Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1965.03.0116ts Burlingame, California ilarch 1. 1965 CALL TO OPOER A regnrlar neeting of the Burlingame city council was held on the above given date. ueeting called to order at 8:10 p.m., - Mayorit{artin in the Chair . PLEDGE OF ALI,EG IANCE At h,ord from the Cha j.r, all in the Council Chartrber arose and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL I"lTNUTES Ihe lrlinutes of the regular meeting of February 15, 1965, were approved and adopted following a correction that the qrord "Protection" be changed to read "Protective" with reference to the Burlingame Suburban Protective Association (l :Itip1e-Apartment House hearing.) BIDS - BAYSTDE TT,,IPROVEMENT DTSTRICT BOND SALE SCI-IEDT'LE IT ONLY Sealed proposals for the Bayside fmprovement District Bond SaIe, Schedule If Only. opened in conformance with published notiee of saidsale, were declared as follor'rs: INTERE ST RATES ( 9283, 00o. oo ) Present - councilmen:Absent - Councilmen: S. C. Pohlman Company 550 california St., san Francisco wegtern ImProvement Bond co., rnc. 221 Montgomery st., San Francisco Stone & Youngberg 1314 Russ Bldg., san Francisco cross and Company, Inc. 816-W. sth St., Los Angeles Crosby-Dieder ichsen-ceorge-Johnson-!4artin None 99% par value 5-L/2% per annum 1966 - 1985 99% par value 5-3/t"A per annum 20 yearE - pren. 5% 99.3A% par value 5-1/4% per Ernnum 99.L27% par value 4.9OS per annum T'he foregoing bids rdere referred to !,1r. Kenneth f. Jones, Attorney, representing the Aayside Improvement District, for analysis and recotulendation prior to the termination of the meeting. ORDER OF BUSINESS REVERSED [ayor Martin announced that the regular order of buEiness wou Id be reversed to give consideration first to routine matters. Mayor Uartin also announced the passingr of l,!rE. Frankie Karmel, Motherof City Attorney Burress Karmel and stating that in the absence ofthe City Attorney, the City l{anager, also a menber of the CaliforniaBar AsEociation, would Eerve Council on this occasion as Acting CityAttorney. BIDDER COMMUNTCATTONS 1. BURLTNGA.I4E-LORTON AVEIII'ES INIERSECTION TRAFFIC A communication from the City Manager. dated F ebru ary 25, 1965, advised that the City's Engineering Departrnent has indicated that plans and specifications for the installation of traffic signals at the Burlingame Avenue and Lorton Avenue intersection may be availablewithin one month; that during the interim. four-way stops have been placed and the intersection travel noted to have been improved. The city l{anager also advised that the Health. Safety & Traffic Commission has recommended that a complete study be made of the "over-alI" dovrntown traffic problems and that tda j or changes suggested by the members be given conEideration. Council took cognizance of the statement of the City uanager that a complete report would be presented prior to the installation ofsignals at the subj ect intersection. 2. HIG HWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEI,IENT AMENDMEMP A conumrnication from the City Uanager, dated Februaty 25, 1965, advised that the State Division of Highways has requested that an amendment to the Hi.ghway luaintenance AgrreefiEnt be executed to i.nclude an additional portion of Skyline Boulevard recently annexed to the City (from O.42 to 0.92 miles. ) Council was also advised that the Division of High\.rays has coneentedto increase the maximum expenditure per mile to 9125.00 on Skyline Boulevard and to $I,600.00 on the E1 Camino Real. Council concurred with the recomrEndation to approve ,,Amendment Number 1" to the Maintenance Agr eement and RESOLUTION NO. 22-65 "Resolution of the City Council of the City of BurI 1ngame Approving Amendrnent Number I to AgreerEnt for l,laintenance of State Highwayin the City of Burlingarne" was introduced for pasEage on motion of Councilman Crosby, seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously adopted upon RolI call. ?WATER POLLUTTON CONTROL BOARD REPORT A conmunication from the City Manager, dated Febru ary 25, 1965, advised that the Water Pollution Control Board, at its last meeting, postponed action for one month on a proposed resolution seeking a schedule from Burlingame for further Seqrage Plant fmprovements. T'he City Manager stated that the Control Board has set April 15, 1965, as the "deadline" in which the County of San ltateo is topresent its county-\"ride " sevrerage Study." It{ayor llartin advised that the San It{ateo County Council of Uayora' has requested that Assemblyman Ryan, Assembllrman Britschgi and Senator Dolurig meet with representatives of the UayorE' Council andthe Water Pollution Control Board i.n an effort to resolve some ofthe problems. For general information, Mayor llartin advised that the City of Brisbane and the City of Redrrood City apparently comply hrith con-ditions set forth by the water pollution Control Board. 