Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1980.09.15rI r02 BURLINGA}4E, September CALIFORNIA 15, 1980 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaII Council Chambers. Meeting wascalled to order at B:10 P.M. by Mayor Martin after an executive session starting at 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Jerome F ROLL CALL Coleman, City Attorney. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:AMSTRUP, BARTON , CROSBY , MANGINI , MARTTN NONECOUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: M]NIJTES The minutes of the regular meeting of September 2,1980 t{ere approved and adopted. HEAR]NGS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1186 ''ORDINANCE LIMITING STORAGE OF RESIDENTIAL TRAILERS, zoNEs. "BOATS AND CAMPERS SECOND READTNG. rN SETBACKS AND YARDS OF Council had received the follow:'ng material: Petition dated 9/15/80 submj-tted by Harry Meisel, 4L6 Burlingame Avenue. Petition attached suggested draft of ordinance re- cruiring no fee permit for parking in front yards and front yard setbacks on1y, and contained 116 signatures. Council had previously received petition dated 6/30/80 with 81 signatures protesting proposed ordinance; and petition dated 6/30/80 containing 7l signatures asking for post-vacation d-ate of hearinq if ordinance is heard. In addition, Council had re- ceived nine letters against the ordinance, various names, various dates; and six letters in favor of the ordinance, also various names and dates. City Planner revierved his nnerno of g/26/80 which detailed the instigation and progress of +-his ordinance to its present form. He pointed out that present code permits "storage of any trailer" in residential areas. Therefore, recreational vehicles, boats, camper shelIs, etc. can be parked at any location on a resi- dential 1ot. Complaints of unsightliness and view blockage are addressed in this ordinance, which resuires special permit for storage of such vehicles in front setbacks, si-de setbacks, and side yards. He ident.ified areas of concern to Council as : Should storage of vehicles in residential areas be regulated by the City? Is the new ordinance both equitable and capable of efficient administration? Citv Planner shov.zed slide for audience benefit which delineated setback lines and effect of proposed ordinance. Mayor Martin opened public hearing. The iollowing proponents spoke: A1len Stanbridge, 311 Lexington W.y; Jeanne Hartlaub, 324 Burlingame Avenue; Beatrice l4arino, 750 l,Valnut Avenue. Some of their views: These vehicles are traffic hazards either parked on the street or obscuring view in driveway. Require storage of dangerous prooane fuel. for emergency vehicles.Storage on lots limits access I103 Vehicles attractive nuisance could be hurt.to voung children who Some vehi-cles propert]/. unsightly and block viervs from neighboring People who can afford these vehicles can afford storage yards. There are acceptable methods of storage on private fotswith prooer screening. Storage of vehicles has bad effect on property values. People are living in these vehicles. Opponents of the ordinance then addressed Council. They were: David Simpson, 8fl Crossway Robert Newelf, 1648 Albemarle Way Ernest Jorn, 503 oak Grove Avenue Laurence Coit, 1369 Vancouver Avenue Harry Graham, 7224 Burlingame Avenue Andre Boudin, 10 36 Capuchino Virgal Hurst, 300 Bayswater Frieda Freund, 1230 Donnefly Avenue Robert B. Fletcher, 3037 Mariposa Mrs. David SimpsonT 811 Crosswav Carlus P. Blevins Jr., 3056 Rivera Drive Pau1 Wilkinson, 724 Paloma Mr. David Simpson, in particular, told Council his RV Association attorneys had successfully fought restrictive ordinances in othercities and there woufd be a possibility of suit in this case. Ernest c. Jorn, 503 oak Grove Avenue, read into record his letter of 9/L5/80 offering premises that such vehicles shouLd be parked off the street and that they may be required to park either with- in a garage or behind a fence or gatei but that property owner should not be required to obtain a permit or pay a fee. Some of opponents I objections: vehicles aid in recreation and education of of their owners are self-policing. There is lack of storage facilities in Burlingame and elsewhere. Such facilities are not secure and are expensive. Vehicles are damaged in them and insurance cornpanies refuse to cover. This ordinance is not enforceable, and 72 hour l-aw could be used to advantage against it. Re creati ona I all ages and most Proponents want enforcement because of aesthetics. are no such laws against unkempt lawns or houses. Burlingame lots are sma1l. People must cooperate. '1',nere This is inverse condemnation of private property, and gives City staff too much power. r r04 This is Communism. Dangers of gasoline storage, lack of emergency vehicle access, etc. are also applicable to automobiles. Nuisance suits could be filed if necessary instead of these restrictions. Mayor Martin declared public hearing closed., and Council discussed matter at length. Councilman Amstrup concluded he rvas against favored less government, not more; but some to control obvious abuses. the way ordinance; he should be found Councilman Mangini was not in favor of the ordinance as written. He would favor some sort of control, but would not approve of charging of fees. Councilwoman Barton would not approve of this ordinance at this time, stating she betieved majority of RV owners caused noproblem. However, there were abuses, and she urged that citizens consider their neighbors. Councilman Crosby \^ras not in favor of more governmental restrict- ions, but would suggest some sort of control over