Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1973.05.21469 Burlingame, California May 21, 1973 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was called to order on the above date at 8:15 p.m., Mayor R. D. Martin presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Clerk led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Amstrup-Crosby-Cusick-Mangini-Martin Absent : Councilmen: None MTNTTTES The minutes of the meeting of May 7, 1973, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted following an amendment in the second item under Unfinished Business, "Resolution Finding General Plan To Be Consistent With Zoning Code" last sentence, paragraph seven to read: "She stated most of the areas where the General Plan disagrees with the zoning code is in the residential areas." The minutes of the adjourned meeting of May 2, 1973, previously submitted to members, were approved and adopted. SOCCER TEAMS Mayor Martin recalled that Mr. Celestino Romoli displayed a trophy at the last Council meeting awarded to the soccer team he coaches for winning the California championship; subsequent to that meeting, there was a call from a gentlemen who reported that his team of 7 to 9 year olds recently won the Northern San Mateo County championship. JACK CHARNOW Mayor Martin announced that he intends to honor Jack Charnow by adjourning the meeting in his memory; Mr. Charnow left quite a legacy in Burlingame after serving the community for 38 years in the local school district and his loss will be felt keenly by all who knew him. TROUSDALE DRIVE TRAFFIC With Council concurrence, Mayor Martin announced a change in the order of business to consider the above subject first. He stated that the Council, as yet, has not discussed this matter at a study meeting but decided to give the public an opportunity to place their comments on record. Communications were acknowledged from: Lyle Huntoon, 2705 Trousdale Drive; Howard and Jean Rathlesberger, 1795 Hunt Drive; George and Helen Neel, 1785 Sebastian Drive; Christy and Lorna Armstrong, 3040 Trousdale Drive; William A. Halonen, 2817 Trousdale Drive; Harold P. and Dorothy L. Torkelson, 2610 Trousdale Drive; -- Maurice M. and Virginia Marshall, 2721 Trousdale Drive; Manly and Arlys Lokken, 2641 Trousdale Drive; Mrs. R. Bespalos, 2724 Trousdale Drive. Basically, the requests were: reduce the speed limit to 25 miles an hour, traffic signals at every intersection, crosswalks, and the street be designated a boulevard with center planting strip. The Chair declared the floor open to the audience. Robert Gillespy, 2995 Trousdale Drive, expressed appreciation for the oppor- tunity of making a presentation. He advised that the issues he will raise were discussed at a recent meeting in his office attended by a group of concerned homeowners. He spoke at length of hazardous traffic conditions created by vehicles traveling at excessive speeds, drivers losing control of cars, with resultant damage to homes and landscaping. Referring to the recommendation in the traffic survey made by the San Mateo County Traffic Department for an "advance warning sign (STOP AHEAD) for eastbound motorist approaching Sebastian Drive," he stated there was such a sign but, after being damaged by a motorist, it was never replaced. At the corner of Martinez and Trousdale, a property was damaged twice by out -of -control vehicles. The people are asking that the Council initiate improvements without delay to control and slow traffic, not wait until a fatal accident occurs. The new apartment complex at Frontera in Millbrae can add as many as 400 vehicles on Trousdale; added to that is the potential burden that Trousdale may be forced to carry by reason of the proposed parking lot for BART, additional traffic generated as Millsdale and East Millsdale industrial areas continue to grow. As of now, Trousdale appears to be the logical and most convenient route west to 280 from these areas. The future seems to point to more and faster traffic on the street; in time, the only solution might be an overpass from the industrial areas over Trousdale to 280. Mr. Gilespy stated the county's traffic survey indicated 14,000 car movements daily on the street; presumably, this is predicated on a 24-hour period, where actually traffic bulk occurs from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., a 20 -hour day, or one car every five seconds. The survey indicated the majority of motorists travel under 40 miles an hour on Trousdale. He stated his personal experience proves it is difficult to control speed and he has discovered, upon glancing at the speedometer, that he was traveling at 45. He showed a series of posters to illustrate "blind corners" where motorists coming from the side streets must drive almost into the traffic lane on Trousdale to observe on -coming traffic; at Sebastian, there should be controlled stop lights at each corner because it is here that the children board school buses; and at Toledo, a crosswalk. He stated some of the people felt there should be "silent policemen" in the right of way but he preferred center planter strips. Traffic controls in the vicinity of Benjamin Franklin school are inadequate and must be improved; furthermore, surely the rate of speed here should be no greater than 25 miles an hour. He offered the following for consideration as methods of controlling and slowing traffic: 1. Reflectors marking traffic lanes create the image of a speedway; these should be removed. 