4 ANITA ROAD TRAFFIC COI.IGESTION REPORT A commrnication from the city lqanager, dated February 25, L965, advised that an investigation has bcen condueted on the complaint fiLed by residents and property owners residing on the first block of Anita Road between Peninsula and Batzswater Avenues concerning a traffic congestion within the aree. Ihe City Manager advised that the easterly side of the street is zoned apartments or multiple dwellings and the west side is zoned commercial-service trades, creating a "zoning conflictr" the 764 165 Police Depart@nt has indicated that the street is not hazardous insofar as police and fire ingress and egress is concerned andthat it has been suggested that dr iveway entrance curbs be painted provide an easier access. council concurred with the reconutrendat.ion of the city l{anager thatthe Etreet be kept under observation for future regulations. 5. DT'MP FAC ILITY REPORT A comrmrnication from the City lttanager, dated February 24, L965, advised that in a discusaion with I'lr. ceorge Keyston, the latter has indicated that it wou Id not be economically feasible for his companyto enter into a contract to provide durping facilities for Burlingame residentE only. Council concurred with a recolEnendation from the City !{anager that the Eubject be placed on the council study meeting agenda for further c Lari fication . 6. FIRE ALARM C IRCUIT CONTRACT ACCEPIED A commrnication from the City !{anager, dated February 26, L965 adviEed that the Kennedy Electric company has met all requirernentsof plans and specifications and final inspection for installation under the fire alarm circuit contract. Concurring with the recornnendation of the City Manager, the City Engineer and the Fire Chief that the contract completion be accePted, Councilman crosb,y introduced and moved the passag e of RE SOLUTTON NO. 23-65 "Acc epting Fire Alarm circuit - Burlingame .l'lanor and HiUs subdivisions - rTob No. 64-36" seconded by councilman Georgre and unanimously adopted upon RolI caII. 7. PRELII4TNARY PLAN BY GOLF COT,RSE ARCHTTECT A communication from the city Manager, dated Febru ary 26, L965, referred to a conmunication received from l{r. Jack Fleming concern- ing preliminary work he r^,ou Id proceed with in the development of agolf course. Itre City lr{anager reconunended that he confer with !tr. Flend.ig on hispreparation of a preliminary estimate of costs and a budget toassist Council in determining the anpunt of finances to be allocated to proceed with the installation. Council concurred trrith the recommendation of the City t{anager that apresentation of preliminary costs be submitted at a Council study meeting. 8. PROPOSED PARKING LOT AT " CUERNAVACA PARK" A communication from the City llanager, dated Febru ary 26, 1965, advisedthat the Patk Commission and the Recreation cornmission have requestedthat off-street parking facilities be constructed in the new park area (CueEnavaca Park. ) Council concurred with the recommendationof the Chair that the subject be referred for diicussion at the Council study neeting to permit me bers to examddre a stetch prepared by the Engineering DepartrEnt. (a)ADOPTION " BT'RLTNGA.!1IE II4T'NIC TPAL CODE'' It{ayor l{artin announced that this was the time and place scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the "BurlingameUrrnieioal eode" eoltrDriging cencral orrlinanees of the eiti,. lIhe hearing was declared open and there being no one present toobject or to speak in favor thereof, the hearing was declared concluded. HEARTNGS 166 ORDINANCE NO. 82I "An Ordinance of the cit y of Bur lingane Adopting By Reference a Comprehensive Ordinance Code to be Knor^rn and Dcaignated as the Burlingame f,h:nicipal Code, and Repealing All Other Ordinancesor Parts of Ordinances in Conflict rrith Said Cde" was given its second reading and upon motion of Councilman JohnEon, seconded b1z councilman Diederichsen, said Ordinance passed its Eecond reading and was adopted by the follorrring vote: Ayes : Counci lmen : Crosby-Dider ichsen-George-Johnson-MartinNoes: Councilmen: None Absent Councilmen: None (b)CONSTRUCTTON ADEL INE DRTVE INTERSECTTON Mayor Martin announced that this was the time and place scheduledto