HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1978.05.10151
Vice-Mayor Amstrup calLed an Adjourned Regular Meeting
Council, adjourned from the regular meeting of May Lst,
10:20 p.m. on llay 10, 1978, in Conference Room B of theCity Hall.
of the Cityto order at
Burl ingame
PRESENT: Vlce Mayor Amstrup, Counc ilwooan Barton, Counc ilmen Dlangini
and Martln
ABSENT: Mayor Crosby
PERMI,T FOR JILLY I S
Vice-Mayor Amstlup asked whether Councll is dealing with the same
people llho originally requested a permit, and, if not, who the
principals are. Mr. Keyston reported that the Lease which Anza hadiitt rqi . Mark Tracy Floirers was cancelled at noon, l'Ia y 9th. Anza
has an informal agleement with Mr. Steve Klieman, an attorney in the
Crocker Bank Building, and Mt. Ed Varner with Melody Toyota in San
Bruno. A lease has not yet been signed, but the terms have been
agreed to by Letter. He added that he vras one of the original appli-
cants for the permit and he would report to Council when there is a
Lease executed and with whom. Councilman Martin asked if Mr. Keyston
would agree that the permit be issued to Anza Shareholders I Liquid-ating Trust, subject to Council approval of any people who may slgn
the Lease. Mr. Keyston said he agreed vrith that condition. Council-
man Amstrup asked if the plan remained the same with no changes. Mr.
Keyston responded that he is Let to belleve that the lessors are
negotiating with JiLly's at the present time. Councilman Barton asked
if the opeiation will be the same as that originally proposed. Mr.
Keyston said there would be a full scale restaurant, a cocktail Lounge,
disco and showroom. Councilman Martin said there had been agreement
with Mr. Flowers as to the kind of operation it roould be; Council did
not want adult movies and would like to have some control . Mr.
Keyston said a11 the conditions stated by councilmen were acceptabLe.
Councllman Martin morrg! ;rpg-rova I of a permlt to Anza Shareholle1slLiquidating Trust for the- Jillv proiecl subject to Ehe conditions
that (t) if they get a ne!{ Lessoi Ctiuncil will have the right to approve;(2) if there are to be any changes in the original plan they wiLL be
presented to Council for approval; and (3) alt prior agreements are to
remain in force. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mangini and
passed unanimously on roll call vote.
ONE WATERFRONT AND PARKING PERMIT
Councilman Martin pointed out that there ls the problem of change of
zoning with respect to the One waterfront project. Under the proposed
zoning change office building use must be under a special permit. He
suggested that the matter be deferred until there is a final decision
regardtng proposed zonlng. Councilmen Amstrup and Barton agreed that
the matter be put over until after the declsion on the Blayney report
matter on Monday, l,lay l5th .
Mr. Keyston stated that the proposed new park and fly lot had been re-
designed so that the entrance would not conflict r^,ith a right of wayfor a proposed off-ramp from the freeway, and that he would Like Councilto approve the granting of the necessary permit. In answer to Council-
man Martinls question as to urgency, Mr. Keyston responded that Mr.
Freedman has signed an agreement to purchase the present parking lotfor either commercial or residentiaL purposes. The Bay Club Condominiumproperty has already been sold, and thts is the only piece of Land with
enough area for a favorable parking facility. He does need interim use,
and it will be necessary to add fill to part of the land because the
slope ls too steep for parking cars. The fill should be completed beforethe rainy season. Councilman l'lartin asked the Length of tl-rne the land
would be used for parking and Mr. Keyston responded it would be
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
l,Iay 10, 1978
ADJOURNED REG1JLAR MEETING OF THE CITY COI'NCIL
L52
ten years. Mr. Martin referred to the ten-year period the drive-inproperty would also be under lease and asked what property would beleft for hotel use if immediate development were proposed-. Mr.
Keyston responded there is six acres on the rdaterfront. Mr. l'lartin
added that he believed this matter atso should be deferred untilafter a decision on rezoning. Councilwoman Barton agreed.
equested that when the Blayney rultter is consideredsk if either the proposed parking or One Waterfrontwlth anything he is considering.
The meeting adjourned to resumptton of the Council Study Meetingat L0:40 p.n.