2. From Hunt Drive going west, create a one-way street to stop cars entering Trousdale from the freeway. 3. For the entire length of Trousdale install center planters to form a noise buffer and give the effect of a boulevard rather than an expressway. 4. Pedestrian controlled signals at every block, but no farther apart than a city block, because of the distance from Loyola to Sebastian. 5. Reduce speed limit to 25 miles an hour for the entire length of the street. 6. 24-hour "no turn on red" sign at Trousdale and El Camino for southbound traffic on E1 Camino. Ann O'Moore, 1629 Lassen Way, stated people in Ray Park are very much involved with traffic conditions on Trousdale; access to and from Ray Park is limited and most residents use Sequoia, Quesada or Marco Polo Way to Trousdale when driving their children to school; attempting to enter and cross Trousdale from any one of these streets is extremely hazardous because of traffic volume and speed. She suggested that a four-way arterial at Sequoia may be helpful because it is the only four-way "squared off" intersection of the three streets traveled by Ray Park residents. She also commented on traffic generated on Marco Polo Way by the medical building, rehabilitation center and apartment buildings. 47 Gail Bei, 2625 Trousdale, mentioned an accident at Loyola Drive intersection that completely demolished two cars and caused extensive damage to the front of her home at 2:00 o'clock in the morning. She asked for a warning sign "slow down, curve" to be installed at Toledo Drive. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria Road, noted that center planters would reduce travel lanes to one on each side. He asked if there is a city -owned easement that would provide a method of widening the street if planters are installed, and suggested cyclone fencing in lieu of planters; children may be inclined to run out into the street to play in the planted areas. Kay Amstrup, 2708 Trousdale Drive, protested that a cyclone fence would be totally unsuitable in a residential area. Sarkis S. Sarkisian, 2955 Trousdale Drive, stated that residents find it almost impossible to back out of driveways because of the traffic. He supported the idea of removing reflectors in the street and stated there is precedent for 25 mile speed limit on major streets in residential areas, citing University and Oregon Avenues in the City of Palo Alto, where heavy traffic moves at controlled speed. John J. Gallagher, 2644 Trousdale, agreed the primary consideration is to slow traffic. He suggested, in lieu of center planted areas or cyclone fencing, which could prove costly to the homeowners, that modified dips posted with warning signs, might resolve the problem. Silvio Lucchesi, 1237 Capuchino Avenue, stated that reducing travel lanes to one will add to congestion and perhaps cause more accidents. Clarence Johnson, 2600 Martinez Drive, stated that just a week ago he had a second experience of a car out of control entering his property. Unfortunately, Trousdale attracts motorists from surrounding communities because of Highway 280. If the speed limit was reduced and traffic controls installed, people from outside the city might tend to use routes other than Trousdale to reach their destinations. Mayor Martin explained that the Council has come to no definite decision, the matter is under study. Some of the suggestions are rather radical and if the city did succeed in changing Trousdale to one way west from Hunt Drive to the freeway, there probably would be some retaliation by the State Division of Highways. Councilman Amstrup expressed total support of the people. Commenting that the matter has been before the Council for some time without resolution, he suggested that the residents be invited to a study meeting. Mayor Martin stated that the Council undoubtedly will want to hold a public hearing before any action is taken; however, the matter should be explored with staff at a study meeting and, subsequent to that, a public hearing can be held. Councilman Cusick stated that results of a speed survey furnished Council last December indicated the average speed at 42.5 miles per hour, some cars traveling 50 to 55 miles an hours. She noted that the county traffic study states the intersections of Quesada, Marco Polo and Sequoia failed to meet warrants for traffic signals, only Magnolia qualified; in checking the warrants on Old Bayshore, it was difficult to understand why the three inter- sections at Trousdale would not qualify if Old Bayshore did. She felt that signals on Trousdale were justified. Mayor Martin stated there will be a public announcement as soon as the date of the hearing is known. RECONVENE Following a recess at 9:20 p.m., the meeting was called to order by the Chair at 9:30 p.m. I 1. PARKING REQUIREMENTS, APARTMENTS AND APARTMENT HOTELS 472 Mayor Martin announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing and to consider preparation of an ordinance regulating