conduct a public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed vacation of a portion of Highway Road at the intersecti.on of o:. ford Road (Cambridge Road;) ttrat an informal hearing would be held sirmrltaneously to permit residents affected b,l. the proposal to re-locate an ingress and egress at the easterly intersection ofAdeline Drive and El Camino Real the privilege of entering objections,if any. Ground rules on the preEentation of facts r^rere Eet forth by theChair and the hearing declared open. Tfhe City Engineer opened the discussion stating that an awkwardtraffic condi.tion exists at the intersection from Adeline Drive andEl Cami.no Real to o:( ford Road and the area has been the acene of nurnerous accidents; it has been recomrnended that the interaectionbe revised by clo sing oj<ford Road to El Camino ReaI ingress andegress and the intersection of Adeline Drive and EI Camino Real bereconstructed to permit a flow of traffic directly into Righway Road from Adeline Drive. A blackboard sketch drawn \r the City Engineer illustrated theproposed change. Ihe city Engineer described the propoEed route of travel, the re-location of highway signals at the Adeline Drive, El Camino ReaIand Highway Road intersection and the elimination of the ,yellorr', flashing light, all designed to alleviate the current trafficproblem. A rEmo to Council from the City Manager, dated February 26, L965,referred to a list of traffic accidents occuring in the area duringthe last five years. 1lhe City Mangger advised that a traffic survey indicates an averageof 25,000 automobiles using the EI Camino Real daily with a minimum of traffj.c using the secondary streets; that with the ctosingof o)< ford Road, "offset" lights can be eliminated entirely, includingthe flashinq "yellow" Iight, the latter allegedly creating con-siderable confusion to the motoriats. I€tterg were read from lr{r. Charles Abbott, 1616 Adeline Drive,dated Februaty 25, 1955, voicing his approval to the proposed changeto a " straight-through" intersection and from the pacific cas &Electric company, dated February 19, 1965, entering no objectionto the proposed abandonment of a portion of Highray Road. n{o petitions, dated Ir{arch 1, 1965, bearing signatures of rembers ofthe Burlingame Gate Improvement CIub, vrere acknowledged. Petition No. I, signed by ninety-eight residents of O<ford Road, Cambridge Road and Highway Road Eet forth the follcrring objeetionsto the proposed extension of Adeline Drive: (l) considerable increase in traffic on or<ford ard Cambridge Roads would result; l2l O(ford ard Cambridge Roads are not suited to heavy traffic because of the narr@, \,ridth of each and would be hazardous to the numerous children in the area; (3) tfre "tight xS" curvet' created 767 by the proposed project $rould create a new traffie hazard anct (4) the project would entail the removal of one or npre of the large trees distinguishing the area and the total amount of green space would be reduced by the widening of a portion of Highhray Road. Ihepetition urged council to "persuade the state Highway DepartlEnt to replace the present confusing signals with three-\day or multiple signals. " Petition No. 2, signed tryr seventy-nj.ne residents of cambridge, o,< ford and Highway Roads, suggested that "in the event that all reasonable efforts to persuade the state Highway Department to replace said sigmals have been exhausted without results" that Council adopt an "alternate plan" by connecting the two islands separating Highway Road from El Camino Real, terminating O<ford and cadbr idge Roads at Highway Road and establish pedestrian crossings on EI camino Real aE extensions of the sitlewalks on Adeline Drive. tJtr. Fred M. Baldra, 1145 cambridge Road, President. Burlingame Gate fmprovement club. suggested that the Division of Highway Engineers "produce a better plan; " if Adeline Drive is opened as proposed, several beautiful trees will be removed from the parkway area. Mr. Robert It. Gans, II12 canibridge Road, spoke of his circulation of the petitions and the objection of the petitioners to the "cutting offof the isalnd" and the "opening of Adeline Drive, " suggesting that an overhead signal be installed in the center of the Highway. fn reply to a statement made by llr. Charles Alexander. 