HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.09.07114
CAIL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame
above date. The meeting was called
Mayor Irving S. Amstrup presiding.
Burlingame, California
September 7, 197 !
City Councilto order at was
8:10
held on the
P.R. r
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the Chaj-r's invitation, the City Clerk 1ed the assembl-age inthe Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present - Councilmen:Absent - Councilmen:
Amstrup-Johnson-Mang ini-Mart in
Cro sby
Councilman Crosby, absent because of a
excused on motion of Councilman Martin
Johnson.
personal commiLment, was
and seconded by Councilman
MINUTES
PRESENTATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
chief of Police Lol1in
Police officers Thomas
Council , Mayor Amstrupthe Cityrs service.
presented two new members of the department,
Plate and Kenneth Snodgrass. On behalf of
extended congratulations , welcoming each into
HEARINGS
(a) (continued from meeting of August 16, 1971):
ORDINANCE No. 936 "An Ordinance Amendin g the Municipal Code of the
Re s identialCiEt of Burlingame By Adding Chapter 25.80 (Reports of
Building Records) To Title 25 (zoning)."
Mayor Amstrup announced that revisions of the proposed ordinance have
been completed but that neither Council nor the San Mateo-Burlingame
Board of Rea1tors, which recornmended certain of the revisions, have
had an opportunity of review. The Chair's suggestion that the hearing
be continued to the meeting of September 20, 197L, was concurred in
by counciL and accepted by Mr. Neil Strain, President of the realtors'
board .
(b) PROPOSED DELETION TROM STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM:
ROUTE 82 - Et CAMINO REAL
Mayor Amstrup announced that this was the time scheduled by the City
Council to hold a public hearing in the matter of a preliminary plan
at the State level to remove EI Camino Real from the State Highway
System.
Mayor Amstrup recognized Mr. c. F. Greene, Deputy District Engineer,
Division of Highways, District 4, according him the privilege of
the floor.
Expressing gratification at the opportunity of addressing the Council,
Mr. Greene directed his opaning co[unents to the current Section 256
Study, stating that its purpose was very largely r.isunderstocd. He
explained that the state Department of Public Works is required by
Section 256 of the Streets and Highrrays Code to make Periodic reviews
and prepare a report on the entire State Highway System, which is
The minutes of the meetings of August 15 and August 30, 1971, pr€-
viously submitted to Council , were approved and adopted.
115
subsequently submitted to the legislature. He stated that classifi-
cation of roadways is related to the studies and referred to the
California Highway Functional Classification Advisory Committee
appointed by the Director of Public works to assist in development of
tentative criteria for determining which part of the State total road
netvrork should be the State tlighway System.
Mr. creene advised that the primary purPose of the public hearings
that have been and are being held is to gather reactions to possible
changes in the State Highway System and to the concept of using
"functional classificatj.on" as the basis for classifying all roads
according to the services they perform, irrespective of traf f j.c count
or jurisdiction.
Mr. creene dj.scussed the various forms of road functions, citing resi=
dential , collector and arterial streets and the freeways, stated that
arterial streets in urban areas were divided j.nto four categories--
El Camino Real was rated Type Iv--and it was on the basis of the pro-
posed criteria that E1 Camino Real hras considered eligible for
deletion from the hiqrhway system.
Mr. creene emphasized that the criteria, based sole1y on functionalclassification were tentative, intended to serve as a basj,s forfurther discussion at the public hearings of appropriate criteria.
He asked that council, in determining the position of the City of
Burlingame with respect to the proposed deletion of EI Camino Real ,consider: l. The concept of using functional classification as alogical basis for determining which roads should be the responsi-
bility of the State and which the responsibility of the counties or
cj-ties; 2. Whether functional 1eve1s recommended for State highways
are appropriate; 3. Any other important considerations which along
with functional classification would better define the State highwayresponsibility; 4. Possible revisions in the functional classifi=
cation proposed for a specific route. (The four statements recited
above are included in "Functional Classifications of Highways and
Streets, " a report on file received from Alan s. Hart, District
Engineer, Divisj.on of Highways, District 4.)
Mr. creene pointed out that changes in the highway system would be
subject to adjudication by the State Legislature. He stated that the
Director of Public Works does not intend making any reconmendations
until the very important matter of financial arrangements is resolved,
nor wiLl he recommend changes this year unless there is agreement
betr{een the State and the communities that a gi.ven road should be
excluded.
Mr. Greene stated that Skyline Boulevard (Route 35) is proposed to be
deleted and that arguments were advanced at the hearing in Redwood
City in opposition on the grounds that it may at some future time be
designated a scenic highway and, as such, should be under Statejurisdiction.
Mr. Greene referred to maps on display, discussing roadways in San
Mateo County and in the East Bay proposed for deletion and reported
that Lavrrence Expressway in Santa Clara County may be added. In
response to Councilman Martini s request for clarification of the four
types of arterials, Mr. Greene stated that Bayshore Freeway would be
considered Type I, Junipero Serra ll--there are no Type III within
urban areas.
For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Amstrup pointed out that
Burlingame is unigue among the cities that border EI Camino Real in
that it has been fortunate in preserving the trees and escaping
right-of-bray widening. He stated that in discussion with represetta-tives of the Dlvision of Highways, the city was informed that recon-struction of roads within the State system is not undertaken unlessthere is total agreement between the State and the 1oca1 government
and that the City Council schedtled the present hearing for the express
lurpose of airing the issue of the trees and rnakino puhlic Councilrs
concern that the tree belt be protected.
Mayor Amstrup stated that the majority of cities that will be affected
oppose oeletion, citing the high cost of maj.ntenance as one ofthe primary reasons.
Mr. Greene reported that the State has the authority to undertakereconstruction as long as a roadway remains in the State system,stated that where EI Camino Real was widened the work was done in
response to repeated requests from the city and that the Division of
Highways always has more projects on file than aviiilable funds. Hepointed out that the City of Burlingame might be in a more volnerableposition with respect to the trees if the highway remains in the
system but there is the opportunity every four years to requestdeletion. Ile explained that an individual bill can be initiatedbut that there has been some reluctance on the part of legislatorsto act i.n such situations.
Mr. Greene, responding to Councilman Mangini, reported that there has
been litt1e response to the four questions relating to the proposed
criteria for classifcation. He reported two points that were made:
I. That scenic highways, hrherever focated, should be in the State
highway System, 2. Multi- j urisdictional aspect--it was brought out
that maintenance standards might not be the same for EI Camino Real
among so many jurisdictions.
Two speakers from the audience expressed concern that the State may
attempt to preempt 1ocal authority, urged that every effort be
expended to preserve the highway in its present form for both
aesthetic and environmental reasons. In response to a guestion
concerning costs to the taxpayers for maj.ntenance if the city assumedjurisdiction, the speakers were informed that the work would be
financed from gas tax funds.
The Chair invited Councif to comment.
Councilman Mangini recommended that Council delay its action pending
review and report by staff, including a recommendation on the four
questions posed by the Division of Highways District Engineer.
Councilman Martin mentioned that the recent reconstruction project
at Broadway was a joint venture betvreen the city and State and
suggested that formal acknowledgrment be made of the Division of
Highway's exce.Llent work in relieving some of the problems in the
area of ther interchange.
In thanking Mr. creene for his courtesy and cooperation in appearing
before the Council , Mayor Amstrup stated that the Division of
Highways recognizes the City of Burlingamers concern with respect to
the status of E1 Camino Real and has cooperated to the fullest, agree-
ing without hesitation to send one of its executives to make this
special presentation.
The Chair requested the City Manager to forward a letter to the
District Engineer commending him and his staff.
Councilman l.4artin took the position that, considering only the City
of Burlingame, the status of E1 Camino Real--whether a State highway
or a 1ocaI street--was not vitally important, except that total
authority in the city would obviate any cause for concern as to the
State's intentions, Referring to Mr. Greene's conment earlier that
nivision of Highways fun<ts are limited, Councilman Martin pointed out
that it was extremely doubtful that the State would initiate recon-
struction, entailing removal of the trees and repJ-acement of curbs
and gutters, unless there was some contribution from the city. He
expressed confidence in the cityrs ability to absorb the costs of
maintenance, aqreed that all of the other cities might not be abLe to
do so and recommended that Council support the other eities that
oppose deletion.
