Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1976.06.07L27 Burlingame, California June 7, l-97 6 A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City HaII Council Chambers. The meeting was called to ord.er at 8:08 p.m. by Mayor victor A. Mangini, PLEDGE OE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by wayne M. Swan, City Planner. ROLL CALL Counci 1 Counc i 1 Members Memlce rs Present: Absent: MINUTES COMMUNICATIONS APPEAL HEARING SCHEDUTED AT REOUEST OF MAUREEN AND KEI{NETH TOPPING, 1725 HUNT DRIVE Mrs. Topping's letter of June 4, 19?6 appealed denial by the Planning Commission on May 24 of application for variance of side yard requirements. A hearj-ng before the City Council was scheduled for the regular meeting of July 6, 197 6. 2. APPEAL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR CLARKE,/DONALDSON/CRAMER, INC. AGENT F'OR LINDAL CEDAR HOMES, INC. 310 LANG ROAD Clarke/Donaldson/Cramer, Inc., by letter of May 28, L976, appealed denial by the Planning Commission on May 24, L976 of pplication for extension of sign permit at 310 Lang Road. A hearing before the City Council \./as scheduled for the re$rl-ar meeting of July 6, 1976. REQI]EST OF BEL-MATEO ENTERPRISES, OF SAN MATEO FOR INCREASE IN TAXI rNC- d,/b/a YELLOW CAB CoMPANY FARES. By letter dated May 21, 1976 the Be1-Mateo Enterprises, Inc. requested the City Council to anend ordinance 87I to provide for fare increase to 90C for the firsL l/9 mile and 10C for each additional 1,/9 mi1e. Mayor Mangini opened the meeting to Council discussion. Ouncilman Amstrup questioned if the proposed fares are the prevailing rate in the surrounding area. Mr. olj-ver V. Nordby of Bel-Mateo Enterprises, fnc. \,ras accorded the floor. He quoted present fares as follows: Redwood City, 904 perudropu (first 1/9 of mile); Pal-o Alto and Menlo Park, $1.00 per drop; Millbrae and South San Francisco, $1.10 per drop. He noted he is asking for an identical rate increase to 90+ per drop in San Mateo, Belmont, and Burlj-ngame. Councilman Martin clarified that the proposed rate increase would mean $1.70 per mile in Burlingame as opposed to the present $1.50 per mile. 3 Mr. Nordby cited insurance, price reasons forof vehicles j-ncrease asparts, and the and rise in costs of liability labor eonnected with CALL TO ORDER Amstrup-Cro sby -H ar r i s on -Man g i n i -Marti n None The minutes of the regular meeting of May 77, 1976, previously submitted to the City Council, were approved and adopted with correction, P. 3 draft minutes, P. l-20, Volume 18 "Minutes: " Kantoff motion seconded by Mayor Manginj-. Councitman Harrison requested-TE-at statement read at this meeting by Mr. Bob Fisse relative to development fees be attached as an addendum to the minutes. I 128 maintenance. Councilman Crosby questioned i.f the and was informed by Mr. Nordby that they did not,are straight commission. drivers had a union that their wages With the concurrence of Council, Mayor ManginiAttorney to prepare legislation to effect this directed therate change. City 4 BAY COUNTIES City Council had received l-etter dated May 2l , !976 from Mr. PauIM. Davis, Bay Counties Security Service, appealing denial ofmunicipal license by the Burlingame Potice Department and the City Manager. Mayor Mangini requested review of facts from the City Attorney. The City Attorney told Councilmen Mr. Davj-s had applied for abusiness license approximately one month ago. The police Departmenthad performed a background check on the applicant and had determinedit would be in the best interests of the City not to approve abusiness license. Mr. Davis had appealed this decision to the CityManager, who in turn had concurred in the denial . The City Attorney noted that this is being denied under the general Business License ordinance. Burl-ingame has no patrol servicesordinance, but one is being prepared for passage in the near future. APPEAL HEARING FOR PAUL M. SECURITY SERVICE, BUS TNESS DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LICENSE DENIAL Ile went on to specify incidents which inlluenced staff inof this application:the deniaf In 1971 and L972 Mr. Davis was denied licenses i_n San Franciscoseveral times on the basis of rrari6ss records the city had. InMarch of 1972 t-hat city had an occasion where M.r. Davis performed.an arrest on a person allegedly under the influence of alcohof. ThePolice Department felt the arrest was not justified. There had beenother similar incidents of unnecessary arrests and prevj_ouswarnings to Mr. Davis to leave arrests to the police Department.In the City of Novato in 1974 there was a charge that Mr. Davishad been involved in a battery on a 13-year old. Mr. Davis deniedthis, and the charge was subsequentty dismissed by the Courtafter 90 days of no contact on problems between Mr. Davis and thecomplainant. Mr. Davis had had a series of disputes with Novatoneighbors in 7974- There vras an incident that year where he hras ina restaurant in the uniform of a patrol service officer and wascarrying a cocked.45 cafibre pistol . The impression was that he wasa member of the