HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 1987.05.07N 0 T I C E
L, BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
MEETING: MAY 7, 1987
* 5:30 P.M. *
A G E N D A
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1987
III. COMMUNICATIONS
IV. REPORTS
A. Park Director
B. Chairman
C. Commissioners
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Tree Removal/732 Farringdon
B. Newsrack Ordinance
C. Broadway/Rollins Rd. Beautification
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. 9987-88 Park Department Budget
B. Beautification Concerns
1) California Dr. behind 852-856 Edgehill
2) Abandoned P.G.&E. poles on California
Dr. between Burlingame Ave. & Majilla
VII. FROM THE FLOOR
zhr &t� of A3=6'�Umr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
May 13, 1987
Mr. Ted A. Kevranian
3494 Victoria Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
RE: 732 Farringdon Lane
Dear Mr. Kevranian:
At its regular meeting of May 7, 1987, the Burlingame Beautification Commis-
sion voted unanimously to issue you a permit to remove 2 liquidambars and
1 palm in the easement in front of your property at 732 Farringdon Lane.
The removal would be at your expense, and the 2 liquidambars are to be re-
placed with 15 gallon trees from our approved list (enclosed). The other
palm tree in the front yard is entirely on private property, and does not
require any City action for removal.
The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council. To
make arrangements for your permit, or if you have any further questions,
please call the Park Department at (415) 342-8931.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Quadri
Director of Parks
RPQ/kh
Enclosure
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
CITY
�r PIZ
BURLlNGAME
STAFF
AGENDA
ITEM t
REPORT MTG. DATE 6,18 g4
Honorable Mayor & City Council
June 13, 1984
City Attorney
SUBJECT: NEWSRACK ORDINANCE
SUBMITTED
( /�
BY
v
APPROVED
BY
RECOMMENDATION: Introduction of Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, we have had concern and complaints from time to
time about newsracks upon the City sidewalks. The Beautification
and Recreation and Parks Commissions have been considering the
;subject -for some time and requested that I prepare an ordinance
;which would address this subject. The attached ordinance,. -with
one addition which I will note later, was reviewed by them and
recommended to you for adoption. A summary of its contents follows.
I should note that newsracks cannot be prohibited from public side-
walks but can only be controlled from the safety standpoint. The
ordinance which is presented to you follows the format approved
;by the courts in cases involving the City and the County of Los
Angeles. Among the definitions is the designation of the Director
of Public Works as the person who has the authority to take action
under the ordinance. A no -fee hermit is recuired to place any
kind of newsrack upon the public right-of-way. -A single permit is
-:issued to each company and covers all the racks in the City. It
is renewed annually. Each rack is required to have the owner's
...identification and permit number upon it. Various standards are
%established for the size and placement of newsracks. Unlawful
obstructions are separately spelled out limiting such things as
'distance from a crosswalk or a fire hydrant and stating general
safety hazard requirements. Provisions are made for summary
removaVl,o of hazardous newsracks, and noticed removal of those
.that violate other provisions of the ordinance. An appeals procedure
to the Council is established. A provision for giving notice to
.,those having existing newsracks is included thereby giving them
time to comply with the ordinance.
The one item added to the draft originally considered by the
Commission is the provision regarding obscene materials. A number
of citizens have expressed concern about the contents of some of
the newspapers exhibited on our streets, but I have had to inform
them that there is a first amendment protection to sell these
materials so long as they are properly displayed. The ordinance
contains specific prohibitions regarding what may be displayed.
This degree of detail is required by court decisions on pornographic
materials.
Attachment: Ordinance
E CITY
Ie �A
BURUNGAME
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
DATE: June 21, 198
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT- Sale of Porographic Materials
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
AGENDA
ITEM p
MTG. /O 7/24
DATE O
At your last meeting Ordinance 1279 was introduced to control the location
of newsracks. As a part of that ordinance Section 12.22.160 described
certain prohibited displays. I was asked to research two matters. First,
whether more detailed controls of sale of such material to children could
be adopted and second, whether the exemption of showing anatomy of children
under the age of puberty was necessary.
On the first issue it appears that the state has preempted the subject
of display of harmful matter to children. Penal Code Sections 313
through 313.4 address that topic and Section 313.1 specifically controls
vending machines near schools. Essentially, it prohibits newspaper racks
within 500 meters of a school or playground if they display certain
specific acts. This state statute was held to preempt any local control
of matter which may be displayed to minors in Carl v. Los Angeles 61 Cal.
