Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.09.18 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 18, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Farris Horak. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. RUDY HORAK PROCLAMATION Mayor Ortiz read a proclamation honoring Rudy Horak’s commitment to the City, including serving on the Storm Drain Measure Citizens Oversight Committee, assisting in founding the first Burlingame Pet Parade, and his eagerness to assist in making Burlingame a better place to live and work. The proclamation was presented to Rudy’s wife Farris. Vice Mayor Brownrigg offered his thoughts on the great qualities of Rudy Horak and how much he will be missed. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 2 b. RESIDENTIAL SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE AWARD Commissioner Kirchner presented the first annual Residential Sustainable Landscape Award to Mike and Chris Reed, owners of 721 Walnut Avenue. Commissioner Kirchner stated that the purpose of the award was to recognize citizens who undertook sustainable landscaping and encourage and educate others on its importance. The Beautification Commission presented Mike and Chris Reed with a beautiful plaque made from a recycled tree. Congratulations! c. FIRST 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY PRESENTATION San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine spoke about the importance of early childcare and preschool. He stated that he is hopeful that the State Legislature will increase funding for these programs. However, he explained that the County and municipalities have a shortage of facilities to house early childcare programs. Therefore, he explained the County is meeting with cities to educate communities on the issue and share their recommendations. Kitty Lopez, Executive Director of First 5 San Mateo County, began the presentation by explaining that First 5 was created with the passage of Proposition 10 in 1998. The County utilized the tobacco tax dollars (nearly $7 million a year) to support 0-5 year olds and their families in the areas of health, early learning, and family engagement. She stated that there are approximately 53,000 children between the ages of 0-5 in San Mateo County. Ms. Lopez explained that in 2016, First 5 along with the Childcare Partnership Council and Human Services Agency commissioned a County-wide assessment to better understand the childcare facilities shortage in each municipality. She stated that from this assessment, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation convened a task force (that includes First 5) to propose recommendations on developing more childcare and preschool facilities in the County. Ms. Lopez reviewed the results of the County-wide assessment. She stated that in 2015, the County had a shortage of 10,789 spaces in childcare facilities. This number is predicted to increase to 13,981 in 2025. In Burlingame, the shortage in 2015 was 489 spaces, and it is predicted to increase to 642 in 2025. Ms. Lopez stated that in Burlingame, Palcare is the only facility that has dedicated spaces for low-income children. Currently, Palcare has 12 subsidized spaces for children between the ages of 0 and 2, and 24 subsidized spaces for children between the ages of 3 and 4. Ms. Lopez stated as part of the assessment, providers were interviewed to determine whether they were interested in expanding their site. Approximately 27% of the providers were interested in expansion. She stated that there are a lot of barriers to childcare facilities expanding in the county, including difficulty finding a site, lack of funding, lack of qualified staff, and the planning, zoning, and permitting processes. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 3 Ms. Lopez reviewed the recommendations from the task force. The first recommendation was to work with cities and the County to include childcare in General Plans, review permitting and zoning policies, and prioritize inclusion of childcare in future developments. The second recommendation was to work across sectors to identify and prioritize unused existing spaces. The third recommendation was to provide technical assistance to employers interested in providing on-site childcare to their employees. Lastly, the fourth recommendation was to pursue local tax measures and assist childcare providers in drawing down funds from already established funds. Councilmember Keighran asked if there was a list of the providers that were willing to expand in Burlingame. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with that information. Councilmember Keighran asked if they had done this presentation to school boards and if not she recommended they do so. Ms. Lopez stated that they had not but that it was a great suggestion. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the tension between neighborhoods and childcare facilities that are run out of individuals’ homes. He asked if First 5 had any solutions to this issue. Additionally, he asked that the County create a model template on how to make childcare facilities less impactful for neighbors. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council on these questions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the number of spots Palcare reserved for children eligible for subsidies was based on space or money. Ms. Lopez stated that she would need to get back to Council on this question. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the affordability problem in the county and the city. He stated that an important way to help working families is assisting with childcare programs. Councilmember Colson discussed parking requirements for daycare centers. She stated that the parking ratio puts a burden on childcare centers and is a hindrance on expansion. CDD Meeker will review the City’s requirements. Councilmember Beach asked if Burlingame’s shortage of 489 spots in 2015 represented the number of children that were eligible for subsidies or represented all children. Ms. Lopez stated that it represented all children. Councilmember Beach asked how many of the 489 children were eligible for subsidies. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with that number. Councilmember Keighran stated that Palcare has childcare options for parents who work night shifts. She asked if the study incorporated the number of children that needed to be cared for outside of regular business hours. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with an answer. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Jennifer Devlin discussed her experience running a childcare facility and the issues that providers face from state laws to municipal regulations. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 4 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Dion Heffernan spoke about the removal of a tree in front of his house and his concern that the proposed replacement tree was too tall. Life Steps Foundation representative Stephen Victoriano discussed his organization’s desire to find new space in Burlingame as their lease at their current location is ending. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8d. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, and 8i; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017. b. APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RECREATION COORDINATOR’S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested approval of the Parks and Recreation Department Recreation Coordinator’s out-of-state travel. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS CLASSIFICATION HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 106-2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SMCTA) AND PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (PCJPB) FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE OF THE BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 107-2017. Councilmember Keighran asked how long it will take for the preliminary engineering and environmental phase of the project to be completed. DPW Murtuza stated that the environmental phase takes about 18-24 months. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 5 Councilmember Beach stated that the preliminary decision was approved in March 2017 and asked if any work was done while the details of the MOU were being worked out. DPW Murtuza stated that the Transportation Authority approved the funding in March 2017. He stated that since the formal award, a lot of work has been underway between all agencies including the creation of the scope of work. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked why this phase of the project cost $4.35 million. DPW Murtuza explained that during this phase the project would be environmentally cleared. Councilmember Keighran noted that the City is only responsible for $500,000 of the $4.35 million price-tag. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if during this phase, design and construction documents would be prepared in order that they may go out to bid. DPW Murtuza responded in the negative stating that this phase was pre- final design. Councilmember Colson asked if there was an estimate on when the project would be completed. DPW Murtuza stated that it depends on when the City acquires funding for the project but that if all funding was in place, he could see the project going into construction in 2025. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 107-2017; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR PHASE 3 OF THE SOUTH ROLLINS AREA WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 83522, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 108-2017. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SUMMIT DRIVE CULVERT REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84100 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 109-2017. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City send thank you notes to the residents on Summit Drive. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE VANCOUVER BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 82580 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 110-2017. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 6 h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 1499 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Number 111-2017. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “A DELICATE BALANCE: PRIVACY VS PROTECTION” Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 112-2017. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 Finance Director Augustine presented the staff report requesting adoption of Resolution Number 113-2017 to adopt the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for fiscal year 2017- 18. Finance Director Augustine stated that after confirming with the City Clerk, the City received no protests. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 113-2017; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING CULTIVATION AND PROHIBITING THE MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, LABORATORY TESTING, LABELING, STORING, WHOLESALE, AND RETAIL DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(a) City Attorney Kane presented the staff report requesting an extension of an interim urgency ordinance regulating cultivation and prohibiting the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, wholesale, and retail distribution of marijuana in Burlingame pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). City Attorney Kane explained that at the November 7, 2016 Council meeting, the City Council enacted the original interim urgency ordinance. The current requested extension would be for a year. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 7 City Attorney Kane reviewed the background on the interim urgency ordinance. She explained that last year, Proposition 64 passed, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana under state law. Proposition 64 requires the State to construct a regulatory apparatus by January 2018 to issue licenses for recreational marijuana business and land use. The State took an initial stab at providing guidance on how licenses would be issued in January but has since withdrawn it. Currently, the State is working towards combining the issuance of both recreational and medical marijuana licenses. She explained that many of the neighboring cities are waiting for the State to make decisions prior to enacting their own ordinances. City Attorney Kane explained that under the proposition, cities do retain some local control as to what is allowed within their jurisdictional area. However, pursuant to the proposition, cities must allow six indoor plants per person. Additionally, cities cannot ban marijuana delivery vehicles from moving through the cities. She explained that cities can ban outdoor cultivation and various commercial land uses. City Attorney Kane stated that staff is following how neighboring cities are handling the implementation of Proposition 64. She stated that the Belmont City Council is leaning towards allowing delivery to points within Belmont but is looking at a ban on storefront activities. The San Mateo City Council wants to ban outdoor cultivation and retain all other restrictions. Lastly, she stated that San Mateo County is reviewing how other counties and states have handled legalization with a focus on agricultural lands. City Attorney Kane noted that federal law still prohibits the use, manufacturing, distribution, etc. of marijuana. Therefore, she explained that when addressing the state law there is an inherent conflict with federal law. Councilmember Beach asked if the City Attorney knew when the County would come to a decision. City Attorney Kane stated that County Counsel is unwilling to predict when decisions will be made. Councilmember Keighran discussed the four policy questions that the City Attorney listed in the staff report. The four policy questions are: 1. Should the City allow storefront retail establishments for recreational or medical marijuana? 