Pol-ice Department and people were concerned that hewas carrying this cocked pistol. In this incident, Mr. Davis'attitude to\,rard the pubtic $/as very unpl-easant. Later in 1974there was another incident concerning a l3Jear old who was apparentlythreatened. In November of 1974 there was an incident where hearrived ahead of the police and apparently frightened off a suspectthat the pofice were pursuing. fn April- of L975 there were chargesthat Mr. Davis was involved in receiving stolen property. Thesecharges were later di-smissed, but transcripts of tape recordingsleft some question as to his complicity. The City Attorney commented.that the general effect of this record is to cause extreme cautionregarding Mr. Davis, since the City in licensing someone is takingon a lega1 responsibility. If Mr. Davis was licensed with thisbackground, there could be substantial liability. That was the basisof this denial-. Mayor Mangini requested comment from Mr. paul Davis. Mr. Davisdeclared that the incidents in the City Attorney's report had beengenerated by politicians in Novato. He then requested. that Council-manHarrison abstain from voting on this appeal because of his familycontacts with Mr. Davis I firm. Mr. Davis went on to say that hisfirm had been licensed by the State of California for almost six years and was in good standing. In view of this, he considered that Section 450 ). L29 of the Business andto grant a business Professions Code license. required the loca1 agency Councj-lman Crosby questioned the denial in San Francisco. The CityAttorney explained that private patrol agencj-es are licensed bythe State, and then mafUe licensed by the local agency. Mr a to was at . Davis protested that the deniallicense, but for a special policethe business. On Mayor Manginirson the basis that the city feltthe time. in San Francisco was not forpermit which was not relevantquestion, he stated the denialthe permit was not necessary In response to questions from Councilman Martin, Mr. Davis statedhis home address was 827 Sextant Court, San Mateo, and hisintention was to operate in Burlingame a security service, not apatrol service, for private property, particularly apartment house complexes. City Attorney Coleman remarked that while Section 460 does statethat licensees of the State are to be allowed to practice, there have been specific @ses where the local governments have been allowed to license and control patrol businesses. Councilman Crosby requested comment from Police Chief NordsLrom. The Police Chief told Councilmen that he had reviewed Mr. Davislfile and had made an appointment to confer with Mr. Davis. However, when Mr. Davis arrived for the appointment, he had chosen not totalk in front of a police lieutenant who was present and he had left. Councilman Crosby questioned Mr. Davis as to why this had happened.Mr. Davis replied that he felt the discussion concerned thelieutenant and he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss thematter in front of the lieutenant. He went on to say he wishedto have a consultation with the Chief, and he did not think there should be another person with them. Councilman Amstrup moved that the Council affirm denial of thelicense. Councilman Martin seconded the motion and it carried onthe following ro11 call vote: AYES : COUNCILMEN : AI{STRUP , CROSBY, MANGINI ,I\,IARTIN NAYES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: HARRISON I'ollowing the motion, Councilman Martin remarked that he did notthink it proper that an applicant should ask a member of the Councilto abstain from voting on an issue. This should be the prerogativeof the Council or the specific Councilman. Councilman Harrison requested that ordinance be prepared for thelicensing of security and safety patrol services. City Attorney Coleman stated this would be presented at the next Council meeting. STAFF MEMORANDA 1. SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS In a memorandum dated June 3, 1976 City Manager transmitted report from the Associate Civil Engineer on a method of sewer rate adjustmentto provide for the higher water consumption/low sewer usage bysingle family residential properties. Memo recommended that eachwater user be sent a letter explaining reasons for pending water andsewer rate increases. City Manager Schwalm reminded Council that the revenue program J 130 required in connection with the grant on the sewer constructj-onproject was approved by both the City Council and Federal government. This revenue program would not be in compliance with Federal guidelines if the total amount of revenue from the residential sector was altered. The proposed schedule sets up a rate based on water consumption, and has built into it a small reductj-on 6r the water that does not go through the sewer. The effect is to create a more equitable rate for single family dwellings which use much water for irrigation purposes. Informing the public by fetter he considered good public rel-ations. There was some discussion about considering this item at the next study meeting. Councilman Martin felt that even more equitablerates could. be formufated. Cormcil members offered no objectionto his proposal that he do some further study and confer with Pubfic Works staff. Councilman Amstrup asked why this matter should not be explored by the entire Council. Councilman Martin stated that the Council woul-d have an opportunity to discuss this at a study meeting - he simply wanted to go over preliminary figuresfirst. 2. BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION NOMINATIONS FOR HERITAGE TREE STATUS By endorsement dated June 3, 1976 on Park Director's memorandumof June I, 1976 transmittj-ng 17 nominations for Heritage Tree statusthe City Manager recommended approvaf of these designations. Councilman Harrison moved the nominations be accepted, seconded by Councilman Amstrup, unanimously carried on ro11 call vote. Following the motion, Councilman Crosby asked about ownershipof the trees on one nomination - the eucalypti along the railroadtracks from Burlingame Avenue to PaIm Drive. He remarked that at one time there had been some question whether these were on Cityproperty or not, and he thought the ownership had not been resolved. The City Manager affirmed these maintained by City crews. were consid.ered Ci-ty trees and were Follohring a comment from Council-man Martin that the ownership question had surfaced many times in the past without resolution, Mayor Manginidirected the City Manager to research and report to the Council. REOUEST FOR CHANGE IN YARD IMPROVEMENTS SUBCONTRACTOR PARK DEPARTMENT CORPORATION Council received memorandum of June L, 1976 from Associate CityEngineer recommending change in subcontractor for the "Walkway& Related Improvements - Park Department Corporation Yard"contract, Job No. 75-f6. By endorsement of 6/3/76 the City Manager recommended. this change. There were no objectj-ons from City Council. 4. SELF INSURED WORKMENI S COMPENSATION The City Manager forwarded by memo of 6/3/76 report from Mund,Mclaurin & Company, insurance consultants, dated 5/J-3/76, on proposalsfor self-insured workmen's compensation from R. L. Kautz, Gates McDonafd, and Employees Self Insurance Service, and quotation fromState Compensation Insurance Fund on excess insurance. The City Manager recommended acceptance of proposal from ESIS, also bid fromState Compensation. He also recommended that money be appropriatedfrom savings realized on premiums to implement safety engineeringservices and a better safety program. 3 The City Manager, in addressing Council-, stated that self-insurance \ 131 plans introduced in many other cities seem to be successful . He requested authorization from Council to prepare necessary documents and service contracts to impfement the program. Councilman Amstrup approved the idea of self-insurance, but didnot wish to employ more people for the safety engineering service. The City Manager stated this would not be necessary. Councilman Martin noted that at a previous meeting, April 19 , 1976,the figure of 8? had been presented as the interest rate on thereserves, At that meeting, the City Treasurer had noted that currentrate on City investments was 5r-62. The Counci lman stated he had then asked that the actuarial work be redone to reflect actualinterest rate, and he had not seen such figures. He thought earnings woufd be based on a false assumption at 88, and preferred not to proceed until corrected figures were available. Mayor Mangini noted that the Council of Mayors had appointed a three-man Committee to investi.gate the subject of self-insurancefor workmen's compensation and suggesteal the City Manager contact this committee for suggestions. The City Attorney reminded the Council thatyear ends June 30, L976. He questioned the Compensation of renewing the present policy dropping it. the present policy effect on Stateat that time and then At the request of Mayor Mangini, Mr. Don L. Devere of Mund, McLaurin & Company addressed the Council. He considered Councilman Martin's point regarding percentage of earnings well taken, but reminded Council that the present consideration is one of concept, and that he would not recorunend holdi.ngr up action on the proposed program for the detail of percentage. The City Attorney questioned effect if State Compensation insurance were canceLled. Mr. Devere stated the State Fund can give an extension of one quarter year. They cannot refuse the Cityrs application for an extension, but they can invoke a penalty. t{owever, dependent upon prior relationships, there have been cases where the extension has been granted on a pro rata basis and no penalties were assessed. He went on to say that this concept of self-insurance, properly funded as indicated in their report, is one of the fe\", programs in insurance that is virtually fool-proof. Speaking to the difference in interest rates, he estimated that it r^roufd not amount to more than I8 overall. Councilman Harrison suggested that if a quarter extension weregranted, it woufd give time to get satisfactory figures and self- insurance could proceed at that time. Councilman Martin repeated he did not wish to