116
There were no further cornments from the audience. The hearing was
declared closed.
lt7
Councilrnan Johnson favored retaining the present arrangement by
endorsing the stand taken by the majority of cities; commenting that
the people have expressed themselves strongly on the matter of
preservatic.rrr <lf tire Lre€s "ttru tire Ligirway as i.t exists olr iiulirelOtjS
occasions, Councilman Johnson stated that it would be unjust for
Council to take a contrary position or take any action that would
not be representative of the wishes of the community.
I,layor Amstrup stated that he would prefer that the State be responsi-
ble for the woik of maintenance, which appears to be the majority
opinion of the other cities, he expressed willingness to oppose
deletion on the basis of statements by representatives of t.he
highway division that right-of-way widening would be unlikely in
the face of strong opposition on the community's part.
Following a report from Mr. Greene that there would appear to be
sufficient time for the city's action to be made a part of the permanent
record if it was forwarded to the proper State agencies immediately
following the next Council meeting, and that it should be submitted
in the form of a resolution; Ir{ayor Amstrup, with Council concurrence,
requested the City Manager to have material prepared for consideration
at the meeting of September 2A, 197I.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. AIRPORT ACCESS BART S.TORAGE YARD
l4ayor Amstrup acknowledged a communication from ttre City Manager under
date of September 2, L971, reporting that an open public discussion
on the Airport Access Project could be set for the Council meeting of
September 20 if Council so desires. The communication stated that
Mr. Keith Bernard, Project Director, has indicated this would offer
a welcome opportunity to report on the project in general. The
communication also mentioned that the storage yard site in Burlingame
is being considered but that an additional study will be made to
consider extension as far south as Menlo Park.
Mayor Amstrup expressed preference for a public meeting at a time
other than a regular Council meeting and in larger quarters Lhan the
Council Chambers. Council indicated no objection, agreeing to meet
on Tuesday, October 12, at the Recreation Center.
Ir4ayor Amstrup, addressing press representatives in attendance, requested
their cooperation in publicizinq the meetitg, pointing out that the
community at large should be aware that there may be a train storage
yard for BART equipment on a portion of property owned by Southern
Pacific Company abutting the easterly line of California Drive.
2. REQUEST FOR APPEAL HEARING - LOUIS A STATES
Acknowledgment was made of a communication dated August 24, L97L,
from Clark A. Barrett, Attorney At Law, requesting a hearing beforethe City Council in the matter of a request for variance filed byMr. and [Irs. Louis A. States, 1355 Paloma Avenue, to construct bath-
room facilities, which was denied by the Planning Commission.
A request from the Burlingame Hi1ls Improvement Association, Inc.,
dated August 20, L971, signed by Har1an D. Bryan, President, forCouncil's consideration to providing fire protection to the residentsof the liills on a contract basis, was referred to the October study
meeti-ng for reports from Councilman Martin, Council liaison,
Burlingame Hi11s Improvement Association ano from the Chief of theFire Department.
4. F D. SPERRY COMPANY
The hearing wes schedrlled for
3. FIRE PROTECTION BURLINGAME
A letter dated August 12,that F. D. Sperry Company
L42L North Carolan Avenue
the meeting of September 2A, 1971.
HITLS
197L, from Ered D. Sperry, Jr., requested
be permitted to maintain its operation atfor an additional 30 to 60 days. The
118
conmunication advised that all of the necessary permits, bondsand approval of the planning commission and cily-councii ofsan I'iateo l.ave Leen processed, after some d.elay, and that furtherdelay has been created by labor strj_kes.
commenting that Mr. sperry apparently is making some progress,councilman Johnson suggested that the extension ue granted.
