Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1966.12.196A Bur lingame, December Cali forni.a 19, 1966 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City council was held on the above given date. lteeting called to order at 8:I0 p.ur., - ltayor George in the Chair. PLEDGE OP ALLEGIATiICE At word from the chair, all the Pledge of Allegiance to ROLL CALL the Council Chamb€r arose and gave e Flag. crosby-Dieder ichsen-ceor ge-Johnson-ltartin None inth Present Absent - Councilmen: - Councilmen: BUSINESS ORDER RETIEBSED Mayor ceorge announced that with the conaent of Council, the public hearing on the application to revoke a variance permitted l,!r. Douglas Pringle to congtruct a "Ekyline project" would be heardfollouing disposition of routine agenda items. CO},TMUNTCATIONS I. FORMAL ACCEPTANCE BROADWAY PARI( ING LO?S A cornmunication from the Director of Public works, dated Decenber 15, 1966. advised that F. D. Sperry Company has completed the Broadway shopping district off-street parking lots "P" and "Q" satisfactorily and in fu1l compliance with plans and specifica-tions and formal acceptance was recormended by his Office. A memo to Council footnoted on the conmunication from the City Uanager concurred with the recormendation. RESoLUTToN No. 90-66 "Acc epting Broadtray Off-Street Parking Lotsffi. 66-10" ( F. D. sperry co.) was introducedfor passage on motion of Councilman ilohnson, seconded Ly Councilman Croaby and unanimously adopted upon Roll cal.I. CIIY WATARPRONT PIANNING A cornmunication from the City luanager, dated Decenber 15, 1966,referred to the four consulting firma interviewed by council(prior study meeting) relative to the preEentation of "park designs"to improve the citlr's waterfront acreage in the area of the Disposal Plant. :Ihe city !{anager submitted an analyzation of thr qualificationsof each firm and recommended that the consulting firm of Al1an Ribera and John Sue be selected. A conumrnication from the city Planner to the city [anager, dated Noveniber 29, L966, advised that subsequent to the intervierrs, at which time he was present as an observer, his evaluation of each applicant in relation to urderatanding the type of program desired by the city, favored the selection of the consulting firm of Rqrston. Hanamoto, Mayes and Beck. council concurred lvith the reconmendation of councilman uartin thata firm be engagred on this occasion and that the firm seleeted beinvited to meet with Council at a s tudy meeting to consult on Eervice performance fees and technicalities to be included within a contract. A pol1 of Council unanimously selected the conEulting firn of Rryaton, Eanamoto, llayes and Beck. 2. 8B January LL, L967, hras scheduled as the next council study meeting with the City Uanager requested to include the above matter and the Burlingame Avenue District ltaffic plan, previously proposed for study, on the agenda that evening. 3. RECREATIoN CENTER ARCHITECTURAL sERvTcEs A comrmrnicati-on from the City Uanager, dated December 15, 1966, advised that a tentative agreement for architectural services for Recreation center improvements has b'een prepared with clarification required on several of the four phases presented. lrhe City !{anager stated that a conference with the architect is necessary in a major project of the type proposed in order to place council in a position to finalize the matter. The City Irlanager was requeated to include the subject on the Council study rneeting agenda, January 11. 4. TRAFFIC ANALYS IS - BROADWAY-CALIFORNIA DR TVE A commrnication from the city lilanager, dated Dece ber 15, 1966, reterred council to an analysis of the traffic problem on Broadhray prepared by Mr. creenspan, Tlraffic Engineer, as the result of a recent survey. Ihe analysis included the estimated "traffic Capacity of Broadway" at El Camino Real and at California Drive and "Broadway volume'capacity Ratio" indicating generated 1990traffic without the propoaed overpass. lltre subject was tabled for consideration at a special study nEetingto be scheduled in the inunediate future. 