Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1974.05.06175 5 Burlingame, California May 6, 1974 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was called to order on the above date at 8:10 p.m., Mayor William J. Crosby presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: R nT.T. CAT.T. Led by Gerald A. Nordstrom, Captain of Police Councilmen: Present: Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Harrison Councilmen: Absent: Mangini (excused, illness) MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 15, 1974, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. BIDS - RECREATION BUILDING ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS - PROJECT 5 Contractors' bids for the above project, opened on Tuesday, April in accordance with published notice, were declared as follows: ALTERNATE #1* CONTRACTOR BASE BID (DEDUCT) Caland Properties, Inc. Late (not accepted) Hodgson Construction Co. $216,000.00 $1,541.00 Stevenson Pacific, Inc. $233,400.00 $1,500.00 White, Howard J., Inc. $243,800.00 .$1,600.00 Tyson Construction $256,000.00 $2,000.00 Thornton Construction $261,990.00 650.00 *Alternate 41 - Paint in lieu of vinyl walls **Alternate #2 - Patio Court Architect's Estimate Total Project Except Landscaping: 30, 1974, at 4:00 p.m. ALTERNATE #2** (ADD) $40,000.00 $39,500.00 $44,400.00 $47,500.00 $47,500.00 $259,377.00 In a communication dated May 1, 1974, Kingsford Jones, Project Architect, recommended award of contract to Hodgson Construction Company, low bidder at the base price of $216,000.00, which includes vinyl covering on the walls. With respect to Alternate #2, Mr. Jones noted that if the work is not done this year, but as a separate project within one year, the cost would increase an estimated $12,000.00. He mentioned also that he has been associated with Hodgson Construction on other projects, the most recent being an addition at the City of Menlo Park Civic Center where the work was completed on time and in a most satisfactory manner. At the Chair's invitation, Mr. Jones commented on the deduct item, Alternate #1, explaining that, as a matter of long-range economy, this alternate should not be accepted. Experience has proved that vinyl walls require a minimum of maintenance and, excluding vandalism, have lasted in public buildings for as long as 15 to 20 years. In response to Mayor Crosby and Councilman Harrison, Mr. Jones confirmed that the base bid includes the vinyl walls but not the patio court nor architectural fees. Councilman Amstrup recommended rejection of Alternate #2 as much too costly and thereafter introduced a motion to disregard the deductive Alternate #1 and to accept the base bid of $216,000.00, which includes vinyl walls. The motion was seconded by Councilman Cusick. On the question, Mayor Crosby referred to the statement in the architect's letter indicating an increased cost of $12,000.00 for the patio if the work is not done concurrent with the remainder of the project. 176 Mr. Jones explained the figure was based somewhat on an approximate 17% to 18% rise in construction costs within the coming year plus overhead and supervision costs that must be considered on a single project, which this would be if postponed. Mr. Jones recommended that the Council consider Alternate #2 at this time as being an acceptable bid. Councilman Harrison felt that Mr. Jones's comments were well taken but they pre- supposed that the project needs a patio. Councilman Harrison stated his position that the area will be used and be very efficient without the patio and that he was not in favor of it now nor at any future date. Councilman Cusick considered $40,000.00 an unbelievable amount of money for the improvements involved and suggested that some fencing might be installed if necessary to keep the area separate from the remainder of the park. Councilman Amstrup agreed that an expenditure of $40,000.00 plus architectural fees was not justified and that it should be made clear that it is not the Council's intent that the patio will be built later in the year as a part of this present project. If the work should be considered again, it would be as a totally separate job. The motion above stated carried on a unanimous vote of members present. RESOLUTION NO. 20-74 "A Resolution Of Award Of Contract Recreation Building Additions And Alterations" was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on roll call of members present (Councilman Mangini absent). (Hodgson Construction Co. $216,000.00) COMMUNICATIONS 1. RECOMMENDED PARKING REGULATIONS, CORTEZ AND CABRILLO AVENUES Mayor Crosby acknowledged a letter dated April 19, 1974, from the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, signed by Harry S. Graham, Jr., Chairman, recommending for Council approval (1) Elimination of parking on the church side of both Cortez and Cabrillo Avenues between Hillside and Easton Drives; (2) Paint parking stalls ... on residence side, suggested by the Director of Public Works. Mayor Crosby acknowledged persons in the audience interested in this matter and announced that the Council felt, in fairness to all of the residents of both streets, that a public hearing should be held. He suggested the date of June 3, 1974, and requested comments from the floor. Robert J. Sapunich, 1324 Cortez Avenue, reported he made a survey of the residents at the request of the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission. With respect to Cabrillo Avenue, residents nearest Easton indicated there were no traffic problems. Some of the other residents thought a change to one-way traffic might be beneficial and others favored parking on one side of the street. On Cortez, with one exception, the recommendation was parking on one side of the street only, the resident side. Mr. Sapunich stated he reported back to the Commission that the problem on Cabrillo was totally different from that on Cortez. During the course of Commission comment it appeared that the matter of Cabrillo was dropped and that the entire discussion centered on Cortez. It was his impression, when the Commission voted, that the vote related only to Cortez. He learned otherwise from a recent newspaper article. In response to an inquiry from the Chair, Mr. Sapunich confirmed that the majority of those present resided on Cabrillo; only two were residents of Cortez. Arnold H. Rodman, member of the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, reported there was some discussion of limiting parking to one side only on Cortez and observing ilow the effect on Cabrillo. The Commission's action, however, covered both streets. Mrs. Henry J. Hustedt, 1324 Cabrillo Avenue, explained that a subsequent poll of the block revealed mixed reactions. However, the consensus appeared to be three (3) against and 13 in favor of maintaining the status quo. Most of the people are long- time residents and have been exposed to traffic and parking generated by the church for many years. Recently, school enrollment has decreased and the problems are not serious enough on Cabrillo to justify the change recommended by the Commission. �ll Mr. Rodman explained it was the feeling of the Commission that restricting parking just on Cortez would have the effect of shifting the problem from one street to another. Persons normally using Cortez when attending school or church functions would probably use Cabrillo. Mayor Crosby recalled that one group of residents petitioned for one-way traffic, northbound on Cabrillo and southbound on Cortez. Mr. John Zensuis, 1548 Columbus Avenue, stated that a survey he made, after discussion with members of the parish senate, resulted in 11 residents on Cabrillo electing one-way traffic northbound and 7 on Cortez one-way southbound. Mr. Zensuis explained it was his idea that the one-way rule would be in effect only in the morning and again at 3:00 p.m., when school dismissed, but the traffic director indicated this was not feasible and that if a change were made it must, of necessity, be permanent. Mr. Sapunich suggested that the situation could be alleviated somewhat if the church parking lot were used to capacity. Both Mr. Zensuis and Mr. Sapunich agreed it probably will be difficult to find a solution acceptable to everyone. A motion was introduced by Councilman Harrison to eliminate parking on the church side of Cortez and to retain Cabrillo as a two-way street with parking on both sides. Councilman Cusick agreed with respect to Cabrillo Avenue but expressed reluctance to the change on Cortez without formal notification to residents. Councilman Harrison withdrew the motion and introduced an amended motion providing for Cabrillo Avenue to remain unchanged, a public hearing to be held on June 3, 1974, before the Council regarding on -street parking on Cortez Avenue between Easton and Hillside Drives, notice of hearing to be sent to affected residents. Motion seconded by Councilman Cusick and carried on unanimous vote of members present. 2. SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT As part of a communication dated April 11, 1974, George R. Corey, Councilman, City of San Bruno, submitted for consideration a statement entitled "LAFCO AND DISSOLUTION OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT" and requested the City Council to take specific action to determine whether Burlingame shall remain within the County Harbor District, or whether it is more beneficial to seek dissolution of the District than de -annexation by the individual cities. At the request of Mayor Crosby, the City Attorney reviewed proceedings during the past few months relative to this subject. He recalled that when the Council adopted its resolution several months ago authorizing proceedings to be initiated for detachment of the City of Burlingame from the District, the Council authorized the,City Attorney to withhold filing of petition at his discretion for research and to attend the hearings as an observer on the other detachment petitions that had been filed. As yet, the City of Burlingame has not filed its petition. The City Attorney explained that after a series of lengthy hearings by LAFCO over a period of approximately six weeks to two months, detachments by the seven petitioning districts were approved on a split vote. (Prior to the time LAFCO took its position, the District initiated litigation, which is still pending and which the County has not answered. The litigation relates to some alleged procedural problems.) From LAFCO, the matter moved to the Board of Supervisiors. The Board was advised by the District Attorney that it could request a reconsideration from LAFCO. Without taking an action on LAFCO detachment proceedings, the Board pre- pared itself to go back to LAFCO for a very limited hearing for the purposes of stating, apparently, that it was not favorable to the actions taken by LAFCO. Before this happened, the City of San Bruno, one of the detaching cities, decided there was not going to be approval of its detachment and that the best approach would be to petition for dissolution. This was done. In the meantime, an appellate court decision held, with respect to a Ventura County case, that an Environmental Impact Report is required in matters scheduled for hearings before local agency formation commissions. Because California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures had not been followed on petitions for detachments nor dissolution in San Mateo County, LAFCO dropped the matter of detachment from its calendar to be 16 restored at some later and future date. With respect to the matter of dissolution, the City Attorney reported he has been informed that LAFCO has