Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.09.20t2:i BurIi ngame, September Ca 1i forni a 20, L971. PRE SENTATION Mayor Amstrup introduced Mr. wayne Svan, selected by Council to fillthe position of City Planner, effect,ive September 13, 1971. PI,EDGE OF ATI,EGIANCE At the Chair rs invitation, the City Planner led the assemblage in thePledge of Allegiance to the F1ag. ROLL CALL Present - Abs ent Counei Ime n : Counci Imen : Ams trup- Cro sby-Johnson-Mang i ni -Ma r ti n None The minutesto Counci 1, of the meeting ofwere approved and September 7, adopt,ed. 1971, previously submitted IIEA Rt NG S L . ORDINANCE No. 936 ',An Ordinanc e AmendingCity of Burlingame By Adding Chapter 25.8Building Records) To TitLe 25 (zoning.l ,' fhe ltluni cipa 10 (Reports Of cod e Of Trhe Re s id entia 1 Mayor Amstrup announced that the hearing was continued from the meetingof September 7, 197L, to the present time for Council and members ofthe san ltateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors to review the revised draftof ordinance prepared by the city Attorney and that a request was madein the interim by counsel for the real estate board for a- further con-tinuance . announced ground rules and The Mayor acknowledged the large group in attendance, requested ashovring of hands from persons interested in the matter aid. thereafter,with couneil concurrence, announced that the hearing would proceed asscheduled to accommodate those desirous of being heird. At the chairrs invitation, councilman Martin commented briefly on thepurpose of the legislation, pointing out that it ,.ri11 apply to allforms of residential properties in the city but is intendeS basicallyto alert purchasers of fi rst-resid entiar pioperties to illegal con-ditions that may exist in violation of zoning and building ioaes.councirman Martin stated that the city does not intend to cause injuryto the real estate industry and mentioned that a simiLar ordinance-haibeen in effect in the city of san Francisco for approximately ten years. I,layo r Amstrup stated that the ordinance was introduced for firstreading last ,rune and, at council's direction, has been under study bystaff since that time for the purpose of evaluating objectionsraised by certain groups . The Chair declared the hearing open,invited proponents to speak. Mr. Hans Horn, realtor in the City of San Mateo, requested clarifi_cation of the extent of the physiial inspection of tlhe property,stating that if the sore area of concern is conformance- wilh zLningregulations that he would find no reason to object. councirman Martin stated that the ordinance wilr requi. re a physiealinspection of the total property, requiring attenti6n to zoiiig anJbuilding code requirements -- any condition that would be visibre tothe inspector. CALL TO ORDE R A regular neeting of the Burlingame City Counci I was held on the abovedate. Ihe meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m., l4ayor IrvingS. Amstrup presiding. MI NUTE S t24 Mr. Horn raised the question of the city's liability in the eventthat an iIlegaI condition overlooked by an inspector created probJ-emsfor the owner at some future time. He pointed out that properties for sale are subject to FHA inspections and to structural pest controlinspections and that the proposed ordinance will have the effect ofcreating another inspection by another agency. Mr. Robert Bi11s, 483 Marin Drive, stated that he had an opportunityto speak with 25 to 30 neighbors, that all, with the exception oftwo non-homeowners, agreed that the ordinance is unfair, that itpurports to protect the buyer but offers no protection to an owner who acquired an ilIegaI building through ignorance. Mr. Bi1ls charged that the mandatory inspection will penalize an ovrner who places hisproperty on the market and discovers that code violations exist when the inspection is madei he will be the injured party, faced with the prospect of depressed property vaLues. Mr. Bills stated that illegal construction in single-family dwellings is long-standing in the city, that there has been less than rigid enforcement of the 1aws, particu- larly during world war rI years when the demand for housing far exceeded the supply, and that it is discriminatory against present owners to attempt to cure the problem at this Point in time. Mr. Eugh connolly of the firm of Anderson, lilcMillan and Connolly, attorneys, speaking in behalf of the san Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors, voiced opposition to the portions of the ordinanee relating to mandatory physical inspection and, referring to the previous speaker's remarks, suggested there may be sone areas of inequity. He aqreed there is legitimate cause for concern on the city's part because of recurring problems of building code violations and recom- mended that the ordinance be reframed to avoid penalizing innocent persons for acts over which they had no control and, at the same time give formal notification of the city's intent to enforce the rules. Mr. connolly stated that an alternative to the form of inspection report would be an affidavit furnished by the seller, with copies to the buyer