Respectfully submltted,
Mr. Keyston rthe Council awilL c onfl ic t
z/zlzz1r'ynCity CL rk
A G E N D A
STUDY MEETING
May 10 , 1978
ADJOURNED FROM REGULAR MEETING OF 1-1AY 1 , 1978
1 . Blayney Bayfront Plan
a . Committee report
b . Completion of report
Study Meeting
2 . Tree Referee from Sausalito on Operation of their
Tree and View Ordinance
3 . Burlingame Avenue Area Parking Study Report .
4 . Sewer System Improvement Engineering Services .
5 . Sale of Cuernavaca Park Lot
6 . Final Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for
San Mateo County
7 . Recreation Bond Money from State of California
�-- 8 . Ox Mountina Issue - Report and iRecommendation from
Councilman Vic Mangini , our Solid Waste Board Member
9 . Commission Vacancies - Procedure to Fill .
10 . Bike Path Gate - Needed to Provent Vandalism
Mr . Keyston ' s Offer to Install .
11 . Refuse Disposal Fees .
12 . Update of Uniform Building Code .
13 . Proposed Traffic Ordinance .
14 . Other
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
STUDY MEETING
May 10,1978
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN AMSTRUP, BARTON , MANGINI , MARTIN
ABSENT: COUNCILMAN CROSBY
Staff Present: Schwalm, Coleman, Kirkup, Swan , Wagner
Vice Mayor Amstrup convened the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Burlingame City Hall .
I . TREE AND VIEW DISCUSSION
Vice Mayor Amstrup announced that the tree and view matter would be con-
sidered first because of the number of citizens present to hear the topic.
He advised that this is a study meeting , the purpose of which is to afford
council an opportunity for study, and audience participation is permitted
only if Council requests information. He continued that this item was
placed on the agenda so the tree referee from Sausalito could explain how
that city' s tree ordinance is implemented. Mr. Schwalm reported that Mrs .
Rothschild telephoned him earlier in the day to inform him that the tree
referee is confined to bed and she asked if the Park Director from the City
of El Cerrito might be substituted to explain that city' s tree ordinance.
At Mr. Schwalm ' s suggestion Mrs. Rothschild had attempted to reach council -
members for permission to substitute the speaker, but she had reached only
Councilman Mangini who said he would have no objection. Councilman Amstrup
pointed out that councilmembers had studied the Sausalito ordinance and had
no knowledge of the E1 Cerrito ordinance. Mr. Coleman, who had received
copies from Mrs . Rothschild late in the afternoon said that basically it
is the same as Sausalito ' s but a little simpler; there is a hearing process
after a complaint; attempts to arbitrate ; hearing ; and apportionment of cost
between property owners . Mrs . Rothschild apologized for the late substitution,
and with Council ' s permission introduced Mr. Joel T. Witherell , Park Director
of E1 Cerrito .
Mr. Witherell stated that he has been involved with the E1 Cerrito tree
ordinance for the past five years and has been administering it. It has been
very successful ; there have been no difficulties ; in fact no complaints have
gone to the city council under it. The ordinance was initiated because over
250 people signed petitions . He said he does not know if there is legal basis
for the ordinance , but it was felt there was no precedent and the concept was
to attempt to solve the problem for those who had bought property because of
the viewsof the bridge and were losing their views .
He explained that a necessary y precedent action to filing a complaint was an
attempt to solve the problem initially between the property owners . If there
is, no success , a complaint is filed with the payment of a $50 fee plus $10
for each joining complainant. The Park Director then becomes involved in
the negotiations . If an agreement is not reached the matter is referred to
1
an appointed commission which reviews pictures and hears the property owners.
There are specified findings which must be made by the commission in reach-
ing a decision . The decision then allocates the cost of curing the condition,
with the limitation that the property owner in no event must pay more than
the cost of topping, trimming or windowing his trees . If city trees are
involved there is no $50 filing fee for a complaint; however a plan is pre-
pared and the complainant must pay $50 for the labor to work on a city tree.
He stated that when he is contacted he will refer the people to several
contractors. He urges people to offer the property owner the full cost
of the work and he feels that because there is an ordinance to be relied upon,
a plan is often accepted .
