Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1975.10.0645 () Burl i ngame, 0ctober California 6, 1975 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting order at 8:03 P.M. by Mayor Irving S. Amstrup. held wa s on th called e above to s PLEJGE 0F ALLEGIANCE T0 THE FLAG: Led by llayne M. Swan, City Planner. ROLL CALL Counc i I Counci l I'lembers i,lembers Present: Absent r Amstrup-Crosby-Cus i ck- Harri son-Mangi ni None XIIiUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of September 'l 5, .l975, were approved and adopted wi th the fol I owi ng correcti on: Page 7 draft mi nutes ,Item "i,1ayor's Report-Parking Study Committee," fourth paragraph, del ete "Counci l man Cus i ck stated she had no objection to the p1an.....", substi tute "Councilman Cus i ck stated she had no obi ect i on to researchi ng methods of fi nanci ng ACKNOI.JLEDGMENT ". . (Vol ume 17, Page 456 'Mi nutes. ) |'layor I otte ) Councl Amstrup acknowl edged Johnson who servedI from April, 1955 t PROCLAI4ATIONS l4a yo r Amstrup0ctober, 1975 the presence of Mrs . t.till iam Bl air (Char- the City of Burlingame as a member of the City o Apri1, 1972, including three terms as mayor. proclaimed 0ctober 5-ll "FIRE PREVENTI0N I^lEEK,'l 975" and,UNITED BAY AREA CRUSADE MONTH." HEARI NG I. REMOVAL OF BUNYA.BUNYA TREE,I54O NE!ILANDS AVENUE, APPROVED Mayor Amstrup announced that the appeal ffled by Mrs. Adolph Hansen from Beautification Commlssion denial of a permlt to remove a tree on theproperty at the above address was acknowledged by the City Council at its meeting of September l5 and referred to the present meeting for hearing. addressed t i n l4ay, 197 and, accord $7000. Mr. Counci I , advlslngto remove a Bunya-to International ffman expl ai ned th At Mayor Amstrup's request for s taff rthat M Bu nya Shade eport, Park Director John E. Hoffmanr, and Mrs . Ha nsen made appl i cati on tree whi ch has a d i ameter of 38" Tree Conference Ratl ng, a val ue of Hansens }rere concerned about some- from the tree , about danger of -the g damage from the tree's root was hi s opi ni on that such hazards he cone probl em can be el iminateds presented to the Beautificationt it be disapproved. At a meeting he applicatlon, heard from the removal . Subsequently, the Hansense same tree. They were heard by s meeti ng there was considerablc nformati on researched with theibrarian and had discovered, ln thetrees in the City of San Mateo's o the chi I dren's pl ayground, nextto a publ ic wal kway. The Super- there has never been an injury , ls there danger of the trees he 5, i ng Ho at the dropone bei ng hurt by the cones thattree falling on the house and re system to the nei ghbor's drivewa are i nherent in I arge trees and by proper removal . The applicat Commission wi th his recommendati on Ju ne 5, the Commlssion cons i d Hansens and voted unanimously ag reappl ied on July 28 for remova lthe Commission on September 4.discussion. He presented additi assi stance of Burl i ngame's refer meantime, there were three Bunya Central Park I oc ated in areas cto tenn{ s courts and the I argest i ntendent of Parks in that city a from falling cones nor, in his o uprooti ng. curri nv. Itthat tion wa on tha ered t ainstof thAt thional i ence I -Bunya I ose t, next dvl sed pinlon 460 In conclusion, Mr. Hoffman informed the Council that a Bunya-Bunya treeat lll2 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, smaller ln dlameter than the Hansen's was designated a Heritage Tree upon nomination by the owner. In hlsopinion, the tree on the Hansen property is a better tree, Iarger andolder. 0n September 4, 1975, the Beautification Commission again votedto di sal I ow removal . Declaring the hearing open, Mayor Amstrup invited comments 'ln opposltionto removal . There were none. Comments in favor of removal were lnvlted, Mrs. Gloria H. Barton, Vice-Chalrman of the Beautification Commission, expressed the opinion that the City cannot and should not tell an ownerto keep a tree and expect that owner to be responsible for structural damage or bodily injury resulting from the tree; in the Hansen's case, there has been root damage to the driveway on the adjacent property. Mrs. Barton felt that the tree ls creating an economic hardship for the Hansens, is a hazard and interferes wlth the ownersr rights to enjoymentof their property. For these reasons she supported removal . Hrs, Adol ph Hansen read from a prepared statement. Fol I owi ng are excerpts : L Because of an extraordinary burst of gror,,th, the tree is close toheight of 70 feet and can grow to 150 feet. Enormous pineapple-like cones wei gh between l5 and 20 pounds and falling from the top of the could become a deadly weapon to people on the premises or passers-by. a tree 2. The cones are difflcult to remove because they are not eas'lly seen. Shortly after a tree maintenance company cleaned out the tree, three large cones fell. This would appear to negate Mr. Hoffman's claim that the cones would not be a problem if removed every 2 to 3 years. Anotherinstance, shortly after the gardener took down all the cones he could see,a I arge cone dropped narrowly misslng a child. 