adopted new guide- lines and is in the process of attempting to determine whether it might proceed under CEQA or not. The City of San Bruno has filed an environmental assessment for LAFCO staff. This is the current status. The City Attorney suggested that Burlingame might continue to observe so that it will know the proper course to follow if the Council decides to pursue detachment. If the Council decides in favor of dissolution, this would be another matter. In response to Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney advised that in either case, r detachment or dissolution, if petitions are approved by the Board of Supervisors, that body, in turn, must place the issue on the ballot to be decided by the voters of the cities or districts involved. Councilman Harrison suggested that the Council consider encouraging an action by the County on the matter of dissolution. With Council concurrence, Mayor Crosby requested the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate resolution for consideration at the next regular meeting. 3. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT LA FAMIGLIA RESTAURANT Acknowledgment was made of a communication from Carl M. Lollin, Chief of Police, dated April 15, 1974, stating that this establishment at 225 California Drive has provided no special police problems and there would be no objection to continuance of the temporary permit granted in October, 1973. Council concurring, Mayor Crosby authorized an unlimited extension. 4. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED. PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING. ADRIAN COURT A communication dated May 2, 1974, was received from Associated Construction & Engineering Company of California, Inc., South San Francisco, signed by Walter Bearden, Chief Architect, submitting an application to the City Council for special permit to construct an office building on Adrian Court, a portion of which shall be used for the Communication Division of Southern Pacific Company (Sequoia �M= Pacific Company). Accompanying the letter, were the special permit application, Environmental Assessment, Form E-2, and drawings showing surrounding area, partial floor and site plans, and elevations. A special permit approved by the City Council is required because the proposed building of 23,100 square feet exceeds by 6.4% the allowable 30% coverage ratio, and an 80 foot high free standing, self-supporting micro wave tower is proposed in the south corner of the property, which exceeds allowable 35 foot height limitation (Emergency Ordinances Nos. 987, 984, 994). .d. . le- The vThe City Planner informed the Council that the property is in an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, that office buildings are a conditional use in such District, requiring a special permit from the Planning Commission. His recommendation that the matter come to the Planning Commission for its study meeting and public hearing at the regular meeting on May 29 was accepted by the Council. Walter Bearden, Project Architect, informed the Council there is a time fac`..or involved because of property options. At his request, the Council agreed to hold its hearing on lot coverage and height issues at the regular meeting on June 3, 1974. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 21-74 "Agreement For Restoring Wall Opening" (Breit, Kliewer/ Burlingame British Cars, Inc.,/City of Burlingame) was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on roll call of members present. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 22-74 "Resolution Of The Burlingame City Council Requesting The Metropolitan Transportation Commission To Assist With Invalidation Of The Public Utilities Commission's Order To Relocate Southern Pacific's Third And Townsend Station" was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on roll call vote of members present. 179 In connection with the above, Councilman Cusick noted that on and off ramps to Interstate 280, proposed at Third and Fourth Streets, will have the effect of blocking extension of Southern Pacific commute service into downtown San Francisco. She asked that the City Manager direct a letter to Congressman Leo J. Ryan requesting his assistance in delaying implementation of this construction until such time that the MTC Southern Pacific Upgrading Feasibility Study is completed. ORDINANCES 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1005 "An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Burlingame By Adding Subparagraph 61 To Section 13.20.010 And Providing For An Intersection Stop For Vehicles Traveling On Rivera Drive And Approaching The Intersection Of Sebastian Drive" was given its second reading. On motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Amstrup, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1006 "An Ordinance Amending Section 18.04.010, 18.04.020, and 18.04.030 Of The Burlingame Municipal Code Providing For The Establishment Of Fire Zones By Withdrawing Lots 2B, 3A And 3B, Block 3,Town of Burlingame, From Fire Zone I And Including Them In Fire Zone III" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Cusick. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1007 "An Ordinance Amending Section 25.12.010 Of The Burlingame Municipal Code And The Zoning Maps Therein Incorporated By Reclassifying Lots 2B, 3A And 3B, Block 3, Town Of Burlingame, From First Commercial (C-1) District To Third Residential (R-3) District" was introduced for first reading by Council- man Cusick. Councilman Cusick stated that once the reclassification is approved the City will forfeit land use control to the extent that the properties could be improved with any use permitted in an R-3 District. She asked if there was a method available whereby the reclassification would not be implemented until the project was either completed, or that final plans be brought to the Council for review, to assure that there will be compliance with the presentation made by the proponents to the Council. The City Attorney agreed to pursue this and to have an answer prior to adoption of the Ordinance. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 1008 "An Ordinance Amending Sub -Sections D(1) And (2) Of Section 6.36.120 Of The Municipal Code Of The City Of Burlingame And Increasing The Rates Of Fare For Transportation in Taxicabs" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Amstrup. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 1009 "An Ordinance Providing For A Moratorium On The Conversion Of Structures To Condominiums, Emergency" was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Cusick and unanimously carried on roll call of members present. Councilman Harrison suggested there should be regulations applicable to "community apartments", as well as condominiums. The City Attorney concurred, stating they can be considered when the final ordinance is prepared. 6. ORDIAANCE NO. 1010 "An Ordinance Providing For A Moratorium On The Conversion Of Structures To Condominiums" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Amstrup. 'CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUMS 1. City Owned Lot On Hunt Drive Adjacent To Cuernavaca Park: The City Manager's recommendation May 2, 1974, that this subject be discussed at the study meeting was accepted by the Council. 2. 140 Clarendon Road: Under date of May 2, 1974, the City Manager reported this building has been demolished and removed. Staff will continue to have buildings removed or repaired that come within the provisions of the new Dangerous Buildings law. At the request of Councilman Cusick and Mr. Angelo Dellacasa, 141 Victoria Road, staff was directed to investigate properties at 122 Clarendon Road, 1824 Barroilhet Avenue, 123 and 142 Victoria Road. NEW BUSINESS 1. Japanese Restaurant, Lands of Anza Pacific Corporation: The City Manager showed sketches of this proposed development in the C-4 (Waterfront Commercial) District. The building will be 29 feet in height to roof line. The Council agreed there would be no violation of building height regulations by reason of a decorative pagoda -like structure proposed to be attached to the roof. 2. Stop Signs (T -Intersections), Trousdale Drive: Mrs. Ronald Pelton, resident _ of Trousdale, informed the Council she conducted a personal survey of her neighbors to gain reaction to removal of T -intersection stop signs and installation of two signal lights, recommended by the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission. Of 220 people interviewed, only two favored the lights. Mrs. Pelton stated that stop signs at Ogden and Marco Polo Way are helpful not only to pedestrians crossing the street but to residents attempting to leave or enter their garages. Mrs. Pelton was invited to attend the study meeting of Wednesday, May 8, when the subject will be discussed. 3. Municipal Disposal Area: Councilman Amstrup stated it is his understanding that the City, if it intends to improve this area as a golf course or some other form of public use, must give the operator 18 months notice of intent. The City Attorney agreed to research the contract and to report to the Council. 4. 1974 Federal Wage -Hour Law: Councilman Amstrup referred to a recent press article indicating there are amendments which will affect employees of public agencies. He asked the City Manager to obtain details for the Council's information. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. San Mateo County Transit District Bill: At Councilman Cusick's request, the City Manager was directed to send a telegram to the Chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee setting forth the City of Burlingame's position that the people shall have the option of voting on extension of BART into San Mateo County. - 2. AB 2040 (Knox) Bay Area Planning Agency: Councilman Cusick asked the City Manager to furnish Council with copies of this proposed bill for review. Mayor Crosby proclaimed the following: 1. May 6 through May 11, 1974 "MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK" 2. May 12 through May 18, 1974, "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK" 3. May 19 to May 25, 1974,'NATIONAL INSURANCE WOMEN'S WEEK" 4. Month of May, 1974, "CORRECT POSTURE MONTH" 5. May 26 through June 1, 1974, "SCOUT-O-RAMA WEEK" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Communications: 1. Supervisor James V. Fitzgerald, April 29, 1974, concerning enactment of AB 2099 authorizing San Mateo County to prepare a County -wide comprehensive water resources management plan, cost of plan to be paid by San Mateo County. In his communication, Supervisor Fitzgerald requested that Burlingame participate in the activities of the Peninsula Water Agency for the purposes of providing input to the program. Councilman Amstrup reported he is Vice -Chairman of the Peninsula Water Agency and will keep the Council informed of the planning program. 2. Invitation to opening game of Burlingame -Hillsborough Bobby Sox League, Saturday, May 11, 9:00 a.m., Washington Park. 3. Invitations to Junior Traffic Patrol and Junior Fire Patrol picnics. 4. Announcement of Recognition Event for Day Care Parents, May 18 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m., Burlingame Recreation Center Reports and Minutes: Third Quarter Report, March 31, 1974, Selective Traffic Enforcement. Minutes: Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, April 18, Library Board, April 16, Park & Recreation, April 9, Parking, April 24, Planning, April 22, 1974. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, H�ert�� City Clerk APPROVED: William J. Crosby, Mayor ISI