Councilman Barton questioned topping conifers . Mr. Witherell said El Cerrito
has many conifers . He added that they are not topped , but that a good tree
surgeon is able to trim them effectively or window them. Councilman Martin
asked Mr. Witherell to explain how the ordinance works . Mr. Witherell said
that basically it provides for people to get together. There must be a
letter to the tree owner before a complaint can be filed . After the com-
plaint is filed there is a 90-day period in which staff is involved in the
negotiations between people. The commission , if involved, must have hearings
and make findings in all of designated areas . Appeal from the decision of
the commission is made to the city council , but as yet there has been no
appeal . He stated that the ordinance provides for views , sunlight and
hazardous conditions. He added that with the importance of solar heating
he felt that in the future there would be more emphasis on protecting the
right to sunlight. The council ' s position was that on a four to one vote
they were willing to try the ordinance , and , if it doesn ' t work or a court
rules it is unenforceable , it can be abandoned. Councilman Martin questioned
the condition of presumptive right as compared with the condition at the time
of purchase. Mr. Witherell responded that the ordinance requires that the
latter is one of the things that must be considered by the commission. Every
tree is considered separately so the decision is subjective. He added that
before a decision is made there must be an estimate of the cost of the work.
Councilman Mangini asked if the council considered a statement such as there
is no way a council can guarantee a view. Mr. Witherell responded that the
city makes an effort to maintain views and the commission has a right to say
that tree limbs cannot grow to more than a certain level or that brackets must
be maintained in the trees . Councilman Bartin questioned the staff time
involved by the ordinance . Mr. Witherell said he feels it is minimal up to
this time; principally he answers questions over the telephone and sends out
copies of the ordinance and information sheets . He said that it would be
possible to become involved in a lengthy dispute. Councilman Barton com-
mented that it appeared that neighbors are solving the problems . Mr. Witherell
said that was correct. Often people ask for and receive information and then
have written their thanks . The requisite communication between the parties
with the back-up of the ordinance is effective. Councilman Amstrup questioned
the tree owner having to pay 50% of the cost of the remedy even though he did
not wish anything done. Mr. Witherell said that was correct; but he may not
have to pay anything if the commission determines it is the responsibility
of the complainant. In response to the comment that the tree owner is com-
pelled to pay for someone else ' s wish to have his tree cut, Mr. Witherell
statedthat the rights of the person who paid for a view are also invaded.
He added that some cities require the complaining person to pay 100% of the
2
work. Councilman Martin mentioned a very old conifer at Balboa and Easton
which he did not believe could be trimmed or reduced by pruning because of
its age. Mr. Witherell said that the ordinance would not result in the
trimming of a specimen tree.
Vice Mayor Amstrup asked Council for its continents . Mrs . Barton expressed
satisfaction with Mr. Witherell ' s presentation. She called attention to
letters received from Mills Estate residents whose attitude differed from
that expressed to Council this evening. Councilman Martin called attention
to an arbitration service in the City which he felt could be used effectively
with this type of controversy. Mr. Witherell suggested that rather than
use staff time people might be asked to use that type of service, but it
would have to be backed up by enabling legislation so there is a basis of
law to work from. Councilman Barton read a letter signed by eight persons
setting forth a list of objections to such an ordinance including the
statements that purchasers should have been aware of the presence of trees
before homes were purchased; that a view cannot be guaranteed, including
by city government; that trees were planted to replace those removed by the
developer and to minimize mud slides ; that volunteer enforcers of an ordinance
would not be qualified; that tree topping is a temporary measure; that there
would be increased tax roll expense and that citizens are entitled to
privacy and protection from wind. Councilman Martin pointed out that
vegetation removed by the developer was not natural but blue gum and hedge-
row that had been planted by the previous property owner. Councilman
Amstrup commented on another letter in which the writer said that if the
neighbor would consult with him he would be glad to try to work out the
problem, but there had been no contact.
Councilman Amstrup said he understood that Mrs . Rothschild had asked the
Park Director if the matter could be heard by the Beautification Commission
at its May 11th meeting . Councilman Mangini suggested that that Commission
hear the matter and present a recommendation to Council .
Councilman Amstrup commented that there had been a tree ordinance several
years ago regulating removal of trees which had to be repealed because of
citizen objections . He said he felt that unless the Beautification Commis-
sion can come back with an idea where government is not involved and control
will not involve expense to the owner of the trees , his opinion about the
workability of such an ordinance will probably remain unchanged. He expressed
the belief that if neighbors would communicate tree controversies probably
could be resolved.