3, The tree has a shal low root structure and is I eani ng. This is a matter of concern, it'i s a serious hazard. The tree could fall after a heavy rain or in a high wlnd. If the tree felI as lt leans, it wouldfall across the front porch of the house, utllity lines, sidewalk andinto the street, 4, The roots buckl ed the and are damaging it again. 5. The Bunya-Bunya spi ked branches. tree is not a haven for birds because of its sharp, 6. 0rdinance l0l9 "Heritage Tree 0rdinance" mentions wanton destructionof trees , Sectl on ll,06.010. This cri teri a cannot be appl ied in thls instance. There are 25 other trees on the property, some Iarger than the Bunya-Bunya, but there has been no application made for removal of any of these because they are not considered dangerous. The ordinance speaksto the City's desire to retain as many trees as possible consistent wlth economic enjoyment of private property and also states that removal of decline. (The statement ls on file in the 0ffice of the City Clerk.) There were no further comments from the floor. The hearing was declared cl osed, Council discussion followed. Councilman Harrison thought the Hansen tree left much to be desired when compared with the tree at lll2 Drake Avenue and, as mentioned by Mrs. Barton, perhaps the ordinance does infringe on an ot{ner's rightsto hls property. He regretted the inconvenience caused the Hansens and stated that after reading the minutes of the Beautificatlon Commission, observing the tree and weighing all considerations, he would support removal. neighbor's driveway at I532 Newlands Avenue trees reduces property value. In view of all of the problems createdby this tree, heavy cones dropping constantly, shallow roots, the leanlng,potential for severe bodily injury or structural damage, it would appearthere is deprivation of economic enjoyment of private property and thatretention of the tree as opposed to removal will cause property value to 46 ated he observed the tree, the debris from the repairs in the neighbor's driveway. It was his going beyond the bounds of good government in they cannot remove a tree from their property. Councilman Mangini asked the City Attorney to comment on extent of liability to the City and to the Hansens for damage to other propertles. The Attorney responded the City could be sued, but he was not prepared to comment on the extent of the City's liability except he was awarethat ordinances have been upheld by the courts as to a city's right to control certain types of trees. He preferred not to comment with respect to an owner's liability. Counci lman Mangi ni cons i dered the ' tree not dangerous but hesi tated sustain the BeautJfication Commisslon on the chance there might be accident and someone hurt. Councilman Cusick advlsed that the committee charged with review of to an Commenting that the Council obviously was disposed toward overruling the Beautification Commission, Mayor Amstrup commented this was a prime example of democracy in actlon' proof that people can come to city hall for relief, For the Hansens, this was the second time within a few months they sb0ght permission to remove the tree. the He Beauti Counci her co she di was en she de ncerd no acte cl ar In a communication dated 0ctober 2, 1975 the appl I cati ons and offered the fol lowi "Unless there is delegation, Clty Councito grant a substantl al encroachment perm a revocabl e permi t wi th co nd i ti ons. It delegate to the 0irector of Publ ic I,lorks superi ntendent ) the authorl ty to grant r encroachments and subject to such condltIf this pol icy were in exlstence, the th woul d be handled by the Di rector subiect met al so wi th the be forthcomi ng to the City he City Manager commented onfor Counci I 's consideration:s the only one wi th authorl ty And, of course, lt may be recommended that Counci I ho is offi ci a1 I y the street cabl e perm its for mi nors as are of value to the CitY. cases now address ed to you appeal to Ci ty Counci l. " itage Tree ordinance held a meeting'ication Commisslon and a report willrf I !,lith respect to the Hansen tree, Councilmin Cusick explained n i s wi th structural damage ca0sed by the tree. Stati ng t bel i eve it was ever i n te nded when the Heri tage Tree ord{nance d that property should be allowed to be damaged by trees' ed her intention of voting for removal. Counci lman Harrison moved to reverse the decision of the Beautification Commission, thereby sustaining the appeal. Motlon seconded by Counci lman Mangi ni , carrl ed unanimously on rol I