2. Should the City allow cultivation of marijuana plants outdoors? 3. Should the City allow delivery of marijuana originating outside of the City? 4. Should the City allow manufacture or research and development apart from retail or cultivation? She asked how the City would enforce Council’s decisions on these questions. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council would need to consider that aspect of the policy questions. Councilmember Keighran asked about Proposition 64’s allowance of six indoor plants and how this would be regulated. Additionally she asked how this allowance works in multi-dwelling units and whether landlords could deny people this allowance through their leases. City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to review private lease regulations. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is concerned that this is the City’s final extension. He stated that he isn’t certain that the County’s decision will aid Council in determining how to answer the above-listed Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 8 questions. He explained that the County will be more focused on the agricultural land aspect versus commercial business and private cultivation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Attorney to share what the City’s next steps would be for developing and implementing an ordinance under Proposition 64. City Attorney Kane stated that a study session should be scheduled in the spring to discuss the State’s progress and review other cities’ decisions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the latest reports from Colorado and other communities where this has been in existence to understand the consequences of legalization. Councilmember Colson asked if there is a legal limit on outdoor cultivation. City Attorney Kane stated that there is a personal limit of six plants total. She noted that the City could allow commercial cultivation, which would allow for more than six plants. Councilmember Keighran asked if it is six plants per residence or per person. City Attorney Kane stated that it was six plants per person. Councilmember Keighran stated that Sheriff Bolanos has some presentations about Colorado and unintended consequences and suggested that staff reach out to the Sheriff’s office. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed how hydroponics was being used in New York City to grow vegetables. He asked that staff review the use of hydroponics in cities. City Attorney Kane stated that this could be a discussion with the zoning updates. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the City should hold a study session and engage the public on the matter. She explained that it was important to hear from the community and ensure that all were educated on the matter. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Beach and wanted to ensure that extensive public outreach is done. Councilmember Keighran agreed that a study session is needed. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1945; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 9 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman presented the staff report concerning consideration of appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission. She stated that there were two impending vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Joseph Dito and Shari Lewis. She explained that the vacancies were publicized and notification letters were sent to past applicants. Commission Dito elected not to reapply. City Manager Goldman stated that four applications were received as of the deadline. The four applicants (Steven Pariani, Emily Burch Matthews, Shari Lewis and Mike Morearty) were interviewed by the Council. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. CC Hassel-Shearer gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for two candidates each for a three-year term. She then read the ballot of each Councilmember. Shari Lewis and Emily Burch Matthews were unanimously chosen by the Council. Mayor Ortiz thanked all the candidates for their time. Congratulations to Shari Lewis and Emily Burch Matthews on their appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission. b. “ENVISION BURLINGAME” – EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS DISCUSSION Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staff report concerning “Envision Burlingame” – employment projections discussion. He explained that on December 6, 2016, the City Council held a study session to discuss the City’s future employment and population growth, and potential development expansion. He stated that a majority of the meeting focused on population growth particularly in terms of how many additional units would be considered in developing the updated General Plan. The City Council and staff determined that up to 2,951 units could be considered for the future population growth. He added that 2,951 units may not be the final number after an EIR is completed. However, he stated that 2,951 was the upper threshold number. Planning Manager Gardiner explained that tonight the staff report focused on employment growth. He stated that at the December meeting, Council was given projected employment growth numbers. However, since that meeting, staff and consultants have refined the employment projections based on modifications to the methodology used. He noted that the residential numbers have not changed because the methodology for projecting residential growth is much more straightforward and simple than commercial and employment growth. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 10 Planning Manager Gardiner introduced Dan Amsden from MIG to review the refined employment projections. Mr. Amsden gave a brief background on the population and employment projection process. He stated that in the summer of 2016, initial projections were developed based on CAC and community workshop/survey input regarding land use and growth alternatives. These numbers were presented to the City Council in December 2016, and the population projