Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1966.06.2041:5 Burlingarae. California June 20, 1966 CATL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the abovedate. I{eeting called to older at 8:15 p.m., - Mayor ceorge in the Chair. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At word from the Chair, all in the Council Charober arose and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the FIag. ROLL CALL Present - Councilmen: Absent - Councilmen: Crosby-ceorge-Johnson-Martin . Diederichsen (8:5O p.m. ) The Minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, L966, subrnitted to councilpreviously, were approved and adopted following an amendment to include the name s of Councilman Crosby and Councilman Martin with the name of Councilman Diederichsen in the paragraph pertaining to attendance at the recent League of California Cities llayors' Conference in Monterey. HEARING KAY ELLIS CARPORT VARIATiICE (124 Occidental Avenue) Mayor ceorge announced that this was the time and place scheduled by Council at the last regular meeting to conduct a public hearing on an appeal to Council, submitted by l.{iss Kay E1lis, to reverse the decision of the Planning Conmission in denying a variance to permit a carport construction on her premises at 124 Occidental Avenue. the hearing was declared open by Mayor George, who announced ground rules including statements from proponents and opponents, with Council to consider the evidence at the conclusion of the hearing. Mayor George advised that by a Rol1 Call vote, members of the Planning Counission, at its regular meeting, l,!ay 23, 1966, unanimously denied the application for tlre sr.rbject variance. CorEounieations, hand-pLaced in the mailbox of Councilman Johnson and a corEnunication received try Councilman t{artin, lauding I*fiss EIIis and supporting her reguest, $rere acknovrledged and entered into the record from the following: Ruth V. and Spiro Spiteri, 520 Pine Terrace, South san Francisco, dated June 3, 1966, ltiss Tlheresa Hurtado, 2O6 Howard Avenue, dated June 4, L966, and litr. Raule Hurtado, 2O6 Howard Avenue, dated May 30, 1966. A "Petition for Appeal of Denial of Variance by Planning Comnission to the City council, city of Burlinqatne, California" filed by the petitioner. Kay Ellis, under date of June 20, L966, r^ras read, with copies acknowledged as having been received lry council just prior to the opening of the hearing. Ihe petition, in some detail. related prior history concerning the property and set forth a description of the proposed addition to the dwelling and "applicable City ordinancee" in relation thereto, to justify the position of the applicant that the issuance of a building permit is "therefor proper without the necessity of a variance. " MINU?ES 476 There being no further communications received under the category of approval, I.{rs. Edith B. Taylor, identifying herself as Attorney representing the petitioner, was extended the privilege of the Floor. Urs. Taylor displayed a sketdr indicating the property, its measure= ments, set-back markings, accompanying overlays to indicate the roof plan coordination with the residence and a series of pictures incJ.uding the subject property and neighboring properties to support her state- ment that the proposed construction shal1 add to, rather than detract from the appearance of the area. (Councilman Diederichsen appeared at 8:50 p.m.) Ir{rs. Taylor stated that an existing foundation may be utilized to construct a carport to conform with the "minimum size inside require- ments" of the Code and referred to the drawing to illustrate that it is possible to construct the addition without violation of set-back lines, permitting a side overhang of one and one-half feet and a front overhang of four feet and provide more than carport dimensional, requirements. Comnenting on objections raised by the opponents at the hearing before the Planning Conunission, Mrs. Taylor stated that none of the objections were based on fact, all vrere general in nature and " completely contrary", that failure to prove "undue hardship, " the basis for denial, hras notjustifiable i.nasmuch as the app}icant has complied with a prior City building inspector's requirements and that the property owner is entitled to protection from the elements the entr!'lray sha11 provide. It{rs. Taylor concluded her statements by stating that the applicant should be extended the privilege of applying for a building permit without the formality of a variance proeedure. At the request of councilman Martin, the City Planner, to clarify a point that a variance may be a superfluous action, drew a blackboard sketch from a drawing prepared by his Office, indicating property measurements and set-back lines, explaining that code violations would be evident whether the construction of the carport was advanced from the front of the building, thereby extending into the fifteen foot front set-back line or to the rear and extending within a three feet by four feet area of the building. An inquiry from lt{rs. Taylor revealed from the City Planner that his rendering was prepared from building plans and plot descriptions on file with the city and not from a survey resulting from an actual property visitation. In a general discussion thereafter on the accuraqf of City records describing the property, in comparison with those presented and on display by the applicant, Urs. Taylor was advised that property measurements do not include sidewalk areas. To determine the actual measurements of the front property lines, the City Engineer was excused to obtain appropriate maps from his Offj.ce. Upon his return, the city Engineer advised that the street sj,xty-foot right-of-way and that the subject property line I.85 feet bad< from the s idewalk. 