1504 o<ford Road, opposing the "reduction in the amount of green space" and the creation of a hazardous "S" curbe, the City Engineer. through the chair, advised that the !'resterly side of Highway Road urould be widened six feet and only one oak tree would be removed. Itlayor Uartin further pointed out that if, in the future, El Camino Real is widened (a State project) a nufiber of trees will be rernoved. Iilr. Alex J. Ilanson, 1516 Oxford Road, adviEed that he was opposed tothe alternate plan suggested inPetition No. 2, that in his opinion,terminating o:<ford and Cadbridge Roadg at Highway Road "would just move the problem to UiIIs Avenue, an extrenEly narrow street." lilrs. A. A. Maney, 1525 California Drive, owner of property at 1IOB O<ford Road, stated that the proposed project would j,ntensify pedestrian traffic on california Drive and suggested that a pedestrian "scramble" plan be adopted similar to that in use in the city of Sacramento. !lrs. Anne Alexander, 1504 High,ray Road, suggested that Council atthis time, just give eonsideration to Petition No. l, representinga 1OO% sign-up of residents in the irurcdiate area, relluesting thatthe present confusing signals be replaced with three-vr,ay or othermrltiple Eignals. !4ayor Uartin stated that the city of Bur lingame has no jurisdiction with respect to traffic signals on Elcamino ReaI and requested theCity l4anager to elaborate on the isEue. T'he City llanager stated that the State High\^ray DepartnEnt, on prior occasions, has rejected City propoaals for alternate signals andin his opinion, and because of the heawy traffic on El camino Real,three-phase signals hrould not be approved, nor r*ould considerationbe given to an additional signal to accomodate the few entering El Camino Real from Highway Road. fn reply to Councilman Diederichsen's inquiry as to whether the reportindicating the nurnber of accidents in the area justifies a Highway DepartuEnt investigation, the City Manager explained that in his opinion, the most plausible solution wou Id be to extend Adeline Drive as proposed. I'lrs. R. D. Stiff. 1116 CIoveIIy Lane, spoke on her approval to the reconmendations set forth in Petition No. 2, to "create one continuousisland along the entire two blocks of Highway Road." Mrs. Anne Alexander. 1504 Highway RoEd, I{rs. l.{ary R. Baldra, }145 cambridge Road, Mrs. Priscil-la Blesch. 1120 Cambridge Road,t'lrs. William Lisa, 1508 Hdghway Road. !lrs. R. L. Day, 1584 Columbus Avenue and !,lrs. C. Ir1. Rapp, 1133 o:<ford Road spoke on the dangerous intersection, the numerous accidents and the confusion created tDzthe "Flashing yellow" light and their suggestions to remedy the problem included: (1) the posting of a "warning" sign north of Adeline Driver (2) the taking of a pedestrian and vehicular traffic county, particularly with respect to motorists traveling from Adeline Drive to El Camino ReaI and entering or< ford and Cambridge Roads and (3) the elimination entirely of the "bliriking" a'nherlight. Tlhe discussion concluded, Itlayor Martin recomlended. that the Citlz Itlanager confer with the State Division of Highways, r/rith a request that it submit alternate suqrgestions to improve the intersection and that a traffic count be conducted in the area under issue. Ir{ayor Martin suggested that the Burlingame Gate fmprovement Club also approach Mr. Allan s. Hart, san Francisco Division. state Higlnray Department. soliciting his assistance. The hearing was contj.nued for further consideration and action at the regular neeting of Council, April 5, 1965. REFERENCE TO BAYSIDE IEPROVEMENT BOI{ID SALE Mr. Kenneth I. .Tones. Attorney, Bayside Irfiprovement District, aavisedthat a review of the sealed proposals for the Bond Sale Schedule II, Bayside Improvement District, indicated cross and Company, fnc. to be the most favorable bidder. I{r. Jone s advised that with the receipt of an acceptable bid forthe sale of Bayside Improvement District Bonds. the adoption of resolutions pertaining to the Bayside Improvement District construc-tion, schedules rrr and rV nlay noq, proceed (withhelil at last regular meeting. ) Action on said resolutions was taken as follows: RESoLIITION NO. 24-65"A Resolution order ing change5 rtltdl ttoalifications Bayside &roveEtit Distr ist sche&rles 3 .ttd 4' rrla introdluccd for paEsage - on motion of Couneilman Crosby,'secondd by eouncilnan Johnlon and unan j.mo{is ly adopted upon RoIl Call. RESOLUEION No. 25-55 "A Resolution of Award of Contracts - Bayside fmprovement District - Schedu 1es 3 and 4" ( E isk , Firenze & lrlcl€an Co. ion co. $78,95O-OO Schedule 3 and or passage on motion of councilman osby and unanimously adoPted uPon $157,112.70 and Bianchi Construct 4 respectively) were introduced f George, seconded by Councilman cr Ro&I Ca11. RESOLUTION NO.26-65 "A Resolution A\,eardinq Sale