call. ENCROACHMENT PERHITS Applications from three property owners to encroach into the pubiic right of way r{ere presented to the Ci ty Counc i I . ,t ngliit. is (w evo i on ree to The three appl i cations I. DONALD L. & BESS E follows: 2OOI EASTON DRIVE, DENIED were as . HUFF, Request dated Sep tember ll, 1975 i n bri ck) i n front of the housefl owi ng onto the property and i n property line, exi sti ng wal l and cation. to build a wall (Cinderblock trimmed keep water from Easton Dri ve over- he front door. A sketch showi ng roposed wal l accompanied the communi - tot p In his Ietter of 0ctober 2, the Clty Manager reported that, according to the Di rector of Publ i c Works , this res I den t does have a drai nage probl em and would be granted a revocabl e permi t to pl ace a barri er on the right of way not exceeding one foot in height. The resident desires to place a five-foot wall. Such an encroachment wouid not be cons i dered mi nor, but a natter onl y within the Counci I 's prerogati ve. Councilman 14anglni reported he went to see I'lr. Huff and was informedthat the wal I is proposed to be 4 not 5 feet in hei ght; also, Mr. Huffis of the opi nion that a I foot curb will create a hazard to pedestri ans. Councl lman Crosby sttree and ev i de nce ofpositlon the City istell in9 the Hansens 462 Counci lman i4angini as ked how I ong the Counc i lman Harri sonthe City requ i red a sidewalk. stated he would tend to favor some form of wa'l l. exi sti ng 6 foot wal I has been on the property. He l,,lr. Terry Roberts, 28?9 Rivera Drive, son-in-1aw to the Huffs was thelrrepresentative. Responding to Councilman I'langini, Mr. Roberts statedto his knowledge the existing wall was built concurrently with the house. Councilman Harrison stated he gathered from Councilman 14angini's com- ments that Mr. Huff is amenable to something less than 5 or 4 feet. He asked Mr. Roberts to comment. Mr. Roberts advised that bids were received from two contractors, height was established at 4 feet.First, the wal I was to be built to 3 feet; if aestheti cal ly correct,that woul d be the hei ght. If not, an addi tional foot woul d be added. i4ayor Amstrup asked how a wall can be expected to contain the viater when there are two gates on the property. Mr. Roberts reported that both contrac tors assured the prob I em can be corrected. Councilman Harrison asked the Director of Publ i c l,Jorks to comment. He stated if the concern is drai nage, and that is bei ng presented as the concern, he failed to see the need of anything more than a 6 inch,or, at the maximum a l foot curb. Furthermore, in his opinion, awall on the property line can serve the same purpose. Councilman Har-rison asked if the wall was intended for something other than drainage, was it for beau ti fi cat i on to set apart the front of the house? 1,1r. Roberts stated the wall was preferred rather than a I foot curb to enhance aestheti c values. In response to an Jnquiry from Councilman Cusick, the City Attorney confi rmed that the Ci ty can grant revocabl e permi ts. Counci l man Cus i ck asked about fees. The Attorney stated he was not aware that this typeof revocable permit had ever been granted. There is a charge for side- wal k and curb work, which is similar, but no provision for a chargefor this kind of permit. It is not mentioned in the present ordlnance, Councilman Crosby asked the Director of Public Horks be built further back on the property. The Directorwall or fence normally is built on the property line. if the wal I can responded that a asked about precedent. Mayor Amstrup recal led that devel oper to remove a wal l that encroached on the . Counci lman Crosby asked Mr. Roberts to comment. He confirmed that the proposed Iocation was selected for reasons of aesthetics. Furthermore, there are walls all along the street. The neighbor's wall is on the sidewalk line in the same area requested by the Huffs. Councilman Harrison asked if drainage needs can be satisfied with some form of obstruction on the property line. t4r. Roberts answered that had not been researched. Respondi ng to Councilman Harri son, the Di rectorof Public Works stated from Iooking at the property he had no reason to say that one location would be structurally more advantageous than the other. The 0i rector of Pubiic Horks i nformed the Counci I there is another ma tterof concern that mi 9ht be di scussed from a I egal s tand po i nt. Recentl y, there have been several instances where his department has had diff lculty-. establishing precise location of a property line; this has led to lassumptionsl Allowing encroachments witn iences and walls can createa dangerous situatlon because a new owner probably would assume thathis property line extended to the fence or wall. He explained he was not opposed to the application but to allowing encroachments that