Councilman Barton said that she is concerned about people coming to govern-
ment to solve problems ; that the more government involvement,the less freedom.
Councilman Martin said he did not see the city getting involved in this kind
of situation and that he felt there is too much bureaucratic control already.
Councilman Amstrup concurred with councilmembers that the matter should be
presented to the Beautification Commission . Mr. Joe Harvey, chairman of
that commission pointed out that commission members had not had an opportunity
to review the ordinances and would be better prepared for the hearing if the
matter were deferred to the June commission meeting . Mrs . Rothschild said
she would supply all the information she has to the commission , and that she
would like to return to Council after the commission hearing .
3
II . BLAYNEY BAYFRONT PLAN
Vice Mayor Amstrup reported that the committee formed with two members
from the Traffic Commission two from the Planning Commission and two
Councilmen had made its recommendations on the Bayfront Plan. He asked
Mr. Kirkup for a synopsis .
Councilman Martin announced that sometime in the future he may be involved
in a conflict of interest on the zoning of the Bayfront and as a result he
will take no part in the discussion or decision on zoning on advice of the
City Attorney. He said he would sit in on discussions because in the
future he may be able to step back in .
Mr. Kirkup reported the subcommitte made six recommendations : (1 ) It
preferred Plan 2 of the Blayney report with modifications of floor ratio
intensity for restaurants to . 15 and of offices to . 75; (2) it recommended
that an alternate plan be submitted showing about 19 acres of residential
concentration located essentially behind Kee Joons and that residential be
25 units per acre instead of the suggested 30 with height limitations of
3 or 4 stories over parking ; (3) that the master plan be changed to show
all Anza property as waterfront commercial with commercial , manufacturing
or office development; (4) that the zoning of the Hyatt, Sheraton and
Drive-in Theater be changed from M-1 to C-4 zoning; (5) that C-4 zoning
allow offices only as a conditional use (the developer would have to come
to Council for a special permit) ; and (6) that specific uses other than
residential not be assigned with the understanding that state lands are
limited to specific uses by agreement between Anza and the state.
Councilman Amstrup pointed out that the Blayney report was instigated because
there was a concern about office buildings , and the question became what
alternative uses would be acceptable. The area cannot be limited to hotels
and restaurants . The questions before Council are will residential be
mixed with office development or will there be office building development
only? The committee reported it is a policy matter which must be decided
by Council .
Councilman Mangini pointed out that the committee ' s recommendation is for
some residential use. He stated that he had been basically against that
use but it appears a good way of alleviating the traffic problem. Council -
man Barton said she would like a report on the economic difference of impact
with residential . She added for members of the press that residential does
not mean one-family homes but condominium. Councilman Amstrup said a
further question to be considered is the designation of tower or three story
condominiums similar to the Woodlake development, but the consensus appeared
to be for the latter.
In answer to Councilman Mangini ' s question about the status of the Blayney
report Mr. Swan reported that Bayney is to be told to prepare a Bayfront
plan , analyzing costs and benefits and measuring all fiscal impacts on the
\.. proposed type of land use, including a traffic and circulation plan. Then
there would be a public hearing , so it doesn ' t mean it is the adopted plan .
If the economics are not acceptable , Council could revise the plan. Mr.
Swan said Blayney should be given direction as to the density that would
be acceptable or directed to leave that to be determined in the future. At
the open hearing Council would make its decision. Mr. Kirkup pointed out
4
that if an EIR is to be prepared Blayney will have to address the visual
impact on the Bay.
Councilman Barton reported that she had walked the length of the property
recommended for residential use by the Committee and she felt visually it
was quite poor. The view is of the back of Kee Joons and power lines.
Councilman Mangini asked if specific areas would have to be included in
direction given to Blayney. Mr. Kirkup responded that if Council feels
strongly it should give direction; otherwise Blayney will have to defend
his 30 acres suggestion as against the committee ' s 19. He said the pro-
posed 30 acres was based on the number of people considered necessary for
a cohesive residential area . Councilman Barton suggested the auction and
drive-in sites because of surrounding waterfront so the residential area
would be attractive. Councilman Amstrup said the theater property was not
included because it has a ten-year lease. In answer to a question about
property close to the golf course it was pointed out that it would be too
close to the treatment plant. Mr. Kirkup added that residential areas should
not be separated. The Blayney suggestion was based on 1 ,600 people , but
20 acres would cut it down to about 1 ,000 people.