proceed without correct fJ-gures. The City Attorney told the Council he considered this pl-an would save the city much money and he would prefer to see them go aheadwith it. Replying to Councj-1 questioning, Mr. Devere estinated that penalty assessed could be 108 of premium. Estimated premium based on payro1l for fiscal- year if insured with State Eund would be $320,000. He considered a conservative figure on premium savings woufd be $100,000per year, assuming all conditions remain the same. He agreed to Councilman Harrison's estimated figure of $32,000 for a penalty. The City Attorney restated Cor:nci1 optionsState Fund, 2. Attempt self-insurance, 3.for another quarter and risk a penalty. as: 1. Rei-nsure with Stay with State Compensation 5 Mayor Mangini questioned the importance of the time element. L32 Councilman Crosby questioned relationships with the State Fund and was informed by the City Manager they had been satisfactory. Councilman Amstrup questioned the City Manager if information on interest rates and possible penalty that might be assessed by State Compensation could be forthcoming by the date of the study meeting, June 9. Upon receiving confirmation that it could be, he suggested delay on this discussion until the study meeting. With concurrence of Council members, Mayor Mangini announced a continuance to an adjourned meeting to be held wednesday, June 9, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. 5. CIVIL SERVICE RULE CHANGES City Attorney's memo of May 21 , L976 transmitted proposed procedural changes in Civil Service Ru1es. He noted these changes are primarily to eliminate some outdated or illegal provisions and to conform the rules with practice in some administrative areas. The rules have been reviewed. with department heads, with the City Manager, with employee organizations, and have been approved by the Civil Service Commi s s ion . Mayor Mangini questioned if there was no mention of maximum age limit. The City Attorney replied that the State Retirement System specifies age 67, but these rules are also subject to the Federal l-aw whichstates there shall be no discrimination against people betweenthe ages of 40-65. Councilman Martin questioned the reason for the elimination ofcitizenship requirements except for peace officers. The CityAttorney stated that this is a ruling by the Attorney General based on a Federal Court case. The burden is on the public agency to supportthe contention that citizenship is a valid occupational qualification. Councilman Amstrup questioned if this meant the City would have tohire an alien. The City Attorney qualified that the City could not refuse to hire someorE because he was an a1i-en. Mayor Mangini, questioning the section on Disabifity Leave, askedif this would affect the self-insured compensation p1an. The CityAttorney assured hj-m it would not. Councilman Harrison moved that the proposed Civil Service Rule changes be adopted with the provision that part-time employees donot earn sick l-eave. Councilman Crosby seconded the motion and itcarried on afl aye vote. 6. AIRPORT NOISE INTERVENTION The City Attorney stated he had talked thj-s date to the attorneyfor the State Department of Transportation who stated the department had received the formal withdrawal of variance from the airport. The attorney had stated that this means the current application is dead. The City Attorney noted that the one-year period for col-lectj-onof airport noise data would be up j-n October. At that time the San Francj-sco Airport can be challenged as to whether they meet (- There was discussion on part-time employees' benefits. CouncilmanMartin requested an addition clarifying that part-time employees do not receive sick leave. He noted this is a subject of forthcoming wage negotiations. The City Attorney agreed this could be added. The City Attorney reported an update to his memo of 6/2/76 on thissubject. This memo had notified Councif of the possi.bility of the withdrawal of the San Francj-sco Airport variance application, since San Francisco believes they meet the requirements of the Stateregulations for airport noise. 133 requirements. The intervening time could be used for staff work inthis area. Counci lman Amstrup questj-oned the possibility of their reopeningthe application. The City Attorney stated they must submit a new application, at which time there would be another opportunity to intervene. Councilman Harrison questioned who makes the decision as to whether noise l-eveIs are satisfactory. The City Planner explained that 13 monitoring stations are used to measure noj-se in CNEL, acceptable level for the Airport being set at 75 CNEL. The Airport is just under that. The County Airport Land Use Committee gets the measure- ments showing CNEL. Councilman l4artin added that while the Airport furnishes the monitoring equipment and takes the readings, the results are checked by the County, the F.A.A., and the State. Tapes are taken and there is no possibility of trickery. There was audience comment that, while the noise level may average out satisfactorily, it is