5. RENEWAL PERSONNEL SERVICES A gEmo to council from the City Manager, dated Decedber 15, 1966, reeommended the adoption of a resolution to renev, the City's contract with the State Personnel Board for services incident to the preparation and rating of examination material. REsoLurIoN No. 91-66 "state Personnel Board Contract" was introducedfor passage on mot 10n o f councilman Martin, seconded \r councilman Johnson and adopted unanirnously upon Roll Call. 6. PRESENTATION 'ANZA PAC IFTC CORP. T,IASTER PI3N" A communication from the city Planner, dated December 13, 1966, advised that the Anza Pacific Corporation has submitted a masterplan for the development of the unfilled portion of its holdingsard a tentative map for the subdivision of the first units,currently under consideratj.on try the Planning conunission. Ihe City Planner further adviaed that the proposed principle Etreetshall be a major arteri.al to be constructed according to City standards and its connection with the City's park area will require a policy decision from Council on a "road pattern. " Ihe subject was referred for conference at the regular study neetingof council on February 1, 1967. RESOLI}TIONS RESOLUTION NO. 92-66 "A pproving By-Laws of Council of Uayors of was introduced ry councilmancities of san uateo County, Ca 1i fornia " CroEbDr, irho moved itE adoption, seconded by CouncilmaD Diederichsen and unanimously carried by RolI eall vote. 64 ORDINAIICES - Consideration thereof: ORD IIIAIiICE NO. 860 "An Ordinance Amendin g the lhrnicipal Code of the city of Burlingame By Adding Sub-Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 to #13.20.010 and providing for fntersection Stops for Vehicles atthe fntersectionE of clarendon Road, gloomfield Road and Dwight Road with Burlingame Avenue" was given its second readj.ng and upon rnotion of Councilnan !la!tin, seconded t,!' Councilman Johnson, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted try the follovringRoll Call vote: Ayes: Councilmen:Noes: Counciknen: C roEbV-D ieder ichgen-George-ilohnaon-tlar tin None None NEW BUS INES S 1. NoRBERG ..ovERPAsS" PIAN councilman uartin reported receipt of a letter from E. L. Norbrg,offering his Broadway Overpass plan to the City and in exchange,if Eaid plan is approved, that he be retaind by the City aE a Consulting Architect. Councilman Uartin recomended that special study meetings be scheduledby the City Uanager to consider the several proposed comproniseplans, adding the suggestion that members of the Planning Commission be also invited to attend the study meetings. lhe City Engineer, in reply to Councilman Crosby, stated that the State DiviEion of Highway officials, currently preparing plans re- designing the street and right-of-t ay of State property in the areaof Hyatt Eouse and the Ramada fnn have not submitted a progreasreport, advising that his Office would again conault the officials. Councilman CroEby suggested that it may be appropriate to regueEtlocal legislature representatives to assist the City in expeditingthe proposed improvement. titayor ceorge, concurring rrith statements of Councilnan Crosby, pointedout that with the many new companies locating in that particular area, every means should be expended to alleviate the traffic hazardg and eliminate the existing traffic "bottleneck. " 2. CO!,lltrSsION REAPPOINTMENTS Itre follor,ring reappointnEnts to comrnisgions were announced by the Chair and confirmed by Council! CnIII SERVICE PARKING DISTRICT Kenneth M. HovrerArchie L. Offield Bruce C. Kirkbride ACKNOWT,.EDGMENTS liayor George acknowledged receipt of reports from the Police Department and the San Mateo County Department of Public Health ard welfare, a copy of a communication from the County of San l,lateo to the Burlingame Chamber of comllerce, dated December 7, withdrawing annual financial assiatance to the chamber of courerce; conmunications from !lrs. verna Jacobs, 27OA nillside Drive. !trs. Robert c. Ohlson, 21I occidental Avenue, commending fire, police and public works departmentsfor courteoua and efficient serviee; eontmr:nicationE from }lr. John Benson, 3I1 primrose Road anil ltr. Ed Arnold, 265 Primrose Road, corunending council action vrith resp€ct to the proposed shopping centerin the Broadway area and a comm.rnicat j.on from the comnunity cultural Coordinating Conmittee, Pacifica, concerning the conservation of landsto conplete the John Fitzgerald Marine Reserve on the coastside, thelatter referred to councilman ,rohnson, council represetnative on the North County Council of Cities Park Committee. T'NFINISHED BUSINESS RECESS A reeess \raa declared by the chair at 9:05 p.m. CAI,L fO ORDER Ihe meeting was called to order by ltayor George at 9:2O p.m. HEARING - APPLICATTON TO RE\IOKE VARIANCE " SKYLINE TERRACE "(uouglas Pringle ) !