Councilman Amstrup restated the basic decision to be whether or not Council
would like to include residential use in the plan. Councilman Mangini said
he felt it had to be considered. Councilman Amstrup said he was not pleased
with the idea , but he is considering it. Councilman Barton added that there
is need for a fiscal analysis of the impact of residential use.
Councilman Amstrup said that in connection with the consideration of direction
to Blayney the correspondence regarding his agreement with the City should be
discussed. Councilman Martin stated this matter did not enter into the area
of his possible conflict of interest and he would participate in this item.
Councilman Amstrup asked whether asking Blayney to consider residential use
would cost more money. Mr. Coleman answered yes and referred to Mr. Swan ' s
memorandum as a clear report of the situation. Although the city has de-
layed the report, Mr. Blayney was aware of each delay. Mr. Martin pointed
out that the Drachman report is also involved., Mr. Kirkup said he will
stay with his contract unless we ask him to work with two plans . Mr. Schwalm,
who had been trying to talk with Mr. Blayney during the week, said that he
is asking for an additional $6,900, but Mr. Swan disputes some of the items
of the claim. Mr. Swan estimated the delay probably did cost Blayney $1 ,600,
so there is an area for compromise. In answer to Councilman Martin ' s ques-
tion, Mr. Schwalm said Blayney has been paid approximately $25,000 of the
$35,000 contract price. Councilman Martin expressed concern about the quality
of the report if Blayney is forced to perform the contract without some kind
of offer. Mr. Coleman said he did not think a hard offer of $1 ,600 should be
made in response to Councilman Martin' s suggestion that Mr. Schwalm do that.
Mr. Martin pointed out that he has not yet completed as much work as he has
been paid for, and he was at each meeting and knew of the delays without
objecting to them. He asked if a Blayney representive was present, and Mr.
Bob Glover identified himself as representing Blayney.
5
Councilman Barton question Mr . Blayney ' s statement on page 3 of his letter
that the junior staff member ' s assistance , called for by page 5 of the
contract , had been unsatisfactory . Mr . Swan reported a problem with a
CETA employee having difficulty getting information required in a hurry .
Councilman Martin called attention to the 192 hours of support time of the
City Planner and Assistant Planner . Mr . Kirkup added that Engineering also
spent considerable time preparing maps . Mr . Schwalm conceded that Blayney
has had additional expense , but said he doesn ' t think it came to $6 , 900 .
There is an unpaid bill for $ 5 , 000 that is being held up . Councilman
Martin objected to a contract being questioned in this manner .
Council directed Mr . Schwalm to contact Mr : Blayney in an attempt to negotiate
the matter and report back to Council at its meeting on May 15th .
Councilman Amstrup questioned Council ' s wishes with regard to direction to
Mr . Blayney ; whether they wish to have residential use considered , and , if so ,
whether tower type and three story residential buildings should be considered .
Councilman Barton was opposed to the tower type construction . Mr . Kirkup
called attention to the committee ' s recommendation for three stories over
parking . Councilman Mangini stated that he would like information on both .
Councilman Mangini stated that he objected to two people making a decision
for five on behalf of the City . Councilman Martin suggested that the
matter be deferred for four days until the regular meeting of May 15th when
all members of Council will be present . Councilman Amstrup instructed that
the matter be placed first on the agenda for that meeting .
Mr . Kirkup asked Council if it would consider directing the Planner as to
where the residential area should be , the second basic decision which should
be given to him . Councilman Mangini said he is comfortable designating the
far end of the area where there is considerable water frontage . Mr . Kirkup
asked if anything north of Airport Boulevard would be considered . Mr . Mangini
questioned the effect upon security . Mr . Keyston emphasized the need to
consider the financial impact on the city . He said hotels are the most
profitable but they are going to develop slowly . He suggested that since
the drive- in property will be held for ten years it would be better to develop
that site with hotels , thereby maximizing income . Councilman Mangini questioned
traffic flow from the highway and back onto it . Mr . Kirkup explained the
traffic problems and said there will be a great deal of traffic at both ends .