of Bonds - B ays ide 4.e@/") econdedImprovement District, schedu was istroduced by Councilman by Councilman Johnson and un le II On1y" (Gross and Co.. fnc. Crosby, who moved its Passage, s animously adopted upon Ro1I call. RECESS A recess was declared by the Chair at 9:40 p-m. CAI,L TO ORDER The meeting reconvened at 9:5O P.m. IIEARINGS (Continued) .Vh ut- | 1 .t b.t' (c)LYON AND HOAG ST'BDTVISTO N -R-3A CI,ASS TFICATTON Mayor Iilartin announeed that this hras the time and place scheduled by Coirncil and in conformance with published and written notice, to 168 169 conduct a hearing consider an " R-3A" subdivi s ion. on the recoulEndation of the Planning Cornmission to classification for a portion of the Lyon and Hoag A letter dated January 2A, L965, from the City Planner. was read, advising Council that at a regular rEeting of the Planning Comrnission, January 25, 1965, a resolution was adopted reconmending the re- classitication of certain properties in the Lyon and Hoag Subdivision. A Planning Commission RESOLUTION, No. 1-65, entitled " Recommending the AlEndnent of Section 1904 of the Burlingame ordinance cde of 1941 and the zoning uap Iherein fncorPorated by Reference By Reclassifying Certain Properties in the tyon arxal Hoag SuHivision Which Are Now Classified R-l (Single-family Dr,relling) to R-3A (Low-Density lhrltiple family) District" h,as read. together with Planning commission "Findings"set forth in Dchibit "8" of Resolution No. l-65. Reference was further made to excerpts from Planning Comnission Minutes of the issue. A memo was read from the City Manager, dated February 26, 1965, referrj'ng to information presented to the Planning cornrnission by the city Engineer.in a letter dated November 20, L964, and \z the city Planner, in a report dated January 27, 1965, on the subject of water service problems. Ilhe communication from the City Enginetr advised that a fire flow conducted in the area indicates an average flow of 1,500 gallons per minute, adequate under the current R-l zoning; however, it has been determined through the Fire DeparttrEnt and the t'ire underwriters thatf6r the proposed multi-family zoning, a 3,00O gallons per minute fireflow would be required; it is estimated that the cost of providing theadditional fire flor and enlarging the inadequate pipe system would approximate $5O,00O.00 and if an assessment district were formed and spread to all property owners receiving the benefit of an R-3A zoning,the cost for an average lot size of 50 by 150 feet rrould approximate $54O.00 per lot. Irhe report from the city Planner related in considerable detail, the problems of rrater service in relation to changes in zoning and reEultanthigher population denEities. Mayor l{artin requested the City Planner to give a resume of the re- classi f ication proposed. The City Planner first explained the R-3A reclassj.fication as a " graduation of zone" between an R-2 and an R-3 zone, the requiren€ntsfor a mrltiple-family R-3A reclassification of the lots under discussion and all those fronting on Arundel Road and on Bloomfield Road are 15Ofeet in depth; an area of 7,5OO square feet would permit eonstructionof five units, 5,O0O square feet, three units. Continuing, the City Planner stated that there has been very little R-2 construction, that "econonically and feasibly" it is not beingdonei" ttre area proposed for reclassi fication includes some duplexes and a feh, apartments r rnany are well naintained but a number havedeteriorated to a point erhere reconstruction is economically un-feasible; the area nearest to the railroad was constructed first andrehabilitation therein is needed most and the areas along Anita Roadfrom Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue and along Peninsula Avenue from Anita Road to D.right Road are zoned R-3. !!r. Uann concluded try stating that it was his opinion, concurred b&z the Planning Corurni.ss ion that the new zoning reGlassi fication,be applied to a limited area on an experimental basis. Trhe CityPlanner stated his cognizance of the \"rater problem. .tn R-3A Answering Council inquiries, the City Planner advised that lots may be deleted from but not added to the area within the proposed reclassi-fieation; an increase in density wou ld be on a "gradual" basis;there would be more traffic, more automobiles, but in his opinion,there would be little ;burden on the school system as the result of anincrease in the population of children and only a portion of the Lyon 1?a and Hoag Subdivision \.ras zoned properties; (2) thebaiis; and (3) properties