eonversation indicating the companyrs willingness to accept apermit in lieu of easement and reciting conditions applicable thereto.
flre letter was read by the City Attorney.
Mr. George Schmit,t, District Managler, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company, addressed Council, confirming that the conditions noted in
the letter were acceptable,
Fo11o,,ring comments from the City Attorney concerning the period of
time for notice of revocation, Council indicated no objection to the
L2O days mentioned in Mr. Quandtrs letter and agreed with Councilman
Martin that condition #3 be amended to provide for "five (5) days"
notice to the City Engineer prior to eonmeneement of work on the
installation.
RESOLUTION NO. 28-7L (oral, to be reduced to writing) 'rAuthorizi,ng
and directing issuance of revocable permit to Pacifie Telephone and
Telegraph Company for underground installations on portion of City
of Burlingame Parking L'ot 'K'" was introduced by Councilman Crosby,
who moved its adoption, seconded by CounciJ.man Johnson and carried
unanimousl.y on roLI call.
2. BIDS - BAYSIDE PARK BALLFIELDS
Mayor Amstrup referred to a question that arose at the meeting of
May 3, 1971, in connection with bids received for "Bayside Park-
Phase I" which caused postponement of the award of contract and
requested the City Attorney to comment.
trhe City Att,orney stated that the Low bidder's failure to file the
Iist of sub-contractors with the bid documents, as required trlz Iaw,
and the subsequent filing approximately two (21 hours after bid
opening posed a Lega1 probJ.em as to the effect of the late filing.
fhe City Attorney explained that the low bidder has the right to
withdraw his bid but that he does not wish to do so and under appli-
c*Le government code sections, when a eontraetor files a bid withoutlisting sub-contractors for certain requisite specialities, he is
deemed to be the person who will perform the special work. ftreCiLy Attorney explained further that applying that code section inthe present situation, thetr.ow bidder may receirre the award of bid,provided he is qual-ified by the licenses he holds from the State todo all of the work involverl.
t-
66
lltre City Attorney stated that, as directed by CounciLman Martin at
the last meeting, he learned that the low bidder holds c-27 (r-ana-
scaping), C1ass B-1 (Genera1 Building Contractor) and Class A
(General rnqineering Contractor) Licensesi furthermore, he verified
the information with the Contractorsr State License 'lloard and, also,
that all of the work might be rlone by the low bidder.
tlhe City Attorney reported options open to Council, as follows:
award the cont,ract to the low bidder, should he desire to accept it,
or reject all of the bids and re-advertise.
','r. Robert J. Williams, Attorney, San Jose, speaking in behaLf ofco[ishaw Sprinkler (the low bidder) , stated that the import of hisletter to the City Attorney was to confirm hie client's desire to
accept the contract for the work.
Mr. Williams explained that his client intended to employ sub-
contractors in the areas where they were named, that through inadver-tence, the list was not filed as requircd by law, and that theeontraetor, electing to exercise his option, agrees that he isqualified to undertake and complete the project.
Councilman Martin mentioned the variety of construction workers tobe employed and questioned whether ColLishaw Sprinkler actuallyintends to do all of the hiring.
Mr. Williams stated that the firm is closely associated with Bleily
and Collishaw, Inc., that the latter firm customarily does all ofthe structural work, has agreements with the trades to which
Councilman lltart,in referred and that it would be a simple matter forhis client to make the same arrangements and to have the manpoweravailable because of the scope of the corporate structure.
Mayor Amstrup recognized lvtr. Joseph D. Ge11er, Attorney, representing
Munkdale Bros (second low bidder,) who alleged that the bid ofCollishaw Sprinkler was defective and should be rejected, because ofthe contractorts failure to observe proper procedure. Mr. Gellerstated that the government code section mentioned by the CityAttorney refers not to licensing but states that a contractor mustbe qualified to perform the work that ordinarily would be performedby sub-contractors.
Mr. Geller submitted that it will be impossible for Collishaw Sprinklerto perform all of the work, that, as a practical matter, it wouLd bevirtually impossible for the work to be done by a general contractor,that the related corporations referred to by 1,1r. Williams are
separate entities, thereby precluding one corporation from employinganother corporations' union contracts. Mr. Geller requested thatthe city require the entity that filed the bid to prove ability t,operform the work without using other corporations.
A motion introduced by Councilman Crosby and seconded by CouncilmanMartin to reject all bids opened on April 28, L97L, \^ras unanimouslycarried on ro11 calI.
A second motion introduced by Councilman Crosby directing the projectarchitect to re-advertise for bids "Bayside Park-Phase Irr at theearliest praeticable date was seconded by Councilman Mart,in and unani-
mously carried on ro11 call.