Councilman Mangini pointed out that on the committee ' s map the residential
area could be secured . Mr . Keyston reported he had received confirmation
that Victoria Station will be signing a lease for one of the parcels at the
waterfront . Mr . Kirkup repeated that if direction is given to Blayney on Monday
night , that direction should specify where the residential area
is to be . In answer to Councilman Barton ' s comment about the undesirability
of the area behind Kee Joons , Councilman Amstrup commented that a complex
would emphasize turning in as Woodlake does , and he compared the unfavorable
site where that development is located . Councilman Mangini suggested that
`,. decision also be put over to Monday night ' s meeting .
Mr . Swan called attention to the urgency ordinance which will expire on July
6th and the rezoning recommended in items 3 , 4 and 5 of the committee 's report.
6
He stated that direction to staff would be helpful so an ordinance can be
prepared for introduction .
Mr. Keyston pointed out that no comments that have been made would inter-
fere with One Waterfront, parking , or approval of Jilly's . Councilman Amstrup
asked for comments on the permit for Jilly ' s . Councilman Mangini stated that,
without any evidence to back it up, he is convinced Council approved the permit
and he does not understand why it is not reported in the minutes . Mr. Coleman
said that Council had not taken formal action. There was a meeting with Mr.
Flowers , and at a subsequent meeting Council acknowledged the Planning Commis-
sion ' s approval of the Jilly' s project. Councilman Martin said he agreed with
Councilman Mangini ; he thinks the intent was to approve the permit.
Councilman Amstrup adjourned the study meeting at 10:20 p.m. to an adjourned
regular meeting of the City Council .
The study meeting was reconvened at 10:40 p.m.
III . SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES
Mr. Kirkup referred to Council direction at a previous meeting and reported
he had contacted Reta/Nolte for a quotation for the design work on the sewer
line east of the Freeway. His recommendation is to include the line in the
1.. trench for the filter press . The price came in at $4,500. Councilman Martin
observed that the price is about 8% of the estimated cost of the project and
asked how the bid would be handled. Mr. Kirkup said it would be by separate
bid schedule on the filter press contract but that it would not be financed
by federal funds and Millbrae would not be included in that part of the bid.
Councilman Martin suggested that it might be better to have the bid go both
as a schedule and as a separate contract. Mr. Kirkup was directed to submit
the contract to the next council meeting.
IV. SALE OF CUERNAVACA PARK LOT
Vice Mayor Amstrup said that he did not agree with the assessor' s valuation
of the lot, but he recommend that Council proceed toward its sale. Mr. Coleman
reported that the Government Code provides that there be written bids with
bidders having an opportunity to raise the amount of bid upon the opening ,
similarly to the way probate sales are handled . Councilman Martin requested
that the sale proposal be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for
comment.
V. FINAL COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY
Mr. Kirkup reported that the final water resources management plan does not
�► differ substantially from the draft plan before Council several months ago ,
and that silence is considered approval of the plan . Councilman Martin said
that Council had submitted conditions to approval of the draft plan . Mr.
Kirkup reported that the final plan did not take a strong position of supporting
the fourth barrel or inclusion of the Valley in water management planning .
7
Councilman Martin suggested that approval of the final plan should be subject
to the same conditions, Mr. Kirkup said a resolution would be prepared in
that manner,
VI . RECREATION BONDS
Mr. Wagner reported that a year ago the City became eligible to apply for
two bond acts : the 1974 Act for $103 ,000, and the 1976 Act for $96 ,500. He
recommended at that time that we make application for $103 ,000 under the ' 74
Act and designate it for Washington Park lighting because there was a possibility
that a golf course would be built by outside people. The application was made
and approved and the $103 ,000 is now in the state budget. The next step would
be to contract with a lighting engineer to design the lighting and proceed so
that lighting would be ready for next year ' s baseball or soccer in 1979 . The
alternative is to make application to the state now for reallocation of the
1974 money for a golf course. If that is done the money will not be available
until August of 1979. Mr. Kirkup indicated the golf course could go ahead as
soon as three months . Mr. Wagner said his recommendation is for Washington
Park lighting. In any event he believes application for the 1976 bond money
should be made as soon as possible , and Council may wish to designate that for
the golf course.
Councilman Barton observed that there has been talk of a golf course for years.
She said she heard that the manager of Crystal Springs Golf Course is interested
in working on the course and the driving range. Mr. Wagner said it could be
done in two steps ; the driving range first and then go back to the golf course.