smaller. seleeted because (I) the area abuts R-3rules shoul-d be tried on an experirnental beyond Dvright Road are considerably The Chair thereafter invited corunents from those in favor and hearingnone, those in opposition vrere extended the privilege of the Floor. Ur. Frarik Barr. ?17 Hot'rard Avenue, inquir6d as to t'hrhom would benefitby the reclassification " and " hov, will the improvement (water mains)be financed" and was answered b}, Mayor l{artin who advised that the economic value of the property is increased when a higher classifica-tion is created and that financing of the improvement may beprovided either by the formation of an assessment diEtrict, whereinall property ourners deriving benefit from the reclassification would be assessed proportionately or b/y the City assuming the financialobligation and assessing aI1 the taxpayers of the City; horever. theIatter methd requires a "justifieation of the expenditure" to thosenot directly to be benefitted. l,!r. Robert Anderson, 129 Clarendon Road, spoke against the conEtruc-tion of three-storied structures adjhcent to single-family dwellings, as rdould be permissible under the new zoning classification, suggestingthat it be linited to ranch-house type apartments. Acknowledging that the area in part is deteriorating, tiE. Anderson spoke of the objection of the majority of the property o(,rners to the "proposed improvement asEessment. Ihe City Planner at this point in the hearing, submitteddetailed report entitled water Supply for Rezoned Area" b,y hiE Office under date of November 20, L964. to Council a Prepard Ihe report set forth the practice applied bl, the City in replacingexisting water lines each year that have (1) deteriorated because ofage; (2) to meet increased demands and (3) to eomply with insuranceratings; the cost of the improvernents can create a definite hardshipfor any ovrner not wishing to seII or build an apartrEnt building on his property; if the property is rezoned, all owners t ithout exception will eventually be financially benefitted by the highervalue of their land, but for some this will have little meaning forthe period of their tenancyi the problem lies in the increasing age and obsolescence of some single-family dwellings and the impoesibilityof replacing these "dying" buildings with new structures of similarusei when the proportionate nuniber of such dwellings in a nej-ghbor- hood is great, the problem of blight is in the making and constructive attempts to reverse the trend shou l-d be taken. Ii{r. R. w. frhl, 80O Howard Avenue. tlr . Joseph Giacalone, 233 Arundel Road, l.rr. H. C. Larson, 223 Bloomfield Road, I,!rs. Arthur Blevens, 812 Howard Avenue, Mr. iI. w. Flanagan, 229 ArluJlld.el Road, Ir!r. vlilliam Dalton. I33 Bloomfield Road and li!r. o. Pred Fricke, 125 Arundel Road, each conunented on their personal objection to the proposed reclasEifica- tion. Points raised by the opponents included that the City of Burlingarreis primarily a residential cornmunity, an extra burden would be createdwith respect to increases in assessed valuations, utility irnproverentinstallations, public services, traffic. in addition to the renultant hardship to those who live on a fixed incoroe. li!r. Robert Arderson suggested that "spot" zoning be permitted thoEe who wish to apply for a reclassification and that conatruction belinited to ranch-house style apartments. zurther discussion concluded \,rith Mayor Martin expressingt his interest in applying the variance procedure, wherein each application may be considered on its ovrn merits. capuchino Avenue was cited as an exarnple of an older residentiaL area to which a variance procedure has been applied successfully. 171 eouncil concurred with the chair's recommendation that the public ftearing be continued to the next regular meeting of March' l-5, 1965, and that at the council study meeting in the interim, council, irith merdbers of the City,s staff explore the subject on the basis of (1) financial methods t6 meet the fire flow requirements and (2) the feasibility of emplq;ing the variance procedure. RECES S A recess was declared by the chair at 11:40 p.m. CALL ?O ORDER The meeting was COUUUNTCATIONS called to order at 11:50 p.m. (continued) rINAL MAP ..SKYLII{E TERRACE " APPROVED A conmrunication rras read from the City Planner, dated Pebru ary 25, 1965, advising that the Planning Commission, at a regrular meeting February 24, the final map of a subdivision of land submitted by Mr. R. Douglas Pringle and knom as skyline Terrace was considered; that the commis- sion found that the map conforms with all requirements of the City and thereafter reconunended that Council approve the map. council was further advised that the subdivision consists of threeparcels, two of which are building Eites and the third, a one-foot wide strip adjoining Trousdale Drive is to be conveyed to the Cityto prevent access. Itre Acting City Attorney confirrned statements from the Chair that two s eparate actions are required \l council: (1) adoption (or rejection)of the Final Map andl (2) final approval (or rejection) of buildingconstruction plans . Ihe City Engineer submitted to Council a map of the proposed "SkylineTerrace" Subdivision, an Agreenent for fmprovellEnt of Final Acceptance, Labor and uaterial Bond for Public fmprovements ($5,O00) and a Faithful Performance Bond for Pub1ic Improvements ($10,000) in connectiontherewith. Both the City Engineer and the Acting City Attorney confirmed their approval to the Agreement and to the Bonds respectively. !lr. R. A. Mauss, 1837 Hunt Drive, stated that in his opinion. arcritten opinion should be received from the City Attorney on thestatus of the variance in view of the additional .50 acres acquired tryr the applicant subseguent to Planning commi ssion action. Mayor Martin referred to oral confirmations made by the City Attorney on prior occasions to the Council that a legal variance has beengranted. llr. Mauss, speaJ<ing as an abutting property owner, questioned whether he wou ld be granted an opportunity to comment on the buildingconstruction plans. particularly in reference to the height of theproposed retaining h,all. Mayor Uartin pointed out that the property owner of record, at thetime the variance h,as approved, dial not appear to enter objection; ho\rever, the privilege of speaking would be accorded to !tr. Mauss. R.ESOLUTTON NO. 27-65 "Approving Final Map Entitled 'Skyline TerraceBurlingame, San l{ateo County, California' and Directing D<ecutionof AgEeenent to Construct Public fmprovements " was introduced by councilman Crosb,y, who moved its passage and seconded }>1r councilman ,Johnson. Couneilman Diederichsen declared his intention to vote in the affirm-ative to legally establiEh the subdivision; however, his vote wouldhave no bearing on his action on the subsequent matter (building plan approval. ) 172 l4ayor !4artin stated his intention toprejudicing the subsequent matter. also vote affirmatively without A Roll CaIl vote was recorded thereafter as unanimous. !'tr. Cyrus J. McMillan. Attorney, representing Mr. Douglas pringle, the applicant, presented a model of the proposed project and. anartist's rendition of the conEtruction and spoke briefly on anaddition to the original building plan in which the erection of alarge room for recreation and other purposes has been proposed forconstruction on the roof of one of the apartment buildings. The City Engineer, in reply to the Chair, advised that the Buildingplans have been checked for accuracy ry the Building fnspector,with the exception of the proposed new addition. A series of irquiries directed by Council to the City Planner, indicatedthat the plans have been periodically revierred by the Building fnspector in which he presurred were acceptable, and that basically, the plan before council is identical with that of the original,with the exception of the proposed "penthouse. " Referring to the plans. uayor lt{artin observed that the structure rlrill be set back a diEtance of fifteen feet from the rear yard of the [auss pro,perty and that the structure will reach a hb4,ght of fifty feet . llr. i{auss stated that the structure will place a shadov, upon hisproperty and that a proposed retaining waIl shall abut the rear fencing on his property. Plans \^rere reviewed with respect to these points and considerable discussion aroEe on the feasibility of relocating the retaining wall. Mr. Donald Teixeira, President, l.