3. ANNEXATION WATIGORE AND KAVANAUGH PROPERTIES, ALVARADO A\/ENT,E
A petition filed by Norman w. and Henrietta O. Kavanaugh, L475
Alvarado Avenue and Robert S. and Rosemary Waligore, L46L AlvaradoAvenue (Aurlingame Hills) for annexation to the City of Burlingamewas submitted to Council at the meeting of May 3, Lg'lL, and actiondeferred to the present meeting at the request of the City Attorney.
The City Attorney reported he conferred with Mr. Kavanaugh in regardto withdrawal of the two propgrties from the Burlingame Hills
Sewer l,laint,enance District (condition imposed by IAFCO in its
67
resolution approving the annexation, ) suggesting that he sutrni t awritten request to the Board of Supervisors for the exclusion of theproperties from the District effective sj.multaneously \.ri th city of
Burlingame's annexation.
lllhe City Attorney, pointing out there is a three-week interval beforeCouncilrs next meeting, suggested that the required ordinance be
introduced at this time; in the meantime, if Mr. Kavanaugh encountersdifficulty at the county Ieve1, he will assist him.
ORDI}IANCE NO. 935 "APPROVING ANMXATION 1'O
UNINHABI TED CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY DESIGNATED
IGVANAUGH ON ALVARADO AVENUE " was introduced
councilman Johnson.
TIIE CITY OF BURLINGAME OFI'IANDS OF WALIGORE AND
for first reading by
4. I,*IEATLEY/OLIVE R RE: I.ATID S OF BURLINGAME SHORE IAI{D COMPANY
Mayor Ans t,rup acknowledged receipt of a letter dated t"lay 13, 197L,
from Leon !,1. wheatley,,/Richard B. oliver, 220 California Street,
Palo A1to, signed by Mr. Oliver, sulxnitt,ing copies of preliminary
landscape plan in connection with the proposed develotrxnent of
Burlingame Shore Iand company acreage, generaLly bounded by
Bayshore Boulevard, Cadillac l{by and Carolan Avenue. Additionally,
the communication reported that a draft of the proposed zoning
contract requested by Council was delivered to the City Attorney.
fhe communication requested Councilrs favorable consideration to
the submitted drawings and draft of contract.
The city Attorney acknowledged receipt of the draft, stated that
copies were circulated to planning, engineering and fire departmentsfor conment but, because of the time element, it was not possibleto prepare an agreement in form for transmittal to Council with
the agenda material.
Mayor Anstrup recognized Mr. Oliver vrho explained that he had
attempted to meet the ded.ine for Council to review the materialprior to the present meeting. Ivlr. OLiver stated that, at, this point,
time is of the essence and that further delay mav create serious
problems in arranqing financing.
councilman Martin objected to taking an action on the agreementwithout prior study.
In response to councilman Martin's querv concerning development ofthe parcel designated for restaurant use (Parcel B), Mr. OLiverreporte.l that the agreement relates solely to the apartment project,
except that there is provision for the property to be divided into
two parcels--one the site of the apartment complex, the other to bethe subject of a separate agreement between the city and the present
owner for restaurant or other improvement.
councilman !.{artin commented that. in place of a single development
Council will be confronted \"ri th t o separate propos.ls by different
owners.
^t Mayor Amst,rupr a request, the City Attorney read the draft of
aqreement in its entirety.
During the ensuing discussi-on, there appeared to be some differencesof opinion as to inclusion of the restaurant parcel in the agreement.
Follovring cornments from council, Mr. Oliver stated it -.;as his under-
standing from prior discussions that the parcel was to be excluded,
becnnse arrangements had not been made with a specific tenant, andthat the present ovrne r \.ra s to as:;rme responsibility for improvementof the site and bring his proposal to Council separatelv.
fhe City Planner reported that, based on his interpretatir:n ofdiscussinns before Council, he advised the Planninq Commission,the ti'rre the zoning variances were considered, to disrqq;rd ghs
restaurant site.
theat
68
councilman l4artin stated that the agreement need not specify aparticular restaurant but should at least attach the use classifi-
cation to Parcel B, thereff eliminating the possibility of proPosals
that would be totally unaccept,able.
Mr. O1iver informed Council that the attorney for Burlingame Shore
Iand company was present and willing to accept the qualification
suggested by Councilman Martin.
In response to Councilman Johnson, the City Planner and Fire Chief
reported they suggested some changes in the agreement in areas of
concern to their departments, the city Engineer stated that he was
satisfied with provisions for completion of public works and related
matters.
the City Attorney, in response to Mayor Amstrup,
Council willing, the agreement will be rewritten
amendmenLs requested by Council, as follows:
stated that,
to incorporate
1
2
Strike reference to "restaurant site, " paragraph l"REcIfALs,Limit Parcel B to restaurant use, any other use to be at councilrs
discretion; preliminary and working drawings for improvement of
the site to be subject to Council approval;
Working drawings for remainder of the project subject to council
approval;Strike reference to parcel map, (paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (1);
Add "and,/or off site" in connection with installations of fire
hydrants, etc., sub-paragraph (6) ;Provide for amending Fire zone Maps applicable to Parcel B, at
Council's discretion.