off- street parking requirements for apartments and apartment hotels. (This matter was continued from the meeting of April 16, 1973.) The Chair explained there is an emergency ordinance in effect requiring 1112 spaces for each new apartment unit. The Council will, at this time, consider permanent off-street requirements, replacing those recited in the interim ordinance. Acknowledgment was made of a communication from the City Planner dated May 17, �Ww 1973, recommending the following for Council's consideration. (1) For each dwelling unit there shall be provided at least one covered parking space on the same lot with the building plus one additional space, which need not be covered, for each two units. (2) For each dwelling unit containing two bedrooms there shall be provided at least two covered parking spaces. (3) For each dwelling unit containing three or more bedrooms there shall be provided at least two covered parking spaces plus one additional space, which need not be covered, for each two such units. The Chair stated that if the Council decides to direct preparation of an ordinance, it will conform to the above recommendations. Declaring the hearing open, the Chair invited comments from the floor. Arthur Dudley, 1009 California Drive, expressed the opinion that the proposed regulations have no relation to actual needs of apartment dwellers, that increasing parking requirements in new apartment construction will not cure the problem of cars on the street, created by older homes and multi -family " buildings that are deficient in parking facilities. From experience in this city, builders and developers know that less than 12� to 1 in some instances, and rarely more than 1.6 spaces per unit, is more than adequate to serve the needs of condominium owners and apartment house tenants. He referred to 500 Almer Road condominium project, in which he was one of the principals, and recited statistics to prove that 13� to 1 parking is reasonable and adequate. He stated that in this project 43 spaces were provided; at 1332 to 1, 37 would have been required, and under the proposed code, 59, or 16 more than the site could accommodate. Of the 43 spaces that were assigned to the various units, 37 are in use. If the proposed formula had applied to this building, it would have been necessary to eliminate some of the two-bedroom, two bath units because there would have been insufficient land area to accommodate the required parking. He pointed out that in condominiums many of the owners are single women with one car; it does not necessarily follow, then, that larger buildings generate more automobiles. Stating that the proposed ordinance will have the effect of requiring an excess of parking, he asked the Council to follow through with an earlier recommendation of one and a half spaces for four room units or less, and two spaces for five or more room units, two-thirds covered, one-third uncovered. Mayor Martin explained that an extensive study was made to determine number of vehicles parked on the streets at night; there were approximately 700 and, for that reason, the Council decided some form of legislation was required to alleviate the situation. Unfortunately, the new regulations will not change parking conditions in older buildings, but the ordinance can be amended if -• it develops that a hardship is created. Joseph Lombardi, 2712 Summit Drive, objected on the grounds that the proposal is too restrictive and will create a hardship. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria Road, asked that uncovered parking be screened in some manner from public view. Councilman Cusick referred to Item #2 in the City Planner's memo and suggested that "potential" be inserted before "bedrooms." 473 Councilman Crosby referred to the Chair's comments with respect to hardship and asked what criteria would be employed to arrive at a conclusion of hardship. Mayor Martin stated that if the ordinance should stop construction of apartments that could be construed as a situation of hardship to developers. The City Planner stated that in rereading his memo to the Council there appears to be inconsistency with the idea that 2/3 of total required parking must be covered. He suggested the Council's consideration to allowing a portion of parking required for an apartment building to be purchased on a structure to be built in the downtown parking district; possibly some provision should be made for exceptions or alternatives for parking off site. Councilman Mangini questioned the equity of increasing parking requirements to something in excess of what may be needed; there is no assurance that parking problems can be solved by increasing the requirements for condominiums or other types of multi -family buildings beyond their needs. There were no further comments. The hearing was declared closed. The City Attorney was directed to prepare an appropriate ordinance for Council's consideration at the meeting of June 4, 1973. 2. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mayor Martin announced that this was the time and place scheduled to initiate a public hearing on the Open Space Element of the General Plan and to consider certain changes that were referred to the City Planner and the consultant, William Spangle for resolution. He explained that the first draft presented to the Council was considered somewhat specific in the areas of "action" and "implementation;" if the draft had been adopted, and the State mandated implementation, the City would have been burdened with a very large and costly open space plan. At this time, the Council will consider the changes; these will then be referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation before the Council can take a formal action. The City Planner, requested by the Chair to comment, referred to his memo to the Council dated May 16, 1973, and the attached "Addendum To Open Space Element" where the modifications requested by the Council were recited. Councilman Amstrup referred to paragraph 568 "Implementation" under the subject heading "Other School Sites," stating that the language still appears to be too specific. He quoted "Acquire individual lots adjacent to school sites as such lots come on the market." The City Planner reported this was brought to Mr. Spangle's attention; he, in turn, referred to paragraph 116 of the general plan adopted in 1969 wherein the following statement was made: "In addition, to augment the small sites of many of the existing neighborhood parks and elementary schools, acquisition of adjoining lots is recommended whenever such become available." It was intended that the Open Space Element be consistent with what had been previously adopted; if a lot does become available, the final decision on acquisition rests with the City Council. Councilman Amstrup explained he did not want the Council to be placed in the position of committing itself at this point in time to acquisition of properties that could be unsuitable or undesirable in the future, for any number of reasons. Councilman Mangini's suggestion that the sentence in paragraph 568 be changed to read "Acquire individual lots adjacent to school sites where prudently possible. . . . " was accepted by the Council. Cyrus J. McMillan, 1450 Chapin Avenue, stated that one of the comments in the Open Space Element refers to revisions in C-4 District. He asked if such changes will occur automatically by implementation of the general plan, or will there be other and independent action. The City Attorney stated there will be other action, the normal course for amending the zoning ordinance will be followed. 474 The Chair recognized William Spangle, the city's consultant on the General Plan. He explained that by mandate of the State legislature the Open Space Element must be adopted by June 30 as a part of the General Plan which the Council adopted in 1969; as part of the legislation, it is mandatory that the Open Space Element include goals, policies and implementation. This is an action program with specific goals that the legislative body intends to pursue to implementation. Mr. Spangle stated he was prepared to show a series of slides to illustrate the basic thrust of the Open Space Element. Burlingame is a built community with very limited open space that must be protected. He explained that under State law, identification of open space lands to be preserved are divided into four categories: Preservation of natural resources, Managed production of resources, Outdoor recreation, Public health and safety. In developing this city's Open Space Element, the plan treats open space in two major categories -- General Open Space and Open Space Lands. To illustrate the several categories of open space in this city, Mr. Spangle showed a number of slides, including Washington Park, street rights of way, building set backs, the bay, site for bayside park, inner lagoon and site of outer lagoon at Bayside Park, shoreline lands, watershed lands of San Francisco west of the city, Mills Canyon Park, hillsides adjacent to the canyon, the city's creek system, Cuernavaca Park, open space at Peninsula Hospital and Russell College and, in the downtown commercial area, courts, plazas and other small areas of open space. The Open Space Element diagram was shown on the screen and Mr. Spangle discussed the variety of open space areas represented there. Councilman Cusick stated that on page 14 of the Open Space Element there is a recommendation that Tidal Plane zoning district be extended to include all tidal waters. She asked if this will affect development of Bayside Park. Mr. Spangle stated it should not. George Keyston, 1310 Bayshore Highway, maintained that if the Tidal Plane zoning is extended to the park it will seriously restrict construction of omw some of the facilities that were originally included in the park plan; he mentioned specifically a boat pier. With Council concurrence, the Chair thereafter directed the modifications in the Open Space Element, prepared by the City Planner and the consultant, to be sent to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) 2. CABLE CAR WASH In a communication dated May 17, 1973, Cyrus J. McMillan, attorney, submitted an application in behalf of Cable Car Wash, Inc., for permit to place a reclaiming pit and sewer line in the right of way for Carolan Avenue near Broadway, the encroachment to be approximately five feet from existing curb and entirely below existing grade. A drawing showing location of pit accom- panied the communication. Mr. McMillan, upon recognition by the Chair, explained that the pit and a portion of the sewer line in connection With the car wash were inadvertently placed in the city's right of way, not in the paved portion of the street but approximately five feet inside of the curb. His client is asking for a revocable permit to allow the structures to remain. In response to Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney advised that the Council does not have to grant the permit; if it decides to grant for a monetary consideration that can be done, or, if the Council wants additional land- scaping, that can be made a condition of the permit. The City Engineer stated there are no plans at the present time to use this area for street purposes. The pit was precast, not poured, measures 6 by 10 feet and is approximately 4 feet 8 inches from the curb. Some portion of the sewer lateral will be in the city's right of way but the developer will be instructed to move the line over into his property at the most 47� convenient place; they must go about 300 feet to tie into the existing sewer on the other side of Broadway. With Council concurrence, the Chair directed the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate form of revocable permit for consideration at the meeting on June 4. 3. 13AYSIDE PARK Under date of May 17, 1973, the Director of Public Works reported that the contractor has finally completed requirements of the contract for work at Bayside Park, Phase II, including items noted in a communication from the landscape architects dated May 15, 1973. Additionally, the Park Superintendent indicates no objection to accepting the project. The Director of Public Works' recommendation that the project be accepted as being satisfactorily completed was concurred in by the City Manager. Mayor Martin asked about liquidated damages. The Director of Public Works reported the City Manager, City Attorney and he have discussed this with the contractor. City inspection costs from the time the job was supposed to be completed were subtracted from the progress payment just sent the contractor; additionally, the form accompanying the payment stated "Authorizing this payment does not relieve the contractor of possible liquidated damages," (Paragraph 38 of specifications). There is question whether the city can legally collect $50.00 per day in damages and this will be discussed with the City Attorney and City Manager before final payment is made; penalties up to the middle of May amount to approximately $4,700.00, the city is holding $7218.00. With Council concurrence, the Chair thereafter directed the City Manager to allow no further time extensions nor settlement of liquidated damages without prior approval of the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 38-73 "Accepting Improvements Bayside Park - Phase II" was introduced by Councilman Crosby, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried on roll call. 4. ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION - WATER METERS Under date of May 17, 1973, the City Attorney reported on the above matter. Attached to this letter was a communication from the law offices of Draper, Adams & Huntington. Item No. 4 in the City Attorney's communication stated as follows: "Attached is a copy of letter from the contracting attorneys to the undersigned dated May 8, 1973, advising that depositions have been taken from all parties, and that the results have been evaluated, and recommending withdrawals from the action for the primary reason of inability to establish liability." Following advice from the City Attorney concerning procedure, a motion was introduced by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Crosby and unanimously carried, directing the City Attorney to proceed as he deems suitable. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 4-73 "FINDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME." In a communication dated May 16, 1973, the City Planner submitted the above document to the City Council, advising that it was unanimously adopted by the five members of the Planning Commission present at an adjourned meeting on Monday, May 14, 1973. Councilman Cusick stated that, in addition to the difference in density, where density is double in one area of the General Plan over that permitted in the zoning ordinance, there is another matter that needs to be clarified. The General Plan shows a portion of Anza Pacific lands in M-1, light industrial, where the zoning code shows C-4, waterfront commercial; this, again, points up inconsistencies existing between General Plan and the zoning code. Councilman Cusick asked the City Attorney to comment on a situation that could arise where a developer might say there are inconsistencies between the General 476 Plan and the zoning ordinance, but the Council says there are no inconsistencies. Would the position taken by the Council be sufficient to keep the matter out of court? The City Attorney explained that the legislation requiring all entities having a General Plan to have the Plan consistent with zoning ordinances carries with it an authorization for any person who is