{ills Estate fmprovement Asaociatj.on,stated that this particular section of the building plan was not indicated on the original plan or on the plan recently displayed bythe applicant and reviewed ty the membrs of his AEEociation and urged that consideration be given to eliminating the wall entirelyto provide an open spacer adding that a "retaining wall i.s moreunsightly than a fence. " fn the discussion of the retaining wall, !ilr. Pringle advised thatonly an area rneasuring from "zero to two feet" of the retaining waIIshaIl be visible from the Uauss property and that he would objectto any change in the p1an. Discussion followed on the proposed addition to the roof (penthouse) \^,ith ljfr. uclrlill an conf irminq that the addition was not in theoriginal plans. continuing. l,Ir. McMilLan stated that the addition sha1l occupy not more than five percent of the roof areai the addition "shall provide the amenities of a luxury-type apartment" and that "everfthing ie consistent with the plan. " Mayor Martin in a summarization of the issue, stated that in hiaopinion. the applicant "has stayed within the bounis of his promises"to Coucnil and that the plan should be approved. In reply to the Chair's request for comnrents from Council, Councilman ceorge, councilman crosby and Councilman Johnson each voiced theirindividual approval, provided it is determined that the proposed addition does not classiry the building as a four-storied structure. councilman Diederichsen, referring to his negative vote cast on the occasion of the granting of the variance. stated hj.s opposition tothe proposed "Iard usage" of the property. A notion was introduced thereafter t4f Councilman Crosbrt, that theplans as submitted, without the inclusion of the addition, be approved,that members of the City's staff determine whether the inclusion of 173 Ayes: Councilraen: crosty-Georqe-Johnson-Martin NoeE: Councilrnen: Diederichsen Absent councilnEn: None ORDINANCES - Consideration thereof: OPO INANCE NO a22 "An Ordinance Increasing the Nuniber of Medber s of ision from Five Uenibers to Seven Mernbers " was giventhe Parking C its Eecond reading and upon motion of Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman DiederichEen, said Ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted by the follovring vote: Ayes : Councilmen : Crosby-Diederichsen-George-Johnson-Ir{artin Noes: Councilmen: None Absent Councilmen: None ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor }tartin acknowledged receipt of ltinutes from the Pub1ic Board, the Planning Cornnrission ard the Parking CommisEion, an of Parking" prepared and submitted by the City Planner and th "Broadway Overpass Study" report Prepared and submitted by th engineeringr firm of York and Dady. Library "Analysis STIIDY IIIEET II{G 1[he evening of Wednesday. March 3, 1965, was confirmed as the naxt council study meeting. Mayor Martinof residentseliminate (1 area . acknor.rledged receipt of a petition bearing the signaturesof ELm Avenue, soliciting immediate council action to ) contaminated hrater ancl (2) Io\^r water presssure in the The City Engineer advised that construction has been started on the placement of new \i,ater mains to alleviate the problem. lhe City llanager rras been rectified and ithe petition. requeg ted tof so, whether ascertain whether the condition hasthe petitioners desire to process UNEINTSHED BUSTNESS 1 CIIY.COI'NTY DISASTER PREPAREDMSS COIJNC TL PROGRAM Councilman George, liaiEon, City-County Civil Defense and Disaster Preparedness Council, gave a brief report on his attendance at arecent meeting, at whieh titre his final vote on the issue of the " 1,[i.cro-wave " provision within the Joint Poieers Agreement was castas a negative vote, because of the considerable increase in the annual city-county Civil Defense budget, that in his opinion, is not\.rarranted. Councilnan George advised that the City of Millbrae has been selected as the Nicro-wave receivinq agency i-n this area. 2. "PUBLIC PARKING " STGN AIITHORIZED Council authorized the purchase of ne$, parking Lot directional signsto bear the r^,ording " Public Parking" to replace the current "tthrnicipalParking" directional signs. as recommended tlz the Burlingane Dolrntovrn Merchants Connnittee and tle Parking Commission. the flpenthouse" addition shall create a four th story to the Btructure, and that a ruling on the iEsue be referred to Council for final dispoEition. tlhe motion was seconded by councilman George. A RolI Call vote was recorded as follows: PETITION RE: WATER PROBLEMS EIN,I AVENI,E 474 CTVIL SERVICE APPO INTMENT Ihe appointnEnt of Mr. Kenneth Hourer/ 2OO0 Devereux Dr., to replaceltr. Edkard C. crar^rford, recently resigned, as a member of the Civil Service Commission, was unanimously confirred by Council. ADJOIJRNMEI(I Councilman Diederichsen moved that CounciJ. adjourn in respect to the rnemory of lilrs. Frankie Karmel, It{other of City Attorney, Burresg Karmel, who recently passed in death, seconied \r Councilman Johnson and unanimous Iy carried. An appropriate notice was requested to be transmitted to the city Attorney. Time of adjournment: 1:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, city clerk APPROVED: D. Martin Mayor R rffi%z-