might cause probl ems to a successor owner. It was his posi tion that encroach- ment permi ts be recorded. Mr. Roberts stated that water flow has washed away most of the lawn and vegetati on, that area of the yard is u na ttracti ve. Pl aci ng a wal I on the property line will not improve conditions. Councilman Cusick expressed the oplnion that the problem of people .," th i nki ng the sidewalk is thestated if something is going the property, me nt at any t as long as it and the City has e ime, she saw no reason i s recorded. erty line will be a ook better, improveri ght to reclaimfor not granti ng 463 continuing one. Shethe appearance ofthe area of encroach-a revocable permi t op I th pr to Councilman Harrison commented this would appear to be the ideal situationfor an article in the Recreation Department brochure on property Iines and encroachments. Stati ng he concurred wi th the Di rector of Publ ic tlorks in terms of concern about future owners maklng incorrect assumptions as to property lines, and because the Huffs neglected to investigate awall on the property line where it could be equally aesthetic, Council- man Harrison declared in favor of denying the permit. tlayor Amstrup recalled that the Council has made a strong effort in thepait few years to guard City-owned lands. There was the gentleman whose swimming pooi extended 30 feet into the City's lands at the back of his lot. Gianted, it was an honest mistake, but he was requlred to rectify it. The question appears to be how far is the Clty expected to go in allowing encroachments for aesthetic reasons when the opportunity is avai labl e to the owner to build on hls I and. Councilman Harrison moved to deny the encroachment permit' second by Councilman Crosbyr carried on fol lowing rolI call : Ayes: Council Members: Amstrup-Crosby-Harrison i,loes: Counci I Members: C u s i c k - l''la n g i n i REC0NVENE: Followlng a recess at B:45 P.M Mayor Amstrup cal I ed the rneeti n9 to order at 8:50 P.M ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ( Cont. ) 2. I.4R. & I4RS. t^lILLIAM ST EIIIS, 3 O6 HOl.lARD AVENUE, APPROVED In a communication dated 0ctober I as fol Iows: "l.le have been denied hopes to pl ace the fence on the Ci Bu i ldi ng and Pl anni ng Departments approximately I and 9/10 feet, the access to ll and 9/10 feet from th mai ntenance and repair purposes. enc I osed we have I ocated all utilition of the fence in our desi red I any utility." Councl lman Harri son thought meri ts. This is a proposal wall, the encroachment is Ito I andscapi ng. 1975, Mr. & Mrs . Stevens advi sed building permit as a result of oury ri ght of way easement. CitY ave advlsed us to move the fence back reason being the C.ity needs to have street curb to our proPerty for lease note by the photographs ies around our property. Construc- cati on woul d not obstruct access to cants recited: "I haet fence not exceed i n nds and the " property Manager reportedthe de I ega ti on to such a delegatlon at h Pt o A petition wi th 27 s i g natures flled by the ap no obj ec ti on to the construction of a white p three feet in helght pl aced where the sidewal begi ns at 306 Howard Avenue, Burl i ngame. In his communicat*on dated 0ctober 2, .l975, the City this application would be within the prerogative of the Director of Public t,lorks if City Councll adopts pol i cy. ve I pl i ickke The 0lrector of Public !.lorks informed the Council he would consider thi s a fence and not a mi nor structure. He explained that , agai n, he had concern about mi srepresenti he would tend to be unyieldingpermit unless there was proof o wi thou t policy to direct. ng a wl thf har property I i ne. For thi s reason, anyono who requested an encroachmentdship. Thls was a personal opinion each appl icatlon must be judged on itsfor a fence, not a sol id fence nor a solid 9 feet. The effect would appear to be akin Counci lman 14angi ni was moved back I.9 feet it to accept the 1es s pleaslng fence where proposed. aestheti caI Iy.i ncl i ned wou I d be ta 5 4$1 Councilman Cusick inquired about recording the encroachment. The City Attorney explained the encroachment permit can be recorded sothat any future owner of the property will be made aware of the special circumstances whereby the fence was permitted to be constructed. Councilman Mangini moved approval of the permit, second by Council- man Crosby and carrled on following roll call: Ayes: Counc i I Members: Crosby-Cusick-Harrison-Mangini Noes: Counci I Members: Amstrup The City Attorney stated an appropriate encroachment permit will be prepared for subsequent executi on. 3. MORRIS HALPERIN, I CANANEA PLACE 2 ENCROACH14ENTS,I APPROVED, I DENIEO In a communl cation to the Ci tyi,lr. Halperin referred to prior construction on his property. copy of his letter addressed to and a current addenda to same. Counc i I