and the city, describing all of the conditions in the property with which the eity would be concerned from the standPoint of zoning and building code requirements. Mr. Connolly stated it was his understanding that the law in San Francisco does not require mandatory physical inspections but offers the seller the oPtion of requesting such an inspection; he asked that the hearing be continued 30 days for time to research other similar ordinances and the opportunity to meet with Council at the next study meeting. Iuayor tunstrup explained that it is not the city's intent to create a bureaucracy, that problems of illegat uses are real and that it was the deciiion of the City council to attempt to devise some method whereby such illegalities would become a matter of record to ProtectpotentLal purchasers. Mayor AmstruP stated that the question of physical insPection is oPen to d i scussion--counci t has not reached a conclusion as yet. Miss carol Ke11y, 1452 Bellevue Avenue, rePorted that she recently received an eviltion notice from the landlord on the grounds that the unit she occuPies is illegal and deemed not suitable for human habitation because the ceiling height is too 10L' ' she stated that efforts to find other quarters have been unsuccessful, agreed that building regulations are necessary but questioned the logic of forcing a person from his residence because the ceiling is three inches below standard. The City Attorney informed Council that the Property has been a probtem to the clty for aPProximately 10 years and- recited a brief iri.tory of the tuilding and the city's attemPt to have il1ega1 conditions corrected. He commented that had there been an ordinance in effect when the ProPerty was placed on the market, similar to that which is before council on this occasion, probably nelther the present owner nor his predecessor would have consummated the purchase, and that difficulties hrith this proPerty illustrate the need for some type of inspection of o1d buildings. 125 Councilman t'tangini suggested two areas that should be explored if the ordinance is to be revised--a recolunendation for deletion of mandatory inspections should be followed with an alternate proposal in order that findings can be made that any remodeling or alteration that physically changed the building was coincident with apPlicable ordinances. With Council concurrence, Mayor funstrup announced a continuance to the regular meeting of October 18, 1971; Mr. connolly agreed to con- fer with staff and to have material for council's consideration prior to that date. ANNOUNCEMENT OF' SPECIAL MEETING Mayor funstrup extended an invitation to the audience to attend a special meeting of council on Euesday, october L2, L97L, at 8:00 p.m., in the Recreation Center building for a public discussion on a pro- posal by BART to establish a storage yard for its equiPment on Southern Pacific company property abutting California Drive, in connec-tion with its airport access Project. The Mayor rePorted that Itlr. Keith Bernard, project director, will be Present to review the pJ.ans and anshrer questions. RECONVENE Fol lo\^ring a recess at 9:00 p.m., the chair reconvened the meeting at 9:2O p.m. l4ayor funstrup announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on an aPpeal filed by clark A. Barrett, attorney, in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Iouis A. States, from the denial by the Plannj-ng Commission of a variance for installation of a second bathroom in the existing residence at 1355 Paloma Avenue. Responding to the Chair's request for a resume, the City Planner stated that he \,ias not familiar with the proPerty but that it was his understanding the person making apPlieation purchased a house that had previously been expanded by the addition of floor area with- out benefit of a building permit and that he is now seeking the cityrs approval of a variance for the purpose of improving the ilIega1 portion by addition of a bathroom. ftr e city Engineer reported that the addition to the principal build- ing extends into the side setback, thereby reducing the side yard in one area to eiqht inches vrhere the 1ega1 minimum j.s three to five feet,, depending upon lot size and height of building. Mayor Anstrup declared the hearing open, according Mr. Barrett theprivilege of the floor; the latter stated that his clients have beenproperty ovvners in the City of Burlingame for 25 years, that the installation, which is the subject of the variance, \"/i11 not requirestructural changes, alter the exterj.or of the building nor be con- structed within the area of the illegal si.de yard. Referring to theplot plan on file, Ivlr. Barrett identified the location of the Pro-posed bath, pointing out that the plan shows there is 39 inches of open space between the building waIl and the property line in that area, where the code requires three feet. Mr. Barrett stated that approximately one year ago his clients applied for and obtained a building permit from the city to cornPletely remodel the kitchen, despite the fact of the enclosed Patio and i11egaI set- back; he suggested that violations should have been brought to the attention of the States at that time; furthermore, it would aPPear from the Language of the code that the permit should not have been issued. Mr. Barrett stated that proposals were made by the Planning commissionto dismantle and relocate the portion of the building wall that extendsinto the setback but it was Mr. States' position that the financial outlay would cause undue hardship. I"1r. Barrett reported that the fire HEARINGS (cont. ) 2. VARIANCE TO INSTALL BATT1 FACILITIES, 1355 PAIOMA AVENI'E 126 chief has indicated there is adequate access for Mr. Barrett stated that Mr. states made an offer mission, and renews it on this occasion, to deed sufficient land from the adjoining Parcel, which a legal setback. Mr. Barrett stated that the situation is unique, variance will not cause similar aPplications norto neighboring properties . fire fighting. to the PLanning Com- to the subject lot he owns, to create that approval of theresult in harm or injury There were no comments from the audience favoring or protesting the variance. rn response to councilman Martin's reference to a coPy of a rePort rrom -''l the San Mateo county Appraisal Department, dated Jul-y, 1953, which made Ino mention of the patio structure, Mr. States reported the enclosure was in place when he purchased the adjacent property on Grove Avenue in 1952. He explained that it is not a finished room, lacking both heat and plumbing; the roof is makeshift, open to the elements and a fireplace at one end serves as an indoor barbecue. He stated the area is primarily used for storage but the impending arrival of his son and family makes additional bath facilities imperative. During the lengthy discussion that f ollotred, Councilman Martin corulented there appeared to be two alternatj.ves--corect the setback by an exchange of land between the tvro Properties, which would involve prePar- ation and filing of a resubdivision map, or investigate the feasibility of renoving one wall completely, thereby eliminating the Potential for rental purposes, apparentLy a matter of concern to the Planning com- mi s s ion. Councilman Crosby agreed with the idea of removing the wall. Mayor funstrup referred to the minutes of the Planning commission hearing (August 23, I97r.) and to the discussion in connection with moving Ehe building wa1I away from the property 1ine. Mr. Barrett stated that such reconstruction would be difficult and costly and that Mr. States would prefer not to assume the expense and ithe costs of the proposed bath at this time. Councilman irohnson inquired if the Planning Commission discussed per- manent removal of one of the walls and requested Mr. Thomas Sine, Commission chairman, to comment. The latter rePorted he suggested to Mr. states that the wall on the westerly side be removed and relocated to the easterly side where it would conform but that removal in the sense that Councilman l,lartin suggests was not considered. The city Attorney reported that, as the minutes reflect, the Planning Commission held an extensive hearing, offering the applicants the opportunity of attempting to develoP some ProPosa1 that would be acceptablei the Commission suggested a number of physical alternatives-- the applicant countered with contractural arrangements. The city Attorney stated that a suggestion from the Commission that the wall adjacent to the garage wall be opened was answered by the applicant with a proposal to install s]-iding doors. Commenting tha t, the com- mission should not be faulted that it did not make the proposal for removal of one wall, that the Commission, in fact, heard nothing in the way of an acceptabJ-e proposal on the aPPlicant's part, the City Attorney expressed the opinion that the commission might have found the ProPosal acceptable. Follov,ring an indication from the aPPlicant of willingness to confer with staff, the Chair declared the hearing continued to the meeting of October 4, L97L, the City llanager to furnish staff's report to Councilprior to that date. RE CONVEAIE Fol1o$ring a recess at 10:20 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. 127 IIEARINGS (cont. ) 3. ORDINANCE NO. 940 - OTFICE OT DIRECTOR OT FINANCE l'layor Amst,rup announced that Lhis was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on legislation proposing to estabLish theOffice of Director of Finance and defining the duties and responsi-bilities of the office. Declaring the hearing open, the Chair invited eomments from the audience; there was no response and the hearing was closed. ORDINANCE NO. 940 "An Ordinance Adding Chapter 3.15 to Title 3 "Officers, Boards, Commissions and Personnel" of the Burlingame MunicipaJ- Code Est?bl-ishing the Office of Director of Finance andDefining the Duties and Responsibilities of that Office" was givenits second reading; on motion of Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman Martin, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on ro11 caLl: AY:ES: COUNCII-rlrlEN: Amstrup-Crosby-Johnson-Mangini-MarLinNOES: COUNCILI{EN: None ABSENT COUNCILMEN: None COMMUNICATIONS: 1 i$rrrscatwQ[ The Chair acknowledged receipt of a communication dated September L4, L97L,from Herman H. Fitzgerald, President, Burlingame-Mills Estate fmprove- ment Association, Inc., reguesting an opportunity to address Counciland to file two petitions concerning the area knornrn as "Mi1Is Canyon Park. " Mayor Amstrup recognized lttr. Fitzgerald, according him the privilege of the floor. Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the concern of residents inthe lttills Estate because of lack of maintenanee in the canyon. Hestated that the people are aware of the city's long-range plans forthe area and support wholeheartedly the concept of a nature studypark but, in the meantime, request that some effort be made to main-tain the area free of debris and high weeds. Mr. Pitzgerald filed with the City Clerk two petitions - one fromthe "Citizens Committee to restore trliLls Canyon kParkl and the secondfrom "Committee for the Preservation of l"lills Canyon . " IIe explainedthat the first petition was circulated by Dr. Stanford L. Johnsonwith the intent to request the City Council to adopt a maintenanceand clean-up program, the second requests an adoption of a fire contingency plan, 5-ncluding improvement of fire trails and instalLationof fire hydrants and water supply near such fire trails. Mr.Fitzgerald agreed that the hydrants probably would be very costlybut that hopefully some effective system of fire control can be implemented. Mayor Amstrup's suggestion that perhaps a meeting could be arrangedwith representatives of the homeohrners group, the fire chief, park superintendent and one or two members of the Council for the pur- Pose of preparing a plan of action that could be presented to thecounci1 for formal consideration was accepted by Mr. Fitzgerald. He agreed to attempt to arrange the meeting. 2. Brp strMMARy - vasrEwATER TREATS4ENT pr.,Ari! A communication from ILhe Director of Public Works, dated September 15,L971, subrnitted copies of bid summary for Wastewater Treatment & Reclama-tion Works Improvements, opened at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 15.The communication reported that the necessary forms and applicationsare being Prepared with the assistance of John Jenks, to be submittedto the Federal- Water Pollution Control Administration for approvalprior to awarding of contract. An addendum to the letter from the City Manager stated that no awardcan be made until the Federal officers approve and the city becomeseligible for a one-third grant. L28 Council agreed with Councilman Martin that the project could be delayed for perhaps several months awaiting processing of the appli- cations by the Federal agencies, in authorizing the City Engineer to file the necessary forms and application, Council directed the city Engineer to send a folLow-up letter to the Environmental Pro-tection Agency in San francisco requesting permission to award thebids prior to their approval. 3 TRAFFIC SIGNALS - EL CAT4INO AND MURCHISON A letter dated September 16, L971, from the Director of Public Works subrnitted copies of a proposed agreement with the State Division of., Highways for the design and installation of proposed traffic signal to be installed at El Camino Real and Murchison Drive, a joint venture between the cities of l{illbrae and Burlingame and the State of California. The communication request,ed adoption of the necessary resolution authorizing exeeution of agreement. An addendum to the letter from the City }4anager recommended execution of the agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 51-71 "AuthorizLng Execution Of Agreement By And Between The Cities Of Burlingame And Millbra And The State Of California For The Installation Of A Traffic Control System And Street Signs At TheIntersection Of lr{urchison Drive With State Highway Route 82 (El Camino ReaI) " was introduced by CounciLman lvlartin, who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously approved on roll caII. 4. CHUI,A VIS?A A\IENTIE - oNE.WAY. A communication from the City Manager dat,ed September 16, L971, reported that the matter of making Chula Vista Avenue one-way south from Broadway to Carmelita was reviewed with the traffic director who reported that merchants on Broadway prefer that the change be made. The communieation recommended enactment of the appropriate legis-lation. ORDINANCE NO. 94L "An Ordinance Addi ng Sub-Paragraph 9 to Section 13.28.010 (One Way Traffic) And Regulating Traffic On Chula Vista Avenue Between Broadway And Carmelita Avenue" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Crosby. 5. NO PARKING BURI,INGAME AVENUE VICINITY OT RECREATION CENTtsR A communication from the City Manager dated September L6, 197I, reported that a conversation with the traffic director revealed there was some misunderstanding concerning Council's desires with respect to parking restriction on Burlingame Avenue. fhe communication recommended that legislation be enacted providing for "No parking on the north side of Burli-ngame Avenue from. the east side of the Recreation Center west to East Lane. " In response to a question raised by Councilman Mangini, the City Attorney reported the ordinance as prepared would not allow parking at any time. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Mangini suggested that extending the "no parking" restriction as far as East Lane may ereate a hardship. The City Manager reported that the traffic director advised that the American Legion tot is not used to capacity. ORDINANCE NO. 942 "An Ordinance Adding Sub-Section (q) to Sect,ion 13.36.010 Of The Municipal Code Prohibiting Park ing On The Northerly Side Of Burling ame Avenue Opposite Washington Park" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Mangini. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 52-7I "Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of Burlingame roposedDe1etionofRouteB2(n1caminoRea1)FromThe Stlte Highway Slzstem" was introduced by Councilman Martin who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously approved on roll caIl. O P.DI NANCE S 1. ORDINANCE NO 943 "An Ordinance Addin g Subparagraph 13 . 3 61040- (1I^,o Hour Parking) And Regulating Parking On I"lagnolia Avenue And The Easterly EI camino Real Service duced for first reading by CounciJ.man Crosby. 2.I NANCE NO. 944 "An Ordinance Arnending chapter Burlingame M un.l- c ipal Code Regulating Street Trees " t as first reading by councilman Johnson. UNFINISHED BU SINE SS 1. EME RGENCY EMP IOYMENT ACT In response to councilman Mangini, the city Itlanageradditional material was received earlier in the day he had not had the opportunity to review. t29 "Ctr To Section Lang Road, Road rr \^ras intro- II.04 Of lheintroduced for reported from the that county but 2. Sl STER CITY P ROGRAM €ouncilman itohnson reported that I{r. Ben Hechinger will be unable toattend the meeting for sister-city participants to be held on Sunday, September 26, 1971, in connection with the League of California Cities conference, as the city's authorized delegate. Her suggestion that Mr. and lrlrs. William carcia be named to attend in his place was acceptedby Council. Councilman Johnson reported that the garden party sponsored by theSister city committee on Sunday, Septedber L2, 1971, at the Hechinger residence was a delightful and very successful affair. NEIV BU SINE S S I LEGISIATI\/E CONSULTANT Councilman lhrtin reported that the San Mateo county council of Mayorsis conducting a pol1 to gather reactions to employment of a legislativeconsultant, each city to contribute to the cost. 2. PO ORP EOPLE I S CONFE RENCE Councilman Mangini reported that he attended the first meeting of the Poor People's Conference, held in the City of San Mateo. 3 . IIAUNIED HOU SE Mayor Amstrup referred to a recent press item indicating that theChildren's Health Home Auxiliary intends to use a building at Broadwayand EI Camino Real for its annual "Ilaunted House" fund-raising project. A motion introduced by councilman Martin, seconded by councilman Crosbyand unanimously carried gave city sanction and authorized the City Manager to contact the principals and request they meet with staff toexplore safety measures that may be involved. 4 . POLICE DEPARI!4ENT PERSONML RETI RE Il4ENT Chief of Po1ice lol1in reported that Mrs. Josephine Countrlrman, long-time city employee, will retire at the end of the month and extendedan invitation to Council to participate in a dinner acknowledging theoccasion to be held on Septembe t 29 at Bob's on Broadway. AC KNO'dT,E DGME NT S 1. cornmunication from City Manager, September 16, 1971, regarding"functional classification" of highways within State system. 2. Conununication from George "Unfinished Business. " The Ci and express Council r s appreci.a3. Notice of public hearing b and Develotrxnent Cornmission, 2:Building, San Francisco. Theattend. Mann, retired City Planner re: Manager was reguested to acknowledge on for the report.ore San Erancisco Bay Conservationp.m., Thursday, October 21, Statety Manager indicated his intention to A.tyri ef o0ci 130 4. Chambe r of Commerce Directory. " "Community Economic Profile And Industrial 5. Police and Fire Departments' monthly activity reports. 6. Minutes of Library Board, August 17, and Planning commission, September 13, 1971. SPAY AND NEUTE R CTINIC lrlrs. Anne Johnson, 2600 Martinez Drive, discussed a movement sponsoredby the Peninsula Animal Welfare Society, Inc., (PAWS) for a lo$r-cost county operated spay and neuter clinic to be made a part of the nes,, Peninsula Humane Society anlmal shelter. Mrs. Johnson was informed by Council of its action taken at a prior meeting endorsing the program. P ROCI,AMATI ON S Mayor Amstrup declared October 3 through 9 FIRE PREVENTION WEEK, 1971, and October I and 2 WHI'IE CANE DAYS, 1971. APPROVALS 1. warrants Nos. 8534 - A769, in the amount of $223,940.29, duly audited, were approved for payment on motion of Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimousJ-y carried. 2. Payroll Warrant,s Nos. 472 - 1055 (month of August) in the amountof $209,105.38 were approved on motion of councilman Mangini, seconded by councilman Johnson and unanimously carried. AD.]OURNMENT fhere being no further business for transaction, the meeting regularly adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, rbert K.te, City Clerk APPROVED: Irv ngs ruP, May oJ AmI