{ayor ceorge announced the opening of the public hearing on theapplication for the revocation of a variance granted l,E. DouglasPringle, scheduled \z Council at the last regNlar meeting, pursuantto points of inquiry placed before Council b,y Lavrrence A. Augrusta.Attorney, in behalf of six homeo&rners residing on Hunt Drive. thepetitioners. A cornrnrnication \das read from tuther !1. Carr, Attorney, of the lawfirm of carr, ucl€llan, fngersoll, Ihompson & Horn, 215 Park Road, dated Deceniber 7, 1966, adiising that he has been retained by !lr. Pringle to represent his interests relative to the variance permitting the construction of the Skyline lerrace apartments. lltrere being no further commrnication filed and the reading of commrnications received and entered into the record at the last meeting waived, the Chair announced the poLicy of Council on public hearing procedure. !!r. Lawrence A. Augusta h,as recognized b1z the chair. vrho advised that one of the petitioners has requested that the "Application for Revocation of Variance" be re-read in its entirety. Council there-after consented. Tlhe application submitted that the property interests of the property owners in the inmediate vicinity "Etand to suffer irreparable harmif the variance is not complied r.rith " and "that the structures as constructed are in violation of the express instructions of theCity eouncil given in open neeting on Noveniber 16, 1964. " I!lr. Augfus ta referred to and guoted excerpts from prior Council minutes.stating that the actj-on taken by Council indicated "no doubt aE to what the terms and conditions of the variance werei " that council, on Uarch 1. 1955, revierred a model of the proposed project at which timean addition to the original building plan propoEed the erection of a "large room for recreation and other purposes on a roof of one of the apartment buildings; " that in reply to the Chair 's request for comments from Council, "Councilmarn Johnson, Councilman Crosby and Councilman ceorge each voiced their individual approval (to buildingconstruction plans) provided it iE determined that the propos edaddition does not classify the building as a four-storied structure" and that in his opinion, the rnotion approving the plans as submitted "hrithout the inclusion of the addition" was an action sufficientlydefinite to limit the construction to three stories and that theerection of the existing penthouse is in direct violation. Ur. AugruEta stated that the requeEt for a revocation of the variance may appear to be "harsh" but in the opinion of the petitioners, "thereis little question" in that Mr. Pringle has assumed an attitude contrary to his promises and to a presentation he made before the Burlingame l,lilIs Estate Xmprovement Association, both personally andby letter. Continuing, Mr. Augusta stated that the "first structure was constructedto a height to accomodate the penthouse, indicating the intention toproceed" and .that in an attempt to install utilities in the penthouse, construction r'ras halted tV the Building Inspector as not being apart of the plans previously approved; that in "the matter of thegarage, Mr. Pringle contends that it is a basementr " hordever, "itis definitely a story" or a "parking level." Sununarizing the violations particuE arly objected to by the petitioners, mainly the construction of the penthouse and the garage areas, SE 6B !,!r. AuguEta urged Council to either revoke the variance grantedor that an action be taken to assure conditions of the variancewill be conpl ied with. Ilhere being no further cornments from appellants, Mayor ceorge extended the privilege of the Floor to !!r. Luther U. Carr, Attorney. !!r. Carr referred to his review of material on the subject availablein the Office of the City Clerk and stated that the "iseue isiq)ortant to Mr. Pringle as well aE to the beEt interests of thecity. " Cormenting on the statement in the application for revocation, thatthe property owners will "suffer irreparable harm, " Mr. Carr statedthat the petition failed to describe the "harm" that rrou ld occur ithat in vieing the skyline fo\^,ers, the penthouse cannot be Eeen from Hunt Drive; the building is seventy percent to completion, andthe request for a revocation indicates that the petitioners "r'rantthe building torn down " which, in his opinion, is "ridiculous. " Ur. Carr expressed his disagreement with the opinion given by thecity Planner to Council three days following the granting of thevariance (ttarch 3, 1965) that the addition of a penthouse uould be considered a story, stating that "a11 there is, iE a roof, " andif permitted to be enclosed, it rrould "make (the apartment) a betterplace to live. " llr. Carr stated that t\do issues are before Council: (1) Comnon Sense - What is best for the City of Burlingame; is a recreation room goingto harm anyone r what benefits will be derived if it were removed and (2) Legality - tlhe minutes of Council indicate "no firndanental objectionr " no official action rras talen on the opinion given Council bV the City Planner and !!r. lringle was not given a copy of theopinion. Reference was made by lrrr. Carr to a comrmrnication receivecl try t{r.Pringle in answer to his inquiry from the Int€rnational conferenceof Building officials in Los AngeleE, dated uarch'15, 1965, statingthat the "condition described \^,ould not be considered a story buta penthouse under the provisions of the thiform Building Ccrile; "that the height and size of penthouses and roof structures "are not cons idered as Etories . " Continuing, !lr. Carr stated that the structure will harm no one,but will benefit the one hundred seventeen people who will occurythe building for uEe as a "party-Eooh, and while slzmpathetic rriththe concern of ot ners on ltunt Drive, his review of the minutea indicatedthat "not more than one caEe in to protest the erection of the apart- ment houses" and that in his opinion, "no one on llunt Drive $i11 be happy no matter lrhat is done." CoNnenting on the current-day competition: between luxury alErtmenta,tlr. Carr stated that every facility mrst be made available to attract occupancy; that the inEurance company permanently financing theproject has made the inclusj.on of a penthouse one provision of theloan; that each building l^rill contain two elevatorE, the project also includes a Ewimming pool. sauna rooms and a penthouse recreation room; if construction funds are terminated or the permanent loan iE refused, trtr. Pringle would be forced into bankruptcy, it has been estimated that to rernove the penthouEe structure would approximate between thirty and forty thousand dollars; in addition to involving human risk, the structural validity of the building would be affected. ur. carr advised that construction funds cannot be applied to financethe removal of the structure; bankruptcy proceedings would result in the buildings being abandoned to become a corumrnity hazard and the income of one hundred eighty workmen terminated. In cloEing, Mr. Carr, admitting that his client has been negligenthis consultation \^rith members of the City's government. urged that issue be considered on the basis of "serving the best interests of 3:i":ir"3:i3troli"""r"" and that "personalities', be ercluded from 1n the 87 !!r. James guirk, loan agent, wells Fargo Bank, advised that the bank has advanced thus far, $1,700,0OO.O0 to ttr. Pringle for construction costsi with an application for an additional loan in the amount of $370,000.00 to complete the proj ect now pending, an ad.verse action would have a serious effect on the disposition of the loan. Itrr. Clifford Garnble, with business interests on lYousdaLe Drive and El camino Real, stated that the contractor merits comnendation inhis undertaking of the project, that his company has invested $1. O00, OO0.O0 in the City of Burl j.ngame. believing it to be a "progressive" city. Mr. A. G. Molakidis, 19O1 carden Drive, spole on behal f of tentants occupying apartment houses, stating that the facilities proposed will be an added and desirable attraction. comments from council were thereafter invited by the chair. In a series of ingui.ries directed to the city Builating fnspector andto those in attendance representing the interests of !lr. Pringle, CounciL was inforned that (1) the loan to construct the project $ras dated May 14, 1965 and the date of the issuance of the Building Permit. I{areh 3, 1965; (2) a barik will loan funds to construct the proj ectwith a limitation on the period of time in which the loan must berepaid; the second lender, in this instance, an eastern insurance company, supplies the permanent financing, (3) the height of the building \rithout the penthouse is thirty-three feet; (4) the construc-tion of the penthouse addition to the building proceeded without the knowledge of the Building Inspector until an inspection revealedthat utilities were being installed, subsequent to which, work was ordered stopped as not being a part of the building plans approved; and (5) with reference to the likely hazards in removing the pent- house, the Building Inspector stated that " there is nothing in the construction business that cannot be done." fn reply to Mayor ceorge's criticism of his construction practices inthe past and questioning his reason for proceeding with the penthouse, lj!r. Pringle referred to theruling he received from the BuildingOfficials conference in reply to his inquiry, stating that the ruling removed the one obstacle he felt was facing the proposed construction;in addition, it was neeessary that he act promptly to negotiate thefinancial "backing. " In reply to the Chair, the Suilding fnspector advised of ljlr. Pringle's personal visit to his office and the circurnstances whereby !tr.Pringle, on city stationery, wrote to and received a reply from the Conference of Suilding Officials, copies of which ktere not presented to the City. fhe city Plannerr .in-somb detaif, reviewetl iniidenti' prior. to his opihion' suDrhittLd to Council as a memo and dated l{arch 3, 1965, with respect to the penthouse and referred to the record wherein no furtheraction was taken by Council; that the plans for the project do indicatea method to provide basement areas that were within the Code; thereis, however, no indicatior of a penthouse in the plans. lhe City Planner, referring to the communication written by li{r.Pringle to the International Conference of Building officials, statedthat the reply received was of considerable interest and the informa-tion should have been presented to Council and to members of the City'sstaff- A series of inquiries from Councilman Martin to the Building Inspectoradvised Council that the building construction has proceeded accordingto plans submitted and approved by Council with the exception of thepenthouse and that set backs conform to code requirements. Ithe eity Attorney stated that a variance rdas granted with the conditi.onthat the building be constructed according to plans and the "Penthouse"is the issue before Council; that in addition to not being advised oft}le inquiry sent tryz tilr. Pringle to the Auilding Officials eonference, Council did not receive a copy of the reply. 68 t!r. Carr, in a rebuttal to the City Planner's comments, referredto a letter to council, dated Novedb€r 10, 1964, from the city Planner,indicating that the subj ect of a penthouae yras before CounciL atthat early date, that the nption granting the variance, did notrecite "do not build a penthouse, " but "in principle, was approvedif not considered a fourth story. " on the point concerning the November lOth conumrnication, the City Planner advised that the circumstance related to an "entirelydifferent aet of plans" and has no bearing on the plans nan under discuss ion. Councilman Martin alao stated that Mr. Carr in hiE referral tothat particular occasion, was quoting "out of context. " RECESS A recess was declared by the Chair at 11:3O p.m. CALL TO ORDER {he rneeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m. llayor George referred to council for comnent. Councilman llartin queried the Building Inspector, who advised that(1) building plan calculations were submitted and checked with no evidence of a penthouse; (2) a "revised" br.rilding permit vraa notissued; (3) a " Pernit of Occupancy" would not be issued if a structuralrevision occurred; (il) a general contractor is ar.rare that in an instance of a major building change, a revised buililing ;rermit must be applied for and that (5) in all other respects, the subjectstructure has been constructed according to plan and in compliancewith variance requirements. l,lr. Pringle, in reply to councilman lrlartin, stated that the penthouEe conetruction represented an e>(penditure of $22,O0O.00 and that thig evening was the "first time it occurred to hin to apply for a revigedbuiltling permit. " A discuasion arose on the "commitmentE " made to negotiate the financialaid to complete the project, with !!r. Carr, in some detail, explainingthe "special features " necessary to the apartment house construction, one of which was the inclusion of a "penthouse. " councilman Martin stated it has been his continued intention that the penthouse should not be constructed; that from the evidence it appearE " from the beginning, ur. Pringle intended to build the penthouae; as "late as May 14, !tr. Pringle was going ahead r^rith the penthouse" and that he 'canrlot believe that this rdas rcting in 'good faith,i " councilman llartin, speaking on the "hazards" alleged to be in existencewith the removal of the penthouse, referred to Hr. Leonard Robinson, Mr. cecil H. wells, Jr. and !lr. I{eyers, experts in the field