aggrieved to initiate an audience in Superior Court by July 1, 1973. An aggrieved person can be any resident or "I property owner within the city; or a person who may own property here but reside elsewhere. The purpose of the action would be to compel the City moo Council to make consistent that which the claimant says is inconsistent. Consistency is the matter to be tested. In continuing his remarks, the City Attorney stated that "consistent" as the statute dictates means substantial consistency. The court would look at the overall general plan and overall zoning in the city; it would not pick out one parcel or a few parcels for such determination. Councilman Cusick stated that the other matter about which she is concerned was referred to the Planning Commission --the Commission was asked to amend the General Plan to conform to the present zoning code. This was before that body for 90 days; in their resolution, the Commission chose to use the word "consistent." She pointed out there is a very definite difference between "consistent" and "conform," and she still would like to have the Planning Commission amend the General Plan to conform to the zoning code. Councilman Cusick recalled that last November the Council Chambers were filled with people who asked that the residential areas be preserved as they now exist. The fact of the General Plan showing a higher density than the zoning ordinance in certain residential districts has the effect of discouraging people from maintaining and rejuvenating their properties; it has the opposite effect of encouraging speculators to buy older homes for eventual higher density uses. The City Attorney stated that a specific instruction must go to the Planning Commission under the statute; this may have been part of the problem because there was some confusion when the matter first came to the Commission. He stated it has always been possible to amend the entire General Plan, or any part of it. Procedure is for the Planning Commission or the legislative body to initiate the action, but there must be a hearing before the Commission, an action taken, and the matter then comes to the Council for final determination. All of this has nothing to do with "consistency" as related to the new statute adopted by the legislature last year. The new statute is entirely different from that which would apply if the General Plan were to be amended. The new statute says a zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan, it does not say they must be identical. It would appear that Councilman Cusick is concerned that the zoning ordinance and that portion of the General Plan represented by the map are not identical and she wants that lack of identity corrected, not by changing the whole, but by changing the General Plan map. Councilman Cusick insisted there be a hearing before the Council on amending the General Plan map to conform to the zoning ordinance where they are not identical. The Chair stated there will be no hearing before the Council until the matter goes to the Planning Commission. Following advice from the City Attorney, Councilman Cusick introduced a motion appealing the Chair's ruling. The motion failed due to lack of a second --the Chair's ruling to stand. Councilman Cusick thereupon moved that the Planning Commission be directed to con- duct a public hearing and to consider amending the General Plan map to bring it to conformity with the zoning ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Amstrup. The Chair commented that the General Plan is in the process of being revised, modifi- cations will come to the City Council for approval with recommendations from the Planning Commission. He suggested that the matter of conformity be held until such time that on-going studies on the General Plan have been completed. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows: 477 Ayes: Councilmen: Amstrup-Cusick Noes: Councilmen: Crosby-Mangini-Martin The Chair thereafter directed the City Attorney to prepare legislation for Council's consideration at the June 4 meeting, finding the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the General Plan, as required by State legislation. MOZAAMILD Following a recess at 11:10 p.m., the Chair reconvened the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Councilman Cusick referred to the minutes of the meeting of May 7, 1973, reading therefrom "Mayor Martin stated that action on the resolution would be taken by the Planning Commission on May 14, would come to the Council on May 21, and would be acted upon the first meeting in June." COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) 5. REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE BRICK, BURLINGAME AVENUE CROSSWALKS In a communication dated May 17, 1973, the City Manager reported all details of replacing defective brick for Burlingame Avenue Beautification Project have been worked out. Person -Western will perform the work for the contractor at no cost to the city. Therefore, it is requested that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a release to Port Costa Company, conditioned on all other parties executing a like release, and subject to the City Attorney's approval of form of release. In