15a comnences Further discussion continued on whether in fact, the proposed construc- tion shall conform to'tuinimum inside dimension" requirements and following inquiries posed by !4rs. Taylor and replied to by the City Pl-anner concerningi measurements applicable in determining construction dimensions, the Chaj"r declared a recess at 9:5O p.m. 477 CALL ?O ORDER llhe meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m.and the hearing continued. Councilman Uartin, questioning lttrs. Taylor concerning the aPP1icant engaging professional aseistance to determine property measurements, was advised that a price had been obtained but considered by the applicant as excessive. The city P1anner, in reply to councilman l.lartin's inquiries, advised that issues raised this evening were not introduced at the hearing before the Planning Conuaission and that contrary to the contention noi, that a 1ega1 carport can be constructed, it was the assumption of the Planning Commission, based on evidence submitted by the applicant, that a carport as proposed would not meet code requirements. Following a brief questioning of the city Planner, Councilman uartin referred to the Planning Commission minutes on the subject property, expressing the opinion that "there \das no decision of facts. " l{rs. Taylor, in referring to a section of the zoning code pertaining to "dimensions of spaces, access" requested an interpretation of the phrase "minimum inside dimensions for garage or carports" stating that the paragraph is " ambigtrous " and does not define requirements for " foundation measurements. " llayor ceorge stated that it is the responsibility to engage a qualified expert to accurately survey guide Council in its decision. of the applicant the property to Further di.scussion concluded with Council concurring that the hearing be continued to the next regular meeting, at r*h ich time the appl.i.cant was requested to submit the findings of a qualified land surveyor and a plot plan indicating property dinensions and the location proposed for the conatruction of the carport. Tlhe City Attorney was requested in the interim to evaluate legal points questioned. COMMUNICATIONS 1. CAROLAN-OAI( GROVE AVEIIUE INTERSECTION A conmunication from the City lrlanager, dated ilune 16, 1966, referred Council to a connunication received from I'{r. Prank Conti, representingL. ilosephine Lang, or*rrer of property on Oak Grove Avenue, between Linden Avenue and Carolan Avenue, objecting to proposed changes on Oak crove Avenue particularly with reference to the creation of a "right turn lane'r into the new Carolan Avenue. It hras the reconuuendation of the City ltanager that in concurrence with the City's traffic Consultant, !tr. iracl< Greenspan, Council withhold action until the extent of traffic flow is determined. Ehe City Engineer presented d drawing of the intersection as it currently exists and four alternate plans for its improvement. Following an examination of the plans by Council and persons interested in the intersection j.rnprovements, Councif postponed action until such time as the City ltlanager may sulmit a traffic count and a reconunendation fron the Traffic consultant. For information of Council, shall not be complete until the City Engineer advised that the project August of this year. 418 2. REPORT ON "LOADING ZONES"(Bays$rater-Peninsula ) A memo to Council from the City l{anager, dated ilune 16, 1966, advisedthat an investigation has been made on the possibility of placing longloading zones on Bayswater and peninsula Avenues for the purpose ofunloading new cars from trailers and cited two reasons wherein said zones would be an impractibility. Folloving a brief discussion, the City Manager concurred with the suggestion of Council that his Office confer with representatives both the car dealers and the trucikers, in an effort to coordinate unloading problems. from car 3. CHAI,IBER OF COMMERCE CINTRACI APPROVAL A communication from the Burlingame Chambe r of Comne rce, dated ilune 1, 1966, referred to a proposed Annua1 Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Burl ingame Chambe r of Comrerce prepared for Council consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 40-66 "Approving Contract for Advertising and Promotion Between Burlingame Chamber of Conmerce and City of Burlingarne" was introduced for passage on motion of CouncilnErn Johnson, seconded by Councilman Diederichsen and unanimously adopted upon Rol1 CalI . 4. BURLINGAI,,IE HIGH SCITOOL STI,'DENT COI,'NCIL A comnunication from the Student Council of Burlingame High Sdrool, dated May 13, 1966, expressing appreciation to Council for per:nitting student participation in a "Youth and Government Day'r program on April 19, 1966, was acknowledged. 5. COMMITNICATIONS RE: " LIMITED TRUCK ROUTE" ORDINAIICE Communications h,ere acknowledged and read from william Caplan, President, Burlingame Mills Estate Improvement Association, under dates of June 3 and ifune 8, 1966, and Irving Amstrup, 27O8 Trousdale Drive, dated June 10, 1966, each r+ith reference to the proposed "weight linit" ordinance and its effect on Trousdale Drive. Mr. Caplan, in attendance, requested and \"ras granted penrission to speak on phases of the proposed ordinance. Expressing concern that a section of a paragraph "general outline of a we ight limit ordinance, in his communication to Council, dated ilune 3, 1956, written prior to the introduction of the subject ordinance, may have been misinterpreted, ur. caplan stated that it was not his intention to propose that Trousdale Drive be established as a "limited trud< route. " I{r. Caplan observed that "there are some difficult and confusing legal points that shouLd be conEidered before a 'trucking' ordinance is adopted" and thereafter submi.tted three alternate suggestions for a "weight lirnit ordinance" : I FIat street Prohibition: Prohibit all vehicles over eight tons from using - no Permit Procedure i II ltlodified Prohibition: using a street--except if trucker may have a permit Prohibit a1I vehicLes there is no reasonable over ei.ght tons from alternate route subject to restriction. construe strictly. f!! Limited Truck Route: Prohibit a1l vehicles over eight tons frqtr using a street--except trud<ers shall have a permit if hauling will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. 47s Explaining each category in some detail, urging that the proposed ordinance be re-examined and that his "Alternate No. II" proposal be considered, !itr. Caplan concluded by stating that he was "basically proposing to eliminate as m.rny trucks as may be legalIy eliminated for the best interest of the City." fh rough inquiries of councilman l{artin, the City Attorney spoke on the incumbent ramifications if Trousdale Drive was stipulated a "prohibitive truck route" and of his preference, in the event of a court action, that it be designated a "limited truck route. " T-he City Attorney further explained that through negotiation with the original subdividers of Mills Estate, Trousdale Drive was designed to establish an "east to vrest" trucking route and constructed to carry traffic. Mr. CYrus J. Uctilillan, Attorney, representing the Anza-Pacific Corporation, in attendance, requested that Airport Boulevard and Old Bayshore Highway be designated "unrestricted trucl< routes." Councilman l,lartin noted that the drange as requested would place the tero streets in a "unrestricted" category with Bayshore Freehray, Skyline Boulevard and the EI Camino Real, and questioned the City Engineer on fund s available for street repairs that rnay be necessary. llhe City Engineer stated that Airport Boulevard and OLd Bayshore Highway, select City streeta, are eligible under cas Tax funds. Following further discussion, Council concurred with the reconunendationof Councilman Martin that the hearing proceed on August 15, 1966, asoriginally scheduled and according to published notice and that the proposals sub.ritted by the Burlingame ltil.ls Estate Improvement Association, together with the request of the Anza Pacific Corporation, be referredto the City Attorney and the Consulting Attorney for reconunendation and report to Council. Irlr. Irving Anstrup, 2708 Trousdale Drive, in attendance, reiterated coruaenta expressed in his conununicat ion of June 10, urging that Trousdale Drive be placed in the "prohibited street" classification. Councilman !!artin, in reply, spoke of Council's hesitanqf in designating ?rousdale Drive a "prohibted trucik route" stating that if tested and proven invalid by the courts, the City would be placed in a position as having no control over trucking operations. RESOLUTIONS None. Consideration thereof : ORDINANCE NO. 84O "Ado pting by Reference Uniform Plunbing Code, 1964 Edition With Arnendments and Amending Chapter 18.12 of the llunicipal Code of the City of Burlingame and Establishing Ru1es, Regulations and Standards for the Installation of Plumbing Fjj.tures and Appliances" was given i.ts eecond reading and upon motion of Councilnran John6on, seconded by Councilman Diederichsen. said Ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted by the following Roll CaJ.1 vote: Ayes: Councilmen: Noes: councilmen: Absent Councilmen; Crosby-Diederictrsen-George- Johnson-Ir{art in . l{one None ORDINANCE NO. 84I "An Ordinance Amendin g Section 25.L2.010 of the I.tunicipal Code Dividing the City of Burlingane Into Districta By Reclassifying a Portion of Lot 6, Block 13, Supplementary Map to tlap No. 1of the Tor,rn of Burlingame, From