of structural engineering, in attendance to offer their testimony, statinghis personal acquaintance with each and expressing his high eEteemfor their capabilities. lilr. Leonard Robinson, designer of the apartment structure, spoke on the risk of removing the penthouse follorping a descriptive accountof the structural construction ard estimated that the cost to removethe penthouse would approximate beth,een $20,OOO.00 and $30,0OO.OO.Mr. RobinEon stipulated that the removal vrould not endanger thestructure itself. f.fr. Cecil H. welIs, structural engineer, explained j.n considerabledetail, the penthouse in relation to the structural design and the construction of the builcling, the complexities in removi.ng the pent- houge and estimated the cost to remove the latter would approximate $4O, O00 . 00 . 89 councilman Diederichsen directed inquiries to the city Attorney and to the Building Inspector, who advised in turn that (1) a variance nEy be granted on a conditional basis and such procedure iE not uncomt{ron i (2) the building mrst be constructed in compliancewith plans approved and (3) that the "western eoncrete Engineering Company's" knowledge was applied when plans for the project were subrnitted for approval. councilman Johnson stated that the variance was granted in "goodfaith" and a violation with respect to the variance occurred thereafter, the penthouse does not conform to the plans and Council "caniot be expected to condone, the violation as it presently exists. Councilman crosby referred to the occasion council reviet ed the construction modeL and the model of a "removable penthouse, " stating tl1at as originator of the rnotion, it was his intention that the variance be approved without the addition of the penthouse; that the construction norp is in violation. !lr. Pringle spoke at some length in his own defense, stating that it was his "honest belief" that approval of the penthouse was delayeduntll members of the city's staff determined whether the penthouse did, or did not constitute a fourth story and that he proceeded with the construction after receiving a ruling from the fuilding officials Conference. Mr. Pringle stated that "if it $rere a mistake that would hurt anyone,it \.rouId be a different story" but to take an action that mayinitiate a bankrupt procedure would be "regrettable. " Mayor ceorge, in questioning the Building Inspector, was advised that!rr. Pringle was notified that he was in violation approximately three months ago when he placed an order to install utilities in the pent- house and that an official " abatenent notiee" was filed ten days ago. Follor^'ing a period of inquiries from Council to members of the city'sstaff, Councilman Martin referred to !lr. Orirk, the bank'E representa-tive. In reply to councilman !{artin's inquiry concerning whether r. Pringle would be placed in a position of barikruptcy, if the additional loanto complete the project were refused, with or q,ithout the penthouse, l,!r. Quirk advised that the "barik considers this a very serious loanat the moment; " that "there is a serious question ehether they will advance more;" ant "if there is an adverse ruling" the status of the loan is "considerably more doubtful." Purther discussj.on concluded and a motion was introduced by CouncilmanI{artin that Council finds that the structure has been erected in conformity with the variance, q,ith the exception of the penthouse; that Council further determines that the penthouse. constructed contaryto the building plans filed with the Building trnspector. be removed. ltre motion was secorriled by Councilman Diederichsen and adopted upon thefollowing Ro1l call vote: Ayes : Councilmen : Crosb!'-Diederichsen-George-Johnson-MartinNoes: Councilmen: None CIA IMS C1aims for the Month of December, 1956. Nos. 7494 to 7666. in thetotal amount of $L12,957.42, duly audited, were approved for payment on motion of Councilman Crosby, seconded by Councilman Diederichsen and unanimously carried. PAYROLL Payroll warrants, lbnth of November. 1966, tlos. L2L43-129A9, in thetotal amount of $149,160.81, were approved on motion of CouncilmanCrosby, seconded by Councilman Diederichsen and unanimously carried. I I ?0 SCTIEDULE ND(T REGIJLAR I'{EETII{G ifanuary 2, 1967, being a lega1 Holiday, the next regular meeting of council waa scheduled on Tlresday. ilanuarlr 3, 1957. ADIJOITRIiII,IENT The meeting was regularly adj ourned at 1:2O a.m. Respectfully submitted, ( K. WHXIE, City Clerk EPPROVED 6J-.--r EDWARD D. G I.'AYOR E