the isolated instances of extreme noise that are harrowing. Councilman Martin questioned if it would be possible for Burlingame to enter an intervener without going along with another city. The City Attorney replied in the affirmative, and the Councilman suggested this alternative be studied. F. T. McDonnell, l-435 Cortez, questioned if there were any action the City could take at this time. The City Attorney thought some kind of complaint could be j-nitiated, but thought it valuable to have the ful1 year of noise measurement. Fred F. Livingston, 2520 Valdivia Way, stated that San Francisco Airport has a new noise control officer, and suggested that he be contacted for information. He conmented that because of neighboring cities' critj-cism, the runway system has been changed so that the noise does not affect them so much. with the concurrence of Council mehbers, I'Iayo r Mangini directed the City Manager to invite the San Francisco Airport Noise Control Officer to meet with them the second meeting in July. CONSENT CALENDAR Broadway Merchants Association proposed "Street Fair" Sunday, August l, 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM In response to Council question, Police Chief Nordstrom verified that there had been an interview with a representative of this Association, and Broadway could be closed from EI Camino to Laguna. There would be no need to increase police service since N-S streets would be open. He foresaw no problems. The City Manager's recommendation for approval was sustained. Park No. 5A,2. Tentative ParceL Map, MiIlsdal-e Industrial recommended by Planning Commission with conditions. Councilman Amstrup moved this tentative parcel map be approved with conditions as stipulated in memo dated 6/3/7 6 from AssistantCity Engineer. Councilman Harrison secondecl the motj-on, and it carried on voice vote . 1 1. RESOLUTTON NO. 47-76 ''AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN RESOLUT I ONS 134 The resolution was introduced by Councj-lman Harrison who movedadoption, second by Councilman Martin, unanimously carried onro11 call vote. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 48-76 " RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREE- T4ENT TOR TENNIS COURT MAINTENANCE AND USE WITH BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DTSTRICT. " The City Attorney stated this wagA continuingcontract on a year to year basis until cancelled on 60 days'notice. Councilman Martin remarked this indefinite term mightnot protect the City sufficiently, and suggested a two-year minimum. The City Attorney said he would rewrite the contract $i-th an initiaLterm of tr^ro years and subsequent continuati-on from year to year. The resolution was introduced with this change by CouncilmanAmstrup, who moved adoption, second by Councilman Harrison, unanimouslycarried on ro11 calL vote. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 49-76 '' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZlNG EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCH ITECTURAL SERVICES, AIRPORT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. rr Councifman Martin pointed out that this contracthad no provision for a time l-imit between the initiation ofpreliminary estimates and the submission of a working drawing. Cj_tyAttorney questioned if a time l_imit of 60 days for the initial workingdrawing would be satj-sfactory. Councilman Martin indicated itwould. The resolution was introduced with this change byCouncilman Crosby, who moved. adoption, second by CouncilmanHarrison and unanj-mously carried on rol-f call vote. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 5O-76 ''RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.78-74 AND FIXING AND ESTABLISHING WATER RATES, CHARGES AND RELATED PROCEDURES. '' ThECity Attorney's memo of 6/2/76 transmitting this resolution statedthat the Council had directed that a resolution be preparedestablishing the fixed ffat-rate water schedule. This resolutioneffects that change as of July 1, t976. While the resolution islengthy, the only actual change from that adopted in 1974 is theprice per thousand gallons in paragraphs l- and 2. This resolution was introduced by Councilman Harrison, who movedtion, second by Councilman Crosby and unanimously carried on rollcall vote. adop- .6 THE COT]NTY OF SAN MATEO AND THE CITY OT' BURIINGAME FOR THE BURLINGAME SHORELINE BICYCLE PATH PROJECT" In response to Councilquestions, City Planner Swan explained the County had allocated funds to a maximum of $11,760 to the City on a reimbursable basisfor this project. No money has yet been spent. Councilman Crosby questioned the safety of the bike path where itcrosses Airport Boulevard. The City Planner stated there is tobe a cross-over at the east end of the wastevrater treatment plant, and a stop or some protectj-ve device should be contemplated underthe future contract. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 51-76 I'ACCEPTING BURLINGAIqE SHORELINE BTCYCLE/PEDEffi.75-19" Councilman Amstrup commented he did not think the bike path was ataIl attractive. Council-man C rqby questioned the lack of guard rail or fencing alongthe l-agoon. City Planner stated there was to be a subsequent contractto provide such protection. He noted the present contract wasadministered under the public works department. City Engineer Kirkup stated his understanding was the present workwas a rough project with future monies to be used for landscaping and protective construction. Council-man Harrison adoptj-on, second byroll call vote. introduce d Counc i lman Resolution 5l-76 and moved its Crosby and unanimous I{carried on RECONVENE 1. oRDINANCE No. 1073 "Ordinance Increasing Treasurerrs Bond And Establishing Bond of Deputy Treasurer" was given its second reading. Declaring the hearing open to the f1oor, Mayor Mangj-ni invited comment. There !,/as none. The hearing was declared closed. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1074 "Ordj-nance Adding Section 12.04.065 Requiring RestoiaEion oT AbEnd d Driveways." was given its second readj-ng. Declaring the hearing open to the f]oor, Mayor Mangj-ni invited comment. There was none. The hearing was declared closed. Counc i l-man d riveways . Crosby questioned the cost of restoring abandoned Councilman Martin gave the figur gains a parking space. He state new construction, but questioned some of which have been in existence $338.00, noting that the city approved this provision for application for existing driveways, for many years. e ofdheits Mayor Mangini questioned the wording in requiring "the adjacentproperty owner" to restore curb and gutter. City Attorney Coleman explained that the property owner is "adjacent" to the City-owned street. He noted staff report of 25-30 abandoned driveways in the residential area and a number in the commercial aea. Councilman Martin suggested a policy determination d non-enforcement on existing driveways with certain exceptions, such as commercial uses. City Planner Swan requested policy on service station lots which are taken out of use. Restoration of curbs could upgrade parking. He questioned if there were some way the City could cover some of that cost. Counci l-man Amstrup questioned if City replacement of abandoned driveways could be handl-ed under the sidewalk repair program. TheCity Attorney explained that this program was strictly for the replacement of damaged sidewalks. He was doubtful if it would alfowreplacing curb, noting that some sidewalk charges are liens againstthe property. He stated he could research. q 135 6. RESOLUTION NO. 52-76 "AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TOAGREM THE CITY oF BURLINGAME AND THE SAN MATEo COIJNTY SCAVENGER COMPANY PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF GARDEN REFUSE WITHfN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, DATED JULY 6, I97I" City Attorney Coleman noted he had been informed by the scavenger company that this was to be a 2-year contract going td1978 instead of 1977. The resolution was introduced by Councilman Crosby who moved its adoption, second by Councilman Harrison and unanimously carried on ro11 call vote. Following a short recess at 9:20 P.M., the meeting econvened. ORDINANCES - Second reading. on motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, the ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously adopted on roll call-. Councilman Crosby consid.ered such a policy worthwhile because thethe City would gain parking, but Councilman Martin wanted costfigures before consideration. 136 There followed considerable discussion on whether to retain the ordinance section concerning existing driveways. Councilman Martin suggested the ordinance be approved, but that the adminis- tration be delayed. He cited instances where the ordinance could be used effectively, such as the conversion of filling stations. Driveways that are existing now could be handled administrative Iy. Councilman Harrison questioned if the City were not obligated to enforce an ordinance that was passed. He gave the instance of the owner of a lot formerly used as a filling station being forced to replace the driveway, while the owner of a residential property on the same street was not being required to do so. He conmented this could be considered discrimination. The City Attorney replied that it could be handled administratively if the Council mad.e a policy decision. Councilman Amstrup remarked he did not see the point of passing an ordinance and then not enforcing it.* Councilman Martin again changes use so that the closed. cited the instance of a filling station driveway was no l-onger needed and could that be The City Attorney considered the commercial example a good one, and removal of curb cuts from former gas station sites could be 1ega1Iy defended from a code enforcement standpoint. AYES:COUNCILMEN: CROSBY,HARRISON,MANGINI,MARTIN NAYEST COUNCILT4AN: AMSTRUP - FoT reason slated* Mayor Mangini directed staff to furnish council information pertinent to an enforcement policy, al-so costs of recovering all abandoned driveways throughout the City. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1075- Ordinance Ameniling Height of Trees, Hedges,given its second reading.WaIls, etc. At Intersections" was Declarj-ng the heari-ng open to the floor, Mayor Mangini invited co(unent. There \,/as none. The hearing was declared closed. on motion of Councilman Harrison, second by Councilman Crosby, the ordinance passed its second reading and was unanimously ailopted on ro11 cal1. ORD INANCES Introduction. 1. oRDINANCE f076 "An ordinance of the City Council- of the City of Burl-ingame Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council of the City of Burlingame and the Board of Administration of the Catifornia PubIic Empl-oyeesr Retirement System' (Retirees' Benefit) was introduced for first reading by Councilman Martin. 2. ORDINANCE 1077 "Interim Signage Ordj-nance" was introduced for first reading by Councilman Crosby. Council-man Martin questioned statement in the transmitting memo from the City Attorney stating that a variance may only run with the tand. City Attorney Coleman confirmed that court decisions have been made to the effect that variances 90 with the land rather than the applicant. Referring to Ordinance Section 25.16.080 "Revj-ew by Council", Councilman Martin suqqested it include a \<5 On motion of Councilman Crosby, second by Councilman Martj-n, ordinance No. 1074 passed its second reading and was adopted on the folfowing roll call vote: 3. ORDINANCE 1078 'AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25, ZONING, RELATING TO SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURESI' L37 Regarding revocatj-on or suspension of varj-ance and use permit, Page 2, Councilman Martin suggested that provision be made for cases where the Planning Commission upholds the suspension and the Council wishes to appeal. Referring to speciaL permj-ts and the specification ol Page 9 of the ordinance that all four of certain provisions must be met before a variance can be granted, Councilman Martin suggested that this section be written to be used as a guideline rather than a requirement. The City Attorney stated he had not dealt with this portion of the ordinance, since he had rewritten with regard to procedural changes rather than substance changes. He commented he would rewrite if directed., but suggested the Council may wish to refer this to the Planning Cornmission for consideration. Councilman Martin then referred to section on prohibited uses. The City Attorney stated there was no appeal in these cases. The Council-man questioned what happened in the event that the Planning Commission considered a use prohibited and the Council did not. Ci-ty Attorney Coleman cited the provision for ambiguity hearings, and noted the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain facts and make a recommendation to the Council. He noted this provision should be in all chapters of the code. Mayor Mangini, referring to Section 25.34.03, questioned its application to foster homes. City Attorney Coleman stated that homes are not classified as boarding houses, and that such homes a maximum of six people are required by State 1aw to be aLlowed. confirmed there are two in Burlingame. fosterfor He This ordinance Ams trup . was introduced for first reading by Councilman UNFINISHED BUSfNESS 1. Transfer Station. Councilman Harrison referred to joint meeting between Bur 1 an game eity Council and San Mateo City Council with The City Manager suggested that Foster City also be included, He was directed to proceed by the Chair. 2. Recording of Planningr Commission Minutes Councilman Amstrup questioned the reCenEly initiated use of tapes at Planning Commissionmeetings. The City Manager explained that in an effort to refieve the Clerk's office of Planning minutes so that more work could bealfocated to the Finance Department, preparation of Commission minutes was now being done by Planning Department personnel. Tapes are being used as a matter of assistance to the Planning Department secretary, and afso for the use of the City Planner who will prepare the studyportion of the minutes. Councilman Crosby recalled that the discussion on transferringpreparation of minutes to the Planning Department resufted becauseof shortage of time in the Clerkrs office. Councilman Amstrup stated he did not question the needs of the Clerk's office, butquestioned why this minute preparation was such a burden that it required the use of tapes. City Planner S\^/an remarked that since minutes are now reguired on Thursdays after the meetinq, they are being done specification that on the request of any councilman a matter coul-d be set for hearing, the same as at the request of a private citizen. City Attorney Coleman stated this could be included. discussion of transfer station at that time. He suggested that staff be directed to work with San Mateo City staff on suggestions for sites for the refuse station, with a time limit of possibly 60 days for this interaction. If at the end of that time there has been no response, Burlingame could make its own determination. Councilman Amstrup concurred. 