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