3
4
5
6
RE SOLUTION NO. 2 9-71
execution of agreement
oJ-iver, et al-., for improvement of acreage bounded generally by
Bayshore Boulevard, cadillac i|lay and carolan Avenue, " was introduced
by Council-man Johnson, who moved its adoption, seconded by counci lman
Crosby and declared carried on the follovring ro11 call:
AYES: COITNCILMEN: Atnstrup, Crosby, ifohnson, Mangini
NOES: COUNCI Lrlt{EN: Martin
ABSENT COUNCII,MEN: NONE
A conununication dated May 12, 1971, from the Director of Public Works
reported that venturini Trucking and crading company has satisfactorily
completed the annual work of sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs in
accordance with the contract and recommended acceptance of the Project.
An addendum to the communication from the City Manager dated May 13,
1971, concurred in the recommendation,
(oral, to be reduced to writing) "Authorizingwith gurlingame Shore Iand company, Wheat1ey,/
"Accepting City Sidewalk Repair Program, 1970-
s introduced for passage on motion of councilman
RE SOLU ION NO 30-71
1971, Job No. 70-8 wa
Crosby, seconded by Councilman Mangini, and unanimously carried on
roll calI.
3. ADDITIONS TO FIRE STATION NO. 3
A letter dated Apri.l 26, 197l., from Albert w. Kah1, Project architect,
reported that the work of remodeling Fire Station No. 3 has been
completed in accordance with the contract. and recommended acceptance -and filinq of notice of completion. An addendum to the letter from I
the City Manager under date of I'lay ]-3' L97L, concurred in the recom-
mendation.
RE SOI.,UTION NO 31-71station No. 3" was int
Ivlangini, seconded by Croll call.
"Accepting construction of Additions To Fire
roduced for passage on motion of councilman
ouncilman crosby and unanimously carried on
1. RESOLUTION NO 32-7L "Re questing Allocation Of Funds From Ttle
California State Highway cornnission For Improvement Of A Portion of
Howa rd Avenue, California Drive And Bayshore Highway As A rTopies
COMMUNICATIONS (continued)
2. SIDEVALK REPAIR PROGRA!4
RE SOLUTlONS
69
Project'r' was introduced for passage on motion of Councilman Johnson'
seconded by Councilman Crosby and carried unanimousLy on ro11 call.
ORDI}iANCE S
1. ORDINANCE NO. 934 "An Ordinanee Amending flre Municipal Code Of
ttre @ By Adding Ctrapter 18.20 To Title 18 Grading,
Excavation And fiILs, r' was given its second reading and on motion
of Councilman Martin, seconded by CounciLman Johnson, said Ordinance
passed its second reading and was adopted on the following ro11 call:
AYES: COUNCILI{EN: Amstrup, Crosby, Johnson, l,langini, l"lartin
NOES: COUNCILMEN: NONC
ABSENT COUNCILI"IEN: None
NEW BUSINESS
I COUNCIL COMI.4I s L97l-72
Mayor Amstrup announced the following Council committees:
Councilman crosby:Finance, liaison to Library Board;
Mayor Pro re Johnson Sister City, Liaison Chamber of Commercei
Cgulrci lgran Me4g1ni,:Liaison Planning Comrnission, Emergency Services;
Councilman Martin:Budget. Chairman, ABAG,Regional Planning Committee,iation;Liaison Burlingame Hills Improvement Assoe
Ivlayor Amstrup: Budget, ABAG alternate, Regional Planning Committee
alternate, Greater Highways Commission, \rorth County Council of
Cities, San l4ateo County Council of }layors, San Mateo County Convention
Bureau, dan llateo County Development Association.
2. VOUTH IN P,NMENT DAY
I'or Council's benefit, Councilman Irlangini reviewed the program of
events for Youth in Government Day, May 24, L97L, oointing out that
activities will commenee at 8:45 a.m., &t the City Hall.
COUNCIL}TAN JOHNSON REPORTS
Councilman Johnson stated that she has had telephone calls from
Mr. t{illiam l"lccowan, Chairman, Parish Senate, our Lady of Angels,Mrs. James tIaxwell, mother of the chiLd injured in a recent accident
in the area of Hillside Drive and Cortez Avenue, and Mrs. Noel Bayley,
Chairman, Mother's Club, Our Lady of Angels, all vitally concerned
with traffic hazards in the area of the school and church and
requesting Councilrs serious consideration to implementation of
addi tional traffic controls;
Announced that the dedication ceremony of the bust of General ,Iose
l{aria Morelos, will be hel-d at the City HalL on Thursd.y, May 20, L97L,
at 2tOO p.m., and that the firehouses will be open for public view
on that date from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.i
Attended Exchange Club annual luncheon meeting where senior boys fromthe loca1 high schools are guests and enjoy the opportunity of
accompanying an Exchange Club member to his place of businessi
Reported that approximately 11 favorable responses have been receivedfor participation on the Cultural Center Committee.