App.3d 265 (.1976). The several code sections are attached for your
information
The second question concerns what kind of displays in newsracks may be
prohibited. In researching the cases I find a good news, bad news answer.
The good news is that there need not be an exemption for displays of
children under the age of puberty. The bad news is that the courts have
held the language as contained in Section 12.22.160 of the introduced
ordinance is not specific enough and more graphic prohibitory language is
required. The above cited case of Carl v. City of Los Angeles found
that the language as contained in Sect of n 12.22.160 was indistinguishable
from that held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court
in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville 422 U.S. 205 (1975). A fewer years
later Gluck v. County of Los Angeles 93 Cal.App.3d 121, (1979) did uphold
certain language which prohibits more specific- sexual displays. The
distinction made by the courts is that display of portions of the human
atatomy are constitutionally protected but that displays of specific
sexual acts or portions of anatomy with a purpose of sexual arousal can
be prohibited. I have attached to this memorandum a copy of Sections
1208 and 1209 of the Los Angeles County Ordinance as approved by the
courts in Gluck. If you wish to prohibit sexual displays that language
would have to be inserted in the place of 12.22.160.
Attachments: Sections 1208 & 1209
Chapter 313 to 313.4
JFC/b
153
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING
AUGUST 23, 19Uf t
Mayor Irving S. Amstrup convened the Study Meeting of the Burlingame City Council
in Conference Room B of Burlingame City Hall at 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS AMSTRUP, BARTON, MANGINI, MARTIN, PAGLIARO
ABSENT : NONE
STAFF
I PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, MONROE, KIRKUP, F. FRICKE
1. LIMITING ACCESS FROM EL CAMINO ONTO FAIRFIELD AVENUE
The council briefly reviewed the reasons why this project was placed on a Study
Session. Councilman Martin clarified his understanding that the Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission's recommendation was for a six-month's trial. Councilman
Pagliaro explained that feels that the proposal is before the council due to
long-standing problems and a new condominium project, which the city has approved,
and the neighborhood request. Coucilwoman Barton expressed a concern that we
would have another Oxford -Cambridge situation by reallocating traffic to other
streets and suggested that the matter go to public hearing. The council consensus
was to place the matter on the second meeting in September for public hearing
and that the city staff notice a wider than normal area of those interested.
2. NEWSRACK ORDINANCE
Councilwoman Barton indicated that since she works for a newspaper and there
was a possible conflict of interest, she would not participate in the discussion
of the proposed ordinance. The City Manager briefly reviewed the history of
the proposed newsrack ordinance and the Beautification Commission's concerns.
The newspaper objections were also reviewed. Mayor Amstrup indicated that he
was sure all the council wished they could throw out all of the pornographic
material sold at news stands but realized that we are constrained by the court
rulings. After discussion of the possible effectiveness of the proposed ordi-
nance, it was the council's consensus that we try to limit a newsrack ordinance
-to requiring the name and address, of the owner and eliminating the use of chains
or other devices to fasten the newsracks to parking meters, trees, etc. to try
to encourage more modular racks. Staff was directed to try and work with the
newspapers with this approach. Councilman Pagliaro suggested that the issue
of pornographic material should be a separate ordinance from the one discussed
on newsracks. Councilwoman Barton indicated that this was a subject in which
she would like to participate. After the City Attorney reviewed his memo con-
cerning pornographic material, it was the council's direction that the attorney
draft an ordinance limiting the display of pornographic material for sale in
the city using the explicit language required by the courts. Councilman Pagliaro
indicated that he would review the case citation by the City Attorney concerning
any prohibition of sale.
3. SMOKE DETECTORS IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND OFFICES ABOVE COOKING FACILITIES.
The council reviewed with the City Manager and Fire Chief the history of
the proposed ordinance. The Fire Chief suggested that upon review and given
recent state legislation, he felt that the proposed requirements were
excessive considering the limited number of effected units. Councilman Pagliaro
indicated that he still feels strongly on the issue after the recent hotel fires.
After discussion, the council indicated that a possible middle ground would be
that we require hard -wire smoke detectors in the common areas of.residential
f units above cooking facilities. The Fire Chief will review the possibility of
)i some kind of combination hardwire/battery alarms to provide maximum safety and
make a futher report to council.
CHAPIN AVENUE PARKING --REMOVAL OF TWO SPACES
The City Council reviewed the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission recommen-
dation that the spaces proposed for removal remain due to the minimal improve-
ment in sight distance that would be achieved. Council acknowledged that we