commenting on the matter, the City Manager stated that he, the City Attorney and the City Engineer met with the architect, the contractor and Mr. Person and they are willing to go ahead; the releases are necessary before Port Costa will remit the $25,000.00 for replacement of the bricks. The Chair inquired concerning enforcement of time and penalty or liquidated damage clauses where there is a new sub -contractor. The City Attorney stated it should be possible to have a supplemental agreement with the general contractor to the effect the brick contractor will complete the work in "X" number of weeks after commencement. The City Engineer reported that Mr. Person indicated a completion time of six to eight weeks, barring unforeseen problems. Councilman Amstrup's suggestion that the work be delayed until after the Burlingame Days events was accepted by the Council. Councilman Crosby asked about repairs to the planter box on the north side of the Avenue opposite Park Road. The City Engineer stated this will be redesigned in an effort to prevent further damages from automobiles. The City Engineer was requested to bring design and cost figures to the Council for review. In response to Councilman Amstrup, the City Engineer conformed that the three waste receptacles in poor condition will be replaced. Harry S. Graham, member of the Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, asked if the new brick crosswalks will be laid before the street is resurfaced. He pointed out that equipment used in the resurfacing project could mar or damage the bricks. There followed a period of discussion during which it was agreed that resurfacing should be completed first, the brick work to follow. r— A motion introduced by Councilman Amstrup, second by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary release document between the city and Port Costa Products Company. 7. PARKING COMMISSIONER RESIGNATION In a letter dated May 10, 1973, J. D. Refvem, 827 Walnut Avenue, submitted his resignation from the Parking Commission because of a new teaching commitment on the night of the regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission. Iwo Councilman Amstrup recommended that some form of plaque or framed resolution should be presented on such occasions, rather than a letter, as has been done in the past. His motion authorizing the City Manager to adopt this procedure in the future when commissioners resign or retire, or in other similar situations where a plaque or framed resolution would appear to be in order, was seconded by Councilman Mangini and unanimously carried on roll call. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 39-73 "Resolution Supporting, And Expressing Intention To Cooperate With, Area -Wide Approach To Public Transportation Planning And Development" was introduced by Councilman Mangini, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried on roll call. • :• : �CTS'S'diei5i� 1. ORDINANCE NO. 988 "Amending Chapter 6.40 Of Title 6 Of The Burlingame Municipal Code, Providing For Permits And Regulation Of Massage, Bathing And Health Establishments And Persons Offering Services Therein" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Amstrup. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 986 - Regulating Parking On Peninsula Avenue was referred to the study meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING PENINSULA WATER Mayor Martin referred to a communication received from Thomas M. Jenkins, Councilman, City of San Carlos, concerning a scheduled meeting of the Peninsula Water Agency on Thursday, June 14, 1973, 8:00 p.m., Council Chambers, City Hall, San Mateo, to bring the membership up to date on the questions of studies, r= proposed rate increases in San Francisco, proposals that $3,602,000.00 be removed from San Francisco budget for betterments to the system, and for addi- tional comments with reference to San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Councilman Amstrup indicated he would attend the meeting and asked the City Manager to send a reminder. 2. "BURLINGAME STEPS" BETWEEN EASTON DRIVE AND ALVARADO AVENUE The Chair acknowledged a communication signed by the Principal of Hoover School and residents of Alvarado Avenue, Easton Drive, Hillside Circle, requesting the Council's assistance in solving problems of vandalism and loitering in the area of the easement know as "Burlingame Steps," which runs between Easton Drive and Alvarado Avenue. The communication was referred to the City Manager to obtain a map showing precise location and also to attempt to gather additional information as to the extent of the problems. 3. REQUEST TO CROSS CITY PROPERTY Under date of May 17, 1973, the City Manager submitted a request from Mr. and Mrs. James C. Barraco, 1564 Alturas Drive, to cross over a city easement to connect a four inch drain line into an existing catch basin. The matter was referred to the next study meeting. 4. COOLIDGE SCHOOL now Acknowledgment was made of a communication from the City Manager reporting that the Burlingame School District has submitted a letter approving the conditions for the use of Coolidge School as a community center, with one change from the city's offer, the rental has been raised from $900.00 per month to $1,000.00. The City Manager was requested to confer with the Superintendent to verify exact costs involved in the city's use of the building. 