M?YoT Amstrup recognized Mr. Richard Lavenstein, owner of propertyadjoining the Sperry yard. Mr. Lavenstein referred to a petitiorr-that was filed with the city councir in lviarch , Lg7L, by a group ofproperty owners in the area urging abatement of the Sperry-yard andto council's unanimous decision at its meeting of May 3, igit, toinitiate an abatement action, Ir{r. Lavenstein stated that he learned
9I Mr. Sperry's current request during a conversation with the CityPlanner, that he contacted the City of San Mateo Building Departmentand was informed that there has been no application for i Uuitaingpermit filed by Mr. Sperry.
Councilman Johnson referred to the statement in the communicationindicating that the necessary permits have been received from SanMateo.
The city clerk reported he was informed earlier in the day byMr. caIwe1l, the city's building inspector, that application-hasbeen made to the San Mateo planning Commission.
Council heard a suggestion from the City Attorney that a summons beprepared and served, thereby placing Mr. sperry in a position toplea; if he wishes to meet with council and staff, the actionitself can be staved long enough for him to comply with the city'sdecision; if he does not comply, the action can proceed. TheCity Attorney pointed out that the period of time involved willdepend upon Mr. Sperry's response.
There were no objections voiced by Council to the Chairrs recommenda-tion that the City Attorney be authorized to initiate apprropriateaction to enjoin illega1 use of the property at L[zt NorthCarolan Avenue.
5 ON-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
A communication from the City Planner dated August 27, Lg7L, submittedrecommendations from the Parking Commission in connection with on-street parking restrictions on the north side of Lang Road, east sideMagnolia Avenue, EI Camino Real service roacl, east side, Dufferin toTrousdale, and north side of Burlingame Avenue from Myrtle Road(American Legion parking lot) to fast Lane
The communication stated that background studies and inquiry were
made by the Traffic Director and the planner.
An addendum to the communication from the city Manager, dated
september 1, reconrmended adoption of legislation to affect therestrictions.
Councilman Mangini objected to the recommendations for BurlingameAvenue, recalling that at a prior meeting he pointed out that on-street parking was unsafe because of the trees and the heavy volumeof pedestrian traffic, particularly children traveling to and fromthe recreation center. He expressed the opinion that the leastdangerous area was between lrtyrtle Road and East Lane and reportedthat he informed Sergeant Quinn that the crucial area was from theeasterly boundary of the recreation center building to East Lanebut would settle for the area of the center building, which wouldbe up to the Legion building. He stated that the commission'sproposal does not coincide with his ideas for curing the problems.
Council accepted Councilman Mangini's objections; the City Attorney
was requested to prepare legislation for Council's considerationin accordance with the Parkj-ng Commission's recommendations,exclusive of Burlingame Avenue in the area of the recreation center,which was referred to the City Manager to be explored further with
Sefgeant Quinn.
119
6. CTIULA VISTA AVENUE ONE-WAY
A ler.ter from cne heaLEn, safety & traffic corunission datedAugust 26, 1971, reconmended a change in traffic flow on ChulaVista Avenue whereby the street would be restricted to southboundmovements. The communication stated that the police Departmentdetermined there are 2500 vehicles using the street in a twenty-four hour period .
An addendum to the letter
September 1 concurred in
Quinn has confirmed thatobjection to the change.
from the City Manager under date ofthe recommendation, advising that Sergeantthe Broad$/ay Merchants Association has no
Councilman Martin pointed out that Chula Vista is not a throughstreet beyond Broadr^/ay and guestioned whether the change willbenefit the traffic flow. He questioned whether the individual merchantwould approve the change. At his request action was delayed and thematter was referred to the City Manager for review with Sergeant
Quinn.
ORD TNANCES
ORDINANCE NO. 940 "An Ordinance Addin g Chapter 3.15 To Title 3"Officers, Boards, Commissions and Personnel,' Of the-BurlingameMunicipal Code Establishing The Office of Director of Finance AndDefining The Duties And Respons ibilities Of That Off ice', wasintroduced for first reading by Councilman Martin.
Councilman Martinr s suggestion that a public hearing be held at themeeting of September 20 was concurred in by Council .
UNFTNISHED BUSINESS
]. COMMISSION VACANCIES
A communication from the City Manager dated August 26,of existing vacancies on the Civil Service and parking
h/as referred to the October study meeting.