138 in l/3 of the time; hence the need for tapes. Also the tapes are valuable for review purposes of absent Commission members. with reference to review, Mayor Mangini noted that while Regional Planning Committee minutes are taped, minutes are mailed to members because sometimes it is difficuft to understand tapes. Councilman Amstrup asked why cannot minutes be completed in three days without taping. He noted that interpretation d what is said sometimes depends on how it is said which is not conveyed on a tape. Councilman Martin stated his understanding that these tapes are backup and that shorthand notes are taken of the regular meetings. The City Planner confirmed. The Councilman, referring to the CityAttorneyrs statement that anyone can bring a tape recorder to abusiness meeting, stated he saw no problem with taping meetings. 3. New Pol-ice Station Councilman Martin questioned Police Chie f Nordstrom on his statement to Youth j-n Government participants that there had been 21 meetings by City Council- on the subject ofthe new police station. The Police Chief stated he meant openmeetings, not colunittee meetings. At the Councilman's request he agreed to furnish a list of meetj-ng dates. NEW BUS INESS 1. Rabies Control Ma yor Mangini, referring to letter of 5/L2/76from P enfnsu l-a Veterinary Medical Association Inc. concerning pre- valence and control of rabies, asked that a copy of their reconmendedresolution be procured. 2. Skyline Boulevard Speed Limit Mayor Manginj- referred to letterfrom A. Spano, 1633 Balboa Way, requesting a 1j-mj-t of 35 MPH onSkyline. He guestioned if this was considered a city street. The City Manager stated his understanding was that the State hadnot completed the requirements which released it to the City. ThePolice Chief noted that Traffic Engineer had recommended the 35 MPH speed limit. Mayor Mangini directed the City Manager to referthis matter to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Committee. 3. L976-77 Budget Councilman Amstr up questioned when the materialwil1 Ee-EvEILahte. The City Manager stated it would be ready forCouncit perusal within the next two to three weeks. CouncilmanAmstrup, Budget Committee Chairman, asked that each Councilman beresponsible for a specific department budget, and to reportfindings and recommendations to him. He assigned park Departmentto Councilman Harrison; Fire Department, Counci l-man Mangini;Library, Councilman Crosby; Police Department, Councilman Martin. He would take Department of Public Works. Councilman Amstrup also suggested that, in view of discussion ofthe Cityrs reserves, each Counci l-man report what he considered an adequate amount for reserve. 4. Art In Park Councilman Harrison commended Park and Recreationdepartments on the success of Art in the Park this lear. 5. Herita e Park.Councilman Crosby commented he had receivedfor installation of swings here. The Citycitizen snggest on Manager agreed to pursue with Park and Recreation Departments. 6. San Ivlateo Count Transit Dis trict Councilman Martin questionedif there w a 11 be route changes n Burlingame when the County TransiiDistrict takes over the focal bus system in Ju1y. City planner Swan stated he would inquire. In response to Council question onpossibility of protest if routes are changed, he stated he thoughtthis coul-d be referred to the San Mateo County Transit Board. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS \2. 1. Commr:nication from san Mateo union High school District commending 139 City Planner S\,/an for his effortsa site for Peninsula High School.from the City Manager that it isfi1e. in working with the District onMayor Mangini received confirmationin the City Planner's personnel 2. llemo from Associate CiviI Engineer Bagdon with figures oncost of replacement of abandoned driveways. 3. Conununication from Assistant Librarian Bergsing regarding parttime help at the Library. 4. Report from Park and Recreation CommissionParticipation Reports - 1975/76. 5. Minutes: Beautification Commlssion, May 6Vlay 24i Traffic, Safety & parking Commission, regarding Class ; P lann j-ng Corunission, May 13. FROM THE FLOOR: Mrs. Elinor Rusch, 1384 Hillside Circle, commended the City Councilfor produci-ng the public information brochure. She noted, however,that !,rhen resolutions and ordinances are read in council meetings ihepublic is not sufficiently informed as to their content. she suggestedthat a brief synopsis of the document be given. city Manager schwalmconmented that possibly more information could be given on the agenda. Mrs. Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, noted that a statement wYouth in Government Day that the City budget was 96,500,0questioned if this figure was reserves raiher than budgetAmstrup stated the last figure he had was 95,500,000 in rnot budget. Mayor Mangini introduced I\4r. Ralph Kirkup,this was his first City Council meeting. as made at00. She. Counci-lman eserves, new City Engineer, not j-ng ADJOURNI4ENT Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.M. to Wednesday, June 9 at g:00 p.M Respectfully submitted, :' /^ 4/ -7/ ' ,/,,4E6i1*9.{lr.City C16rk