dated correspondence For the Counc i the City Manager tember 30, 1975,th s taff concerni ng f ence i nformati on, he forwarded dated August 1B, .l975 , Sep wil's The following correspondence relating to the application was read: l. Letter of August I8, 1975, from Mr. Halperin to City Manager 2. Addenda to above letter dated September 30, I975 3. Memorandum from Director of Publlc l.,orks to City Manager' September 2, 1975 4 , Ci ty Manager comments i n hi s memorandum to the . Ci ty Counci I , 0ctober ?, 1975. In thls communication the Clty I'lanager stated "This request is analyzed by the Director of Public Works in the attached memo dated September 2, 1975. It would appear that repair of the existing encroachment ls as far as the Director of Publlc I,lorks feels he can go. Any further encroachment would be a matter of maJor concern, and only within Councll's prerogatlve. Councilman Harrison referred to Mr. Halperin's addenda (9 130175 ) wherein he mentloned proposed repairs of an existing fence. t{hereas' the 0irector of Public l^lorks in his nemorandum (9/2175) stated "Upon i ns pect i on this week, we fi nd Mr. Hal peri n has an exi sti ng 6 foot h solid fence encroaching into City right of way by approximately 3-l feet and a 30 inch high picket fence encroaching by approximately 9 feet. Mr. Halperin's-fence permit is speclfically for fence repair howeyer, a new 6 foot high solid fence has been constructed on new whi ch encroach by approxi mate ly 10-l /2 feet i nto Ci ty ri tht of way . Councilman Harrison moved to deny a permit for the new 6 and to approve a revocabl e encroachme nt for the exi sti ng pi cket fence, repai rs to the fence not to exceed the exl hor extend beyond the existing area of encroachment. Mo Counci lman Mangi ni , carri ed unanimously on rol I call. i gh t2 -1 l2 posts foot hi gh f ene e 30 inch high stl ng 30 i nchestion seconded bY Councilman Cro sby s ta ted there appeared Mr. Halperin's correspondence implyi ng was on the Ci ty's right of way. an undertone in not been told his f ence to be he had In address.ing the city council, the Director of Public l.lorks inquired if Cou nc i 'l members had received wi th thei r materi al on thi s appl i cati on a copy of the building permit and copy of a sketch.drawn by the builiing inspector foi i''lr. Halperin's benefit showing permitted fence heights in front and side yards and excluding the C!ty'! right of way f roir the property, The Director advised that Building Inspector HilI did not recall how specific he was in his discussion' It was the Director's position that if 1,1r. Hill was that careful to sketch a plot plan showing permitted heights that he (Director) was confident ilr. ttitperin had been property instructed, but whether he understood the lnstructions was airother matter. The Director stated that, normal ly' he and his staff assume that most people know how to take measurements; perhaps tha t sssumpti on shoul d not be made. Councilman Crosby commented the fence mltht have been completed had the 4G5 nei ghbor not i ntervened. He asked about fol I ow-up i nspections when a permi t is i ssued. The Di rector of Public t'lorks advi sed he wi 1l i nstruct the building offi ci al to have posts i nspected as they are set. In response to inquirles Works cl ari fi ed that ittr. and that was what the bu Counci I man Mangi ni , the Director rin said he wanted to repa i r his permi t covered "fence repair. " from Hal pe ilding of Publ ic fence instructing e Counci I's process PROCEDURE - APPLICATIONS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Mayor Amstrup referred to the City I'lanager's recommendation in his memorandum of 0ctober 2 that permit applications be processed by the Di rector of Publ i c l.lorks and asked for Counc i I reacti on. There were no obj ecti ons. Councilman Cusick asked about recording a1l encroach- ment permits. The City Attorney endorsed this procedure. the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance for consideration, Mayor Amstrup asked that lt stipulate a revi by the Councl I . COMMUNICATIONS A communi cation (undated) from Thomas C. Henderson, President 'Ilanagement Corporation, I 340 Howard Avenue , concerni ng renewal danci permit wis continued to the next regular meeting of the Councii at the request of the Chi ef of Po'l ice. In th ew I . AUT0M0B ILE SHo}l,BURL INGAME AVENUE Acknowledgment was made of a communicatlon dated september 'l 8, .l975' from Davii H. Keyston, President, Chamber of Commerce' concerning a DroD6sal for a l-ocal auto dealers show to be held saturday, 0ctober the'Avenue to be closed from Lorton to Prlmrose Road from 8:00 A.M. 5:C0 P.M. The communication stated that the dealers will arrange installation, decoration, and removal of the necessary barricades' itlayor Amstrup asked about reaction of merchants on the Avenue' l,1r-. Douglas beetlestone, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, report.d that duri ng a seri es of meeti ngs al l of the p e o p I e - a t t e n d i n g agi"eed promoti ona I aiti vi ti es were needed to bri ng foot traffi c into tie Buriingame Avenue area. The idea of the one-day auto show received enthusi asti c support. 