1971, advising
Commissions,
2. WARNING NOTICES ON-STREET PARKING OVERNTGH?
Chief of Police Lollin reported that he was mj.staken in his reportto Council at the last meeting in connection vrith distribution ofwarning notices to overnight on-street parkers. He distributedcopies of the form that is used and advised that the monthly departmentactivities report will include information on the number of-noticesissued.
3. ANTI_TRUST ACTIONS
The City Attorney reported on two anti-trust actions to which thecity is_ currently a party--one having to do with water meter litiga-tion, the other underground utility pipes. He stated that in thefirst action, the city received a net iward of $142.15 resulting froma settLement with Hersey-Sparli_ng, one of a number of defendants. Hestated that the communj.cation received from Counsel representingthe city, along with a number of other plaintiffs, has-requestedauthorization to withhord 92000.00 from the total funds rdcovered. asan ad.vance against expenses to cover further deposition costs. tiisrequest for authorization to inform t,he attorneys to proceed againstother defendants was approved by Council.
The City Attorney reported that a further pa)i.ment in the anount of$846.00 was received in the Western fipe titigation from the State;he stated that the city is represented by the Attorney General'soffice in this action.
120
4. RADAR
l4ayor Amstrup reguested that the matter of radar in traffic
control be included on the agenda of the next study meeting.
5. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND BROADWAY
In response to Councilman Martinrs request for a progress report
on the traffic situation at Broadway between Carolan Avenue and
California Drive, Chief of Police Lo1lin reported that the Director
of Traffic has been conferring with representatives of the State
and it has been determined that one of the factors apparently
contributing to congestion is on-street parking on the north side
of Broadway between Rollins Road and the tracks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Communications:
1. Chief of Police Lollin presented Mayor Amstrup with a warrant
in the amounL of $1387.37, an educational reimbursement from the
State for departmental personnel participation in peace officers
training cours"s. Chiei Lo11in read a communication from the Chair-
man of ihe Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training,
Sacramento, commenting on the advantages to be derived through
participation in the Program.
2. A communication from the Central Labor Council
dated August 17, L97L, signed by Robert O. Delze11,
criticizing the League of California Cities for its
Iegislation aimed at benefiting the working people
city to cancel its affiliation with the League.
Councilman Martin reported that the American Federation of Labor is
violently opposed to the League's position on workmants compensa-
tion. Ha eipressed confidence in the League, stating that its
offers invaluable service to the cities and suggested that the
Iabor councj-I is taking a narrow view because of the Leagug'?
position on one bill. Council agreed with Councilman Martin's
|osition and accepted his recommendation that the City Manager
reply to the communication.
3. A communication from Edwin L. Z'Berq, Chairman Assembly Conunit-
tee on Natural Resources and Conservation concerning status of
AB 2435 "The Catifornia Recreation Fund" was referred to the City
Manager for transmittal to the Park and Recreation Commission for
review and comment.
4. petition from Peninsula Anima1 Welfare Society, Inc., (PAWS)
urging establishment of a low-cost county operated.spay and neuter
clinic for animals within the Peninsula Humane Society new animal
shelter and requesting that eommunications in support thereof be
directed to the County Board of Supervisors.
Councilman Martin requested that the city place itself on record
with the Supervisors in favor of the clintc.
effort with
to resolveplaced on
of San Mateo Countyr
Secretary ropposition to
and urging the
Mayor Amstrup reported he has discussed a cooperative
representatives of the city of Millbrae in an attempt
thl unleashed dog problem and requested the matter be
the agenda for the October study meeting.
5. Commendations to the Chief of Police, Sergeant Quinn and officers
Reed, Nofziger and Erpenbeck for assistance rendered, from City and
County of Sin Francisco Airports Commission, San Mateo County
Coordinating Republican Assembty, Mrs. Eberhard Woerz and James D.
Huff , both of eurfj-ngame, and Mrs. Donald Scranton, Millbrae.
MINUTES: Commissions Hea1th, Safety &Traffic, August L2
25 , 1971.
Annual Report. I{ayor AmstruP' s
was concurred in bY Council.