5. DETACHMENT FROM SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT The City Manager submitted copies of a communication from Local Agency Formation Commission outlining procedure to seek detachment from the San Mateo County Harbor District. The City Attorney was requested to prepare an appropriate resolution for the Council's consideration. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. Vandalism of rest rooms: The City Manager's memo of May 17, 1973, submitted reports from the Park Director and the Police Department on vandalism incidents at Ray Park and Cuernavaca Park, and reported that the Park Director, with the Engineering Department, will investigate costs of installing doors. This information will be forwarded to the Council when available. Reports: Monthly activity reports from Police and Fire Departments. Minutes: Park & Recreation Commission, May 8: Health, Safety & Traffic Commission, May 10; and Library Board, May 15, 1973. An item in the Park & Recreation Commission minutes implying that minutes of the golf course study committee are unobtainable was referred to the City Manager at Councilman Amstrup's request, to clarify with Park & Recreation Commission that minutes have not been taken, nor formal reports prepared as yet of the committee's activities. An item in the Library Board's minutes concerning an increase in non-resident fees to $34.00, equal to the amount that Burlingame property owners pay on their tax bills to support the Library, was referred to the City Attorney to determine whether the City Council has the authority to override an action of the Library Board. It was the Council's position that non-resident fees should be higher than the levy assessed against residents. Miscellaneous Communications: 1. Norman E. and Ronald C. Rouseey, 105 Louise Lane, San Mateo, comments on Broadway parking and insufficient notice of meeting was referred to the City Manager for acknowledgment. 2. Elinor Larsen, 456 Hawthorne Avenue, San Bruno, concerning public hearing before San Francisco Board of Supervisors on airport expansion final EIR, to be held late May or early June. 3. Ronald E. Durkee, 1353 Columbus Avenue, protesting lack of enforcement of dog -leash law. 4. Envirotech Corporation submittal of specific increase costs contributing to 7.2% increase requested on wastewater treatment plant operation contract. The City Engineer suggested that the matter be pursued at a study meeting..A new contract should be enacted by June 30, 1973, when the present contract expires. 5. Communication from Pacific Western Contractors, Inc., concerning trees removed from site of Park Plaza Towers project at Bayswater and Park Road was referred to the City Manager to pursue with the Park Superintendent. 6. Form letter from Office of the Secretary of the Treasury concerning "Revenue Sharing" referred to study meeting. 7. Announcement from County Engineer and Road Commissioner of meeting on Wednesday, May 23, 1973, 7:30 P.M., City Hall Council Chambers, Daly City, Jenks & Adamson presentation of progress report on San Mateo County Water Quality Management Program. 8. County Engineer and Road Commissioner communication concerning Bay Area Sewage Services Agency's proposed budget and preliminary apportionment to San Mateo County. Mayor Martin stated that the County Council of Mayors agreed to request the County to place the levy on the county tax rate rather than spreading the costs to the various agencies owning or operating water pollution control facilities as the County apparently intends to do. RE 9. Communication from The National Association Of Social Workers referred to Councilman Mangini. 10. The City Manager was requested to contact the appropriate person to assure that Councilman Crosby receives notices of County Council of Mayors meetings. 11. Councilman Mangini reported that Mrs. Edith Cohendet has inquired about plans for United Nations Days in October. The City Manager was requested to contact Mrs. Cohendet. 12. Environmental Quality Coordinating Council, San Mateo County, May, 1973 1�r Newsletter: The Chair referred to an item on Page 2 under the heading "PROPOSITION A," referring to an "escape clause," omitted from the ballot statement. He reported the County Council of Mayors agreed that all such "escape clauses" should be included on the ballots. APPROVALS - WARRANTS AND PAYROLL On motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried, Warrants Nos. 3022 through 3274, month of May, 1973, duly audited were approved for payment in the amount of $247,600.94. on motion of Councilman Cusick, second by Councilman Amstrup and unanimously carried, Payroll for the month of April, 1973, checks Nos. 12927 through 13603, in the amount of $237,654.36 was approved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for transaction, the meeting was regularly adjourned at 12:55 a.m., in respect to the memory of Jack Charnow, principal at Burlingame Intermediate School at the time of his passing. APPROVED: R. D. Martin, Mayor Respectfully submitted, C;-�CityClerk