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