people who im- pose on thej-r neighbors. He suggested situations be resolved on a neighbor to neighbor basis. Mayor Martin stated one of his problems with the ordinance was the difficutty of enforcement. He thouqht urhat v'zas needed vvas a means to move these vehicles away from the front of properties or to screen them; and suggested ordinance be sent back to Planning Commission and staff for further study. Councilman Mangini recommended that both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Meisel be encouraged to consult with staff and make recommendations. Counci-lman Amstrup moved that Ordinance No. 1186 be rejected and sent backto Planning Commission for a revised draft, second.ed by Council- man Manqini, carried on unanimous ro11 call vote. RECESS Ten rninute recess was declared at 9220 P.14. COIISENT CALENDAR 1. CHAI{BER OF COMMERCE PROYIOTIONAL SEPTEMBER 30, 19BO FUND, JULY 1 THROUGH Chamber of commerce transmitted request for quarterly for period July 1, 1980 through Sebtember 30, I9B0 in of $3,750 and attached report of services rendered for April 1, 1980 through June 30, 1980. allocationthe a.'rnount the period 2. ENCROACHMENT PERI'4ITS: 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE AND 1016 PALOMA AVENUE. Blz separate memos dated September 10, 1980 City Ensineer recom- mended both these encroachment permits 1000 Vancouver Avenue for use of deadend alley for gardening, and 1016 Paloma Avenue for routinq drainage along rear alle.,z. 3. DENIAL OF CLAIM OF CLAYTON BURNELL Cityfeel Attorney recommended denial of this claim which he did not was justified. 4. FII\:IAL CONDO}4INIUM MAP, 735 EL CAIVIINO REAL By memo of Seotember IC, 1980 Citv Engineer recommended this final condominiurn nnap. 5. RESOLUTIONS t A. RESOLUTION NO. 57-80 ''}.UTF]ORIZING EXECUTTO].$ OF COST 105 SHARING AGREEMENT, 1133 DOUGLAS AVENUE. '' b. RESOLUTION NO. 5B-BO '' AUTHORf Z ]NG TTI SAI\ ItrATEOAMENDING AGREEM COMPANY. '' C. RESOLUTION NO. 59-80 ''AUTHORTZII]G EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH TOI^7N OF HILLSBOROUGH AND C]TY OF SAN MATEO FOR LIBRARY SERVICES'' d ,'AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU AND THE CITY OF BURLINGA.I4E FOR PROMOTIONAL SERVICES. " ltayor Ir{artin requested this be taken off consent calendar for further consideration at the next regular meetinq of October 6, 1980. Councilman Crosby moved approval of the consent calendar, second by Councilman Mangini, carriecl unanimously. APPROVALS WARRANTS Warrant Nos. 6551 through 6849, duly audited, in the amount of $713r002.18 were aporoved for oayment on motion of Councilman Crosby, second by Councilrnan Amstrup, carried unanj-mously. PAYROLL Payroll for August, 1980, Check"Nos. 20302 through 20922, in the amount of $399,322.26 approved for oayment on motion of Council- man Crosby, second by Councilman Amstrup, carried unanimously. UNFINTSHED BUSINESS 1. 911 COORDINATING COMMITTEE RATE INCREASE AND COU}.]TY SCAVENGER L Councilman l.{angini directed Council's attention Augrust 28, 1980 from San lr{ateo Operational Area and Disaster Organization on implementation of to memo ofCivil 911. Defense NEW BUSINESS STATE PFR DIEM Councilrnan Amstrup directed Council attention to recent newspaper publicity regarding a proposal by the California State Employees Association to raise per diem allowance of State legislators from $46.00 a dav to $60.00. He suggested Council take definite stand against this. Mayor lVtartin suggested Councilman Amstrup present more inforlnation at next meeting for Council review. AIRPORT EIR In response to question from Councilwoman Barton, Mayor Martin and City Planner commented at length on the City and County of San Francisco certified EIR on operations of F1ying Tiqers and JAL. Certification had been in spite of negative comments from surround-ing cities and ALUC. Airports Commission meeting will be held on 9/16/80 for the.ir consideration of this EIR, to which some cities are sending a reDresentative. Protests to apnroval of EIR must be made within 30 days. Joint Porvers authority is obtaining lega1 opinj-on on challenge to EIR and will hold meeting 9/27/80. PROCLAMATION Mayor Martin proclaimed October 3, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4 and 5 as White Cane Davs. 1. Memo of September 11, 1980 from Finance Director setting Audit Committee MeeLing for October 8, 1980. l r06 2. Letter of Seotember 11, 1980 from Citv Manager re conflict date of Joint Powers Authority meeting on September 27, 1980 with same date scheduled for joint Council meeting with Planning Commission and Traffic, Safety and Parking Comrnission. 3. Letter of July 10, 1980 from Director of Recreation re expiration of three commissioners terms. 4. Memo of September 11, 1980 from City Manager re expiration of terms of two Beautification commissioners. 5. l4emo of September 11, 1980 from Director of Pub1ic triorks re design anC material of sludge dev,ratering building. 6. Letter of Seotember B, 1980 frorn City Attorney on behalf of the City to the Governor of California requestins vetoes on certain Senate and Assembly bilIs. 7. Negative declarations from City Planner transrnitted bv memo of 9/t0/80. Police Department Monthly report, August, 1980. Treasurer's Report, August 31, 1980. 10. I4inutes: Librarlz Board, August 19; Planning Commission, Septer'.rlcer B , 19 B0 . ADJOURNMENT Meeting regularly adjourned at 10:00 P.M. in memory of Mr. Bert Stivers, former City official and Mrs. Ho11is ltrorberg, vridow of former Planning Commissioner E. L. Norberg. One minute of sj-lence hias observed in honor. B 9 ,Z-o/ntZ/ ZUI er/elvn III Hill City cldrk r i