In answer to Councilman Amstrup ' s question about estimated cost Mr. Wagner said
1 . 6 million dollars for the total project. The driving range was estimated at
$300,000 for three phases, including the club house. Councilman Martin said
he did not think the driving range should be undertaken ahead of the golf course.
Councilman Amstrup asked Council ' s wishes. Councilman Martin said he would
like to see us go ahead with park lighting because if Jarvis-Gann is passed
it will be difficult to get financing for it. Councilman Mangini favored the
Washington Park lighting project. Councilman Barton questioned whether lights
at the parks pay for themselves . Mr. Wagner said a fee for lighting it in-
cluded in the registration fees . Mr. Wagner said he would proceed with park
lighting for the 1974 Act funds and will make application for the 1976 funds
for the golf course and driving range as directed by Council .
VII . OX MOUNTAIN ISSUE
With regard to the proposal that the County purchase the Ox Mountain refuse site ,
Councilman Mangini recommended that it be left in private ownership because
he did not believe that Browning-Ferris would consider an installment purchase
and he thinks it would be cheaper than if it were operated by the public. He
said recycling would be done at the transfer station near Redwood Shores .
8
He asked. for a resolution evidencing Council ' s decision. Staff was directed
to prepare a resolution recommending private ownership of Ox Mountain .
VIII . BIKE PATH GATE
Mr. Schwalm reported that Mr. George Keyston would like to put in gates to
the bike path because people were going over the fence into the parking lot
at night and were stealing automobile parts and vandalizing the cars . Anza
would put in the gates and arrange to close them at night and open them in
the morning . Councilman Bartin asked if reflectors could be put on the gates
so that late bike riders would not crash into the gates. Mr. Kirkup suggested
that an encroachment permit with conditions could be granted . Councilman
Amstrup requested that Anza be responsible for all repairs and Mr. Coleman
suggested that the permit be revocable by Council . There was no objection
to the granting of an encroachment permit.
IX. COMMISSION VACANCIES
Councilman Barton stated that Burlingame is one of the few cities that doesn ' t
have a limit on terms of commissioners . There are three vacancies and sixteen
applicants . She said she feels it is fair to give people who want an opportunity
to serve a chance to do so. Councilman Amstrup asked if Council wished to
adopt a system for interviewing or merely look at applications . Councilman
L Barton reported that San Mateo gives every applicant a two minute opportunity
to speak. Councilman Martin said that everyone is not able to speak and that
he favored an interview system, and preferred a two member committee system
with recommendations to Council . Councilman Mangini suggested that the top two
recommendations for each vacancy could then be interviewed by Council thereby
meeting the requisite public hearing . Councilman Martin suggested that
applicants be called and asked to designate the commission on which they wish
to serve and that a committee of two interview the applicants for an assigned
commission and report back to Council . Mr. Coleman suggested that Council
await Councilman Crosby' s return before determining who would serve on each
of the three proposed committees .
X. REFUSE DISPOSAL FEES
Councilman Mangini reported that San Mateo has increased the fees for dumping
refuse. Mr. Kirkup added that the fee was raised from a minimum of 50 cents
to a minimum of $1 . 25 or $2.75 per cubic yard. If Burlingame stays- at 50
cents the majority of the refuse will be brought to our dump. Also, the
scavenger company asked that the City review the rates and our costs of closing.
His department recommends that our fees be raised to San Mateo ' s rates . He said
65% of the revenue comes to the City. Councilman Martin recommended that the
rates be changed as recommended. Mr. Kirkup said that he would negotiate the
agreement and bring it to Council . Councilman Amstrup questioned who has
access to the dump. Mr. Kirkup responded that San Mateo Park, Hillsborough
9
and commercial users if they have a business license address in Burlingame.
Councilman Amstrup suggested limiting use because we are running out of
space. Councilman Martin explained that San Mateo Park used the dump because
originally the scavenger routes made it easier, but they might be willing
to change now. Mr. Kirkup said he would negotiate that matter with the
scavenger company also.
OTHER
Mr. Coleman requested that the proposed traffic ordinance and building code
ordinance be placed at the top of the agenda for the next study meeting.
The study meeting adjourned to an executive meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Notes:
A. Keating
10