Planning, Aug[Et 23 and Pa
REPORTS: Office of Emerge
rking, August
ncy Services
comment on t he excellesce of the rePort
127
EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT
The City Manager referred to his rnemorancum to Council dated
September 7 reporting that $30,226.00 has been allocated to the
city under the Emergency Employment Act as part of an apparent
Federal program to provide work for the unemployed. The communica-
tion reported that the deadline for submitting a list of jobs
that are available for a twelve-month period beginning September 1
must be submitted to the county by September 9.
The City l{anagerrs reguest for authorization to survey the various
city departments in order to prepare the job list and to exclude
such employment from Civil Service was approved by Council.
LIBRARY RAMP
The Chair acknowledged a communication from the City lvlanager dated
September 7, L971, reporting that the City Attorney has stated that
the 1 in 8 slope existing ramp at the Library is illegal so long as
a 1 in L2 slope ramp is not provided for handicapped, either at the
existing location or in another area. The communication reported
that reconstructing the present ramp at the existing location would
cost $2575,00, a ramp at the rear approximately $4000.00 and a ramp
in front approximately $6380.00.
E. L. Norberg, project architect, responding to Council inquiry,
reported that the costs were provided by the contractor and do not
include architect's fees.
The City AttOfhey pointed out that the building has two ramps=the
interior ramp conforms to code, the exterior does not. He informed
Council that it was his view that all that is required by statute is
that ramps and other facilities be made available for the use of the
handi-capped people, but not every ramp and not every facility must
necessarily meet the requirement for use of the handicapped. He
stated that Iv1r. Norberg has taken a contrary position and that in an
effort to resolve the conflict he spoke with Mr. Henry Tarratt,
San Mateo County Director of Building, who agreed with his views.
The City Attorney reported that Mr. Tarratt has had wide experience
in the field of construction of public buildings and is familiar with
the conflict between 1 in L2 and the 1 in 8 in the Uniform Building
Code.
Mr. Norberg stated to Council that it was his position the existing
side ramp is illegal and must be reconstructed to provide a proper
facility for the use of the handicapped as reguired by the American
Standards Association Specification.
Upon advice from the City Attorney as to procedure, Mayor Amstrup
introduced a motion approving an expenditure in the amount of
$2575.00 to modify the existing side ramp as it was constructedto conform with the new designs submitted by the architect, which,in turn, will change the ramp from 1 in 8 slope to I in L2 sIope.
The motion was seconded by Councilman l,Iangini.
On the question, Councilman Johnson protested that modification of
the existing ramp will be contrary to the wishes of all of the
people who are concerned with wheelchair patients. She recalledthat at the study meeting none of the persons who spoke favored the
side entrance--all were hopeful of having a proper ramp at ttie rear
where parking would be convenient; additionally, members of theLibrary Board urged favorable consideration to the rear ramp.
The City Librarian, in response to Councilman Johnson, confirmed thather comments reflected accurately the feelings of everyone concernedwith suitable facilities for the handicapped.
A ro11 call vote was recorded as follows:
AYES: COUNCfLMEN: Amstrup-Mangini-Martin
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Johnson
ABSENT COUNCILMAN: Crosby
122
ADDITION OF INTERIOR DOOR AT LIBRARY
On a motion introduced by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman
Johnson an expenditure of $439.60 was authorized to provide anadditional exterior door in the library addition for security
reasons, BS described by the project architect at the study
meeting.
A ro11 call vote was recorded as follows:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Johnson-Ivlangini
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Martin
ABSENT COUNCILMEN: Crosby
Mayor Amstrup explained that he voted in favor to avoid complicationsof a tie vote and to eliminate any further problems in connectionwith the door. He expressed objection to the manner in which thematter was handled.
Mr. Norberg agreed there should have been a different approach and
extended apologies to ttre Mayor and to Council.
EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF LIBRARY PROJECT
Upon advice from the City !4anager that the project contractor has
reguested an extension to September 30, 197L, for completion of theaddition to the library building (exclusive of the ramp reconstruc-tion), a motion introduced by Councilman Martin, seconded by Council-
man l'{angini and unanimously carried approved the request.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
HERBERT K. WHITE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED
AM TRUP
J@