ACKNOWI,EDGIVIENTS
Communications:
1. James V. Fitzgerald, Chairman, San Mateo County Board of Super-visors, eoneerning tourist and convention program. Ir{ayor Amstrup
reported that he will attend the meeting on Irlay 20, L97L.
70
2. The American Legion, Office of the National Headquarters, requesting
support of a united plea in behalf of American prisoners of war in
Southeast Asia. A copy of a letter prepared by the American legion,
addressed to the ehief of the United States delegation to the Paris
Peace negotiations, was submitE,ed for endorsement. tlayor Amstrup
requested that copies of the Letter be furnished each Councilman.
3. Councilman Thomas M. Jenkins, San Carlos, regarding City of
San Francisco proposed transfer of water revenues to general fund
and submitting copy of his letter of protest, in behalf of Peninsula
Water Agency, to Mrs. Dianne Feinstein, President, and t'lembers of
Board of Supervisors, San Francisco. Ttre City Manager \^ras requestedto fonrard a letter to the appropriate official in San Francisco
endorsing the action taken by lr[r. Jenkins.
4. City l{anager memo of }4ay 13, L97L, re Traffic Surveys, TrousdaLe/
Sequoia and Hillside,/CorEez. Mayor Amstrup reported the Hea1th,Safety and Traffic Commission has requested that Council withholdaction on the Director of Traffic recommendations temporarily,pending a further report from the Commission.
5. City Manager memo of May 13, L97L, submitting suggested noticefor placement in Western City Magazine soliciting applications forposition of City Planner. fhe City Manager was authorized to proceed.
6. Letters of commendation for fire department assistance in emer-gency incidents from Burlingame School District and Mr. William
Key, Jr.
7. Burlingame Chamber of Commerce ekno&e dgment of Council andcity staff cooperation on the e casion of the recent Community
Parade.
8. Copy of City of San Mateo resolution recommending RegionalPlanning Committee develop sub-regional plans for sanitary seli/agedisposal. The City Manager was directed to for-ward a communicationto the Board of Supervisors requesting that the Regional Planning ,
Committee be instructed to obtain an estimate of the cost of professionraI services required to satisfy the demands of the Regional- Water QualityControL Board.
9. CoPy of City of El Monte resolution opposing any attempt to alter
method of administering Uniform Sales and Use Tax under Bradley-
Burns Uniform Iocal Sales and Use Tax l.aw.
l,linutes:Park and Recreation Commission, April 20, L97L, andPlanning Commission, May 10, 1971.
COMMISSION VACANCIES
The City Manager suggested that Council consider meet.ing with
nominees for existing Commission vacancies, possibly at 7:30 p.m.,
on the date of the next Council meet,ing.
JUNIOR FI PATROL
Mayor Amstrup announced that the Fire DepartmenL will host theJunior Fire Patrol at the annual picnic Wednesday, l,lay 19, L97L,
Washington Park, 11:30 B.rn.
MAY WARRANTS
In response to Councilman Martinrs inquiry concerning purchases ofmaterial from other than locaL firms, specifically Foremans in SanlIateo, (Warrant No. 7777) Ctrief of Police lpl1in explained thaton eertain items Foremans are less costly than locaL sourcesi
Warrant No. 7766, Morris Da1ey, Inc., - locks and bo1ts, RecreationBuilding Auditorium; the City Manager was requested to determine theextent of the purchases.
Warrant No. 7828, Riviera Sofa Bed Company - Fire Clrief Moorbyreported the furniture was for Fire Station No. 3, part of the costbeing charged to Capital Out1ay, the remainder departmental budget.
77
APPROVITS
Warganls: Month of May, 1971, Nos. 7676 through 7865, in the
amounEffi,75o.66,du1yaudited,wereapprovedforpa1rmenton
motion of Councilman Mangini, seconded by Council-man Johnson and
unanimously carried.
Payroll.: Month of April, 197L, Nos. 18389 through 18961, in.the
amouiffi92,L35.83,wereapprovedonmot,ionofCounci1manMangini,
seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously carried.
AhTOURNMENT
ftre meeting regu]ar1y adjourned at 11:20 p.m., to be followed
immerliately by Executive Session.
Respectfully subrnitted,
He rbert K. Idhite
City Clerk
rving S.Amstrup, ylayor