a Fourth Residential (I,{ulti-f anily) (R-4) District to a second Commercial (Service Business) (C-2) District" OPDINANCES 420 was given its second reading and upon motion of Councilman l{artin, seconded by Councilman Johnson, said Ordinance passed its secondreading and was adopted by the follor,ring Ro1l Call vote: Ayes: Noes : Absent Counci Imen : Councilmen : Councilmen: crosby-Diederichsen-ceorge-Johnson-t{art i.n. None None ORD INANCE NO. 842 "An Ordinance Amendin g Sections 18.04.010, 18 .04.02O, and 18.O4.03O of the Burl ingame l,{unicipal Code, providing for the Establishment of Fire Zones by withdrawing a portion of Lot 6, Block 13, Supplementary ttap to Ir{ap No. I of the Town of Burlingame, From Fire zone Il, Including it in Fire Zone I" was given its second reading and upon motion of Councilman !{artin, seconded by Councilman Johnson,said Ordinance passed its second reading and was adopted by the following RoLI Ca1l vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent Councilmen : Councilmen: Councilmen: Crosby-Diederichsen-ceorge-alohnaon-Martin. None None Introduction thereof: The City Attorney stated that upon di.rectj.on of Council hi6 Office had prepared ordinances (1) to authorize arresting officers to issue citations to law offenders who are not taken imnediately before a magistrate and (2) to authorize animal control officers to issue citations for violations of the leash-Iaw, dog noise nuisances and cruelty to animal s provisions. The City Attorney explained that the ordinance pertaining to animals was drafted at the request of the Animal Shelter because of the volume of complaints received. Mayor ceorge and Councilman Martin raised a point with respect to the "discretion of the officer" when issuing citations and in a general discussion on the subject, it was the consenaus of Council that the subject merited further consideration at the next Council study meeting. I'NPINISHED BUSINESS 1. LESLSY FOUNDATIoN RETIRE!,IENT RESIDENCE A reference was made to the Lesley Foundation's construction of a residential building for senior citizens on A1mer Road, approved in principle by the Planning Conunission and sulmitted to Council to determine a possible method qrhe reby the Foundation may assume its proportion of incumbent City service coats in lieu of taxeE. A motion was introduced by councilman alohnson that the subject again be referred to the Planning Commission with the recornmendation that the medbers consider the proposed project solely on the merits of the variance and not in relation to the tax structure of the city. T{le motion was seconded by Councilman Cro6by and unanimously carried. The Chair acknowledged rnonthly reports from the Police and Fire Departments, a report from the sister city cormittee, Minutes from the Library Board, the Health, Safety & Traffic Conmission and an excerpt from the study meeting of the Planning Commission wherein a majority roll caII vote favored the retention of and the redeveloPment of the "Present Site - Park Road" as the proper location of the city Eall . ORD INANCE S ACKNOWLEDGI"IENTS 42L On the latter subject, the City llanager hras requested to place the item on the Council study meeting agenda. A Roster of City Officials, Tolrn of Hillsborough, was also acknowledged. Warrants, ljtonth of June, 1965, Nos. 6399-6581, in the total atnount of $145,085.08, duly audited, tere approved for palrment on motion of Councilman Crosby, seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously carried. PAYROLL APPROVAL Payroll ivarrants, Uonth of Hay, 1965, Nos. 9357-9845, in the total amount of $I23,924.35, were approved on motion of Councilman Crosby, seconded by Councilman Diederichsen and unanimously carried. REQUEST FOR EI,I,I TREE REMOVAL A cornrnunication from the City llanager, dated June 16, 1956, referring to a request for permission to remove a small elm tree on E1 Canino Real, denied by the Park comrnission, advised that further investigation is merited and a final report shall be sutrnitted to Council at its next regular meeting. RECLA},,IAT ION DISTRICT ACCESS ROAD Cyrus J. ticilillan, Attorney, representing Re clamation District No. 2097, referred to a prior request submitted by Mr. David H. Keyston, President, concerning permission to pave the access road in the area of the city dump to the west end of the District in order to haul fill . The city Attorney advised that a draft of a revocable permit, prepared by his Office, has been submitted to members of the City staff for comment and recosuEndation. The City Uanager advised that City staff recodmendations shall be complete within a feh, days and copies of the agreement bet\reen the District and the City presented to Council . I,IEETING SCHEDULES CHANGED I{onday, the 4th of aIuly being a national holiday. the next regular meeting of Council was scheduled on July 5. The regular study meeting date was re-scheduled from July 6 to July 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully subnitted, APPROVED: EDWARD D. GEO E HERBERT K. WHI?E, CITY CLERK WARRANT APPROVAL '-/&-, ^9,. 14 ^2h -:-.e4 **426"O