14r. David Keyston informed the council that the merchants and dealers expect to assume all costs. counciiman Harrlson asked the chief of Pollce to comment. He stated there should be no problems once the barrlers were in p1ace. A motion by Councilman Harrison approvlng the request in accordancd with Chambir of Commerce Ietters of September 2 and September 18, .1975, was seconded by Counci Iman Mangi nl , approved on voice vote. 2, PRIMROSE LANES DANCE PERMIT Prlmroseof a City 3. PRE-ARCHITECTURAL STUDY POLICE STATION SITE The Ci ty ilanager forwarded materi al prepared with a recommendation that it be referred to 0ctober 8. The City Council concurred. by the Reel /Grobman & study meeti ng Associates on 4. SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION NO. 7'I -75 Loncion, Connecti cut was introduced by Co Counci lman Harri son, Robert I,l . I'lcEl roy, |429 Drake Avenue, Chairman, Sister City Sub-Committee of the Burl i ngami Bi centenni al Commi ttee, submi tted a form of resol uti on wi th a reques t it be enacted to establ i sh Si ster Cl!V Association with iiew Londori , Connecticut. There were no objections from the Council. EstabI i shl ng Si ster Clty Associ ation t,lith New To Provi de A Blcentennlal "Bri dge Acros s The Nation" uncilman Cusick, who moved its adoption, second by unanirnously carri ed on roI I cal I. 7 25.. to 46ti CONSENT CALENDAR I. ADOPTION OF GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS PROPOSED Under date of 0ctober ?,1975, the City Manager forwarded coples of opt i onal Article 7 from the Noi se El ement of the City's General Pl anwith a recommendation for legislation enacting the provisions into the 14unicipal Code. The communication advised that the City Attorney concurs the provi s i ons wou ld be hel pful i n control l i ng extreme cases , allow the City to assist residents with very aggravating cases and make for a qu I eter clty. Councilman Cusick stated before the City finds itself in anythin the Heritage Tree Ordinance she would prefer more study on who w make determi nations as to standards. i keg .I I I Counci I man 14angi expl ai ned thi s w heari ng eve ntu a l niiilly. asked about a publ i c heari ng. The Ci ty Attorney come to the Counci I i n ordi nance form requ i rl ng a Mayor Amstrup requested the City Manager to place the subject on the agenda for the November s tudy meeti ng. Councilman Cusick advlsed that Federal Aviation Admlnistatlon (FAA) has requested input from cities before January I, 1976, Because Burl i ngame is so close to the ai rport and noi se is a probl em, she asked for response to FAA. The Clty I'lanager was requested to forward an appropri ate communi cati on, Counci I man Crosby as ked if Arti cl e 7 s tandard s will be helO!ul in controlling the barking dog problem. The City Attorney explained the problem can be controlled if the people who complain will testify;, Lsually, people do not want to become involved in testifying agalnst their ne i ghbors. 2. SUGGESTED PARKING CHANGES LOTS A, F J, K AND L Corresp Septemb August man Cus l,lorks a ssion, i neer,il-lic I ond er ence on this subiect from Traffic, Safety & Parking Comm'l 25, the City 14anager, September 30, and Traffic/Civil Eng I975 was rbferred to the 0ctober 8 study meeti ng ' Counc asked for a scale drawing on Lot J, The Director of Pub sed the Traffic Engineer is preparirg scale drawings on al 14, i ck dvi the proposal s. 3. TRAFFIC CONTROTS INSTALLATION OF STOP & YIETD SIGNS Under date of September 30, 1975, the City I'lanager forwarded a recom- mendation from Tiaffic, Safety & Parking Commission supporting lnstal- lation of traffic control signs at various locations noted in a memo- randum from the Director of Public Horks to the City l4anager dated July 2l , 1975. The City Manager concurfed in the recommendation. l,layor Amstrup requested the City Attorney to submit an ordinance for the Counci I 's cons i derat i on . Councilman Cusick protested that installing stop signs wilI create more arterials for the convenience of people driving through the City-to reach other desti nations. She stated that Bayswater and Howard Avenues have become speedways and it appears there will be others after the signs appear. This can have the effect of destroying the Clty's resi- dential character. Mayor Amstrup stated it is s u pport all of the signs. ord i nance form provides to eval uati ng publ i c i nput. possible that not all of the Councll will Bri ngi ng the matter to the Counci I in the Counci I the opportun i ty of gai ni ng and 4 REPEAL OF TI.lO.HOUR PARKING LII.lITATION FLORIBUNDA AVENUE - PRIMROSE ROAD TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE In a memorandum dated September 30 recommendat i o n of Traffic, Safety above restri ctions. Mayor Ams trupfor the Counci I 's consideration. , 1975, the City l'lanager & Parking Commission to di rected p reparat i on of forwa rd ed the repeal the an ordiaance ?, 5. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL t4AP I766 EL CAMINO REAL REPORTS In a communication to the City Hanager dated September 24' I975' the Director of Public Works/City Engineer reported that the Planning Com- mission, at its meeting of September 22' recommended City Council approvai of a Tentati vi Parcei Map, bei ng a !ivision of Lot I' BIock 2' ;'{iils Estate No. I with the following condition: "The applicant shall dedicate the necessary land at the southerly corner of Trousdale and Cal i forni a Dri ves to create a forty-foot radi us at property I i ne containing approximately 257.5 square feet; said dedi cati on reverti ng if the Ci[y has not begun construction of a project to increase the curb return radius within two years after City Council approval of the Final Map." In response to Mayor Amstrup, the Director of Public t.lorks reported that tire Identifilation and Survei l l ance Study of Acci dent Locati ons by George S. Nolte & Associates dated June, 1975, recommended construc- ti on of a free ri ght-turn lane to al low traffi c travel i ng eas t on Trousdal e to turn-ri ght on tD Cal i forni a Dri ve wi thout stoppi ng ' To do this will require taking approximately 257 feet from the property whi ch is the subject of tha Tentati ve Parcel Ma p. The Di rector of Public !,lorks recommended the map be accepted in accordance wi th Planning Commission corditional approval. Counci I man Harri son moved approval of the Tentati ve Parcel Map - Lot l, Block 2, I'lills Estate No. l'with the stipulation (see first paragiaph above). Moti on seconded by Counci lman 14angi ni , unanimously ca rri ed on rol I call. 167 14emorandum from the City Attorney dated September 30' e Court i ssued its memorandum of opi ni on hol di ng in the matter of the sign at the above shop. He sug- acti on unti 1 fi nd i ngs and concl us i ons are issued. l. 197 Pro Ski Sho a vls ng t agai nst the City gested no f urther )Rental of Property - Parking Lot Use - Rhinette and Dri ve Communication dated September 15, 1975, from 0onald R. l^lurtz' 650 California Street, San Francisco, agent for Mrs. Ida M' Tibbetts' addressed to City Manager advising Mrs. Tibbetts will rent the lots at the above location to the City for a period of three months at $300 monthly. Councilman Harrison's motion authorizing the City Manager to proceed was seconded by Counci lman Mangini , carried on voice vote. 3. San Francisco l,Iater Department Land (Formerly streetcar ri ght of way ) Under date of 0ctober I, 1975, the City Manager reported that a repre- sentative of SF l,later Department's Land Division stated the land is not for sale; they will grant revocable permits but not sell voluntarily. Counc i I man Harri son thought the I and could be used for a bi ke path and asked for cost estlmate. The City I'lanager stated that San Francisco might grant a revocable permit for that purpose from Broadway north to t"lillbrae,but he doubted they would agree to give up the income produclng restaurant on the corner of Broadway and California 0rive for the bike path to extend south from Broadway. Three Month California 14ayor Amstrup suggested the Ci ty Manager approach Thomas J. t4el'l on ,Administrative 0fficer for San Francisco. 14ayor Amstrup stated if City were able to control use of the Iand it might be improved as a path, or a parkway. Councilman Crosby suggested the land could be to wi den Cal i forni a Dri ve. 4. Financing 0ff-Street Parking !q1s:!1ttc't'! pn; Chief the bi ke used municEt@as iEf e rred meeti ng. The Ci ty Manager's com-to the 0ctober I study q 468 CHAMBER 0F C0MMERCE: Quarterl y report " for servi ces rendered, 0ct<i5ef I, 1975 tlrrough December 3l, 1975, in the amount of $4,250.00 was approved on motion of Counci i man Mangi ni , second by Counci lman Ha r-ri son, carri ed on voice vote. RESOLUTIOIIS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 72.75 "Authori zi ng Executi on ment - Park P'l aza Condomi ni um Apartmen ts " was Councilman Harrison, who moved its adoption, man Crosby, carri ed on fol I owi ng rol I cal i : Counci I I'lembers : Amstrup-Crosby-Harri son-l,langi ni Counci I I'lembers: None Aye No ABI z, figf,t.kta i n-Counci l..Membersent LouncI I t,temDers: 0f Suppl emental Agree- i ntroduced by second by Counci l - "Accepti ng Grant Deed From t,lima Mol aki di s And red G. Molakidis As Trustees Under The t^lill ed September 19, 1975" was introduced by moved its adoption, second by CounciIman Man- wi ng rol I ca lI: sfistiEgarulluav RESOLUTION NO.73.75 I,,lima Mol aki di s And Al f0f Gust Molakidis, Dat Counci lman Crosby, whogini, carried on follo Aye Counci I Members : Amstrup-Crosby-Harri son-Mangi niNo Counci I Members : Cusi ck For pasons gi ven at previ ous Absent Counci I Members : None 3. RESOLUTION NO. 74-75 "Authorizing Execu ti on 0f Agreement mofional Activiiiei- Chamber of Commerce" was introduced man Harri son, v.rho moved i ts adopti on, second by Counci I man unanimously carri ed on rol 1 calI. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 75-75 For Pro- by Counci 1 - Crosby, Personnel Board, Costto 0ctober 31,I978)" was introduced by Councilman Mangini, who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison, unanimously car- ri ed on roi I call. 5. RESOLUTION NO.76.75 "Accepti ng Emergency l,rla ter Improvements "Authori zi ng Executi on 0f Agreement l.li th State Servi ce Contract Agreement (November I, 1975 fob No. 75-6" was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who moved adoption, second by Councilman Cusick, unanimously carried on ca I I . i ts rol I Acti on on Housing &to obtain ORDINANCES ( second readi ng )0RDINANCE N0. 1047 "Concernin g Location Dri veways In Single Fami ly And Two-Fami ly "0rdi nance ,040, Section 13.52 .090, And Repeal i ng Secti on 13.52.070 0f The Code Concerning Bicycle Licensing" was introduced by Counci lman I,langi ni . ( i ntroducti on )0RDINANCE N0. 1049 "An 0rdinance a resolution concerning Section 8 Existing Housing Program, Community Development Act, was postponed for the City Hanager addi ti ona l information. was given its second readi ng. 0n moti on of Counci lman Harri son, setond by Councilman Crosby said 0rdinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on rol I cal L (i ntroducti on )ORDINANCE NO. IO4B And l,,lidth 0fDistricts" Amendi ng Sections I 3.52.080 And Burl i ngame 0rdi nancefor fi rst readi ng Amending And Burl i ngame Muni ci pal o Repea l i ng Vari ous Secti ons 0f The Code Relating To Subjects Preenpted By State Laws , Non-Substanti veClarifications 0f Conf l icting Sections Requiring Planning Comrnission. Decisions By A Vote 0f A Majority 0f The Commissioners, Eliminating Restrictions Upon Political Activities 0f Employees, And Eliminating Li cense Requi rements For Fish Ponds " was i ntroduced for fi rst readi ng by Counci I man Crosby. UNFINISHED BUSINESS In response to Counci lman Manginl, /o Juck Blinds in San Francisco Bay: -+ 6e the City Attorney reported on pri vate property wi thi n hunti ng. the the City City halr s jurisdiction; mits. The City bl i nds areprohibitthe can NEI,I BUS I NESS PR0P0SAL T0 ENC0URAGE BUS USE: Councilman Cusick suggested that during fhe holiday season, to relieve par ki ng congestion i n areas, shoppers be encouraged to use the parking are Drive between Carmelita and 0ak Grove and ride the b the shops. She suggested that passengers board the a free token for the return trip to their cars. the three shopping a al ong Ca'l i f orni a uses to and from bus free and receive that the as ked toThe Ci ty Counci I accepted the Ci ty Pl anner'S recommendati on proposal be di scussed wi th the bus peopl e. The P'l anner was have a report for the next Council meeting. ACKI'I0I,ILEDGMENTS Chamber of Commerce, September I 6, I 975, opposi ng enactment of busi ness I i cense fee schedul e rel ated to gross recei pts. Burl i ngame Bi centenni al Commi ttee, September 23,to name the new park on Ralston Avenue "Heritagepresent Bi centenni al Cel ebrati on and because the pl eted th i s year. 1975 r recommendati on Park" in honor ofpark is being com- ofLocal Agency Formati on Commi ssi on , Seyear extension on Saccuman/Kash petit Burl i ngame. Mayor Amstrup requestedto the i'lovember study meeting. p i tember I 9, I 975 , noti ce on for annexation to Citthat Mr. Saccuman be inv vi one of ted Mayor Amstrup announced that therd Monday will not be held this Burlingame Civic Arts Council, September 27, 1975, announcement of concert series to be coLsponsored with San Mateo County Arts Council. League of California Cities report YMunicipal Liability Insurance." 14ayor Amstrup asked this subject be placed on the agenda of the l.lovenrber study meeti ng. Mi nutes: Park & Recreation Commi ssion, September '16 Planning Commission, September 8 and 22Traffic, Safety, Parking Commission, September ll, .l975. OCTOBER 20 1 975 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: mee ng regu ar y sc e u e or e thi rnonth because of confl i ct wi th League of Cal i forni a Ci ti es Conference , San Franci sco. ( Next regul ar Ci ty Counci I meeti ng November 3, I 975 . ) ADJ0URI'IMENT: At l0:32 P. M. Respectful ly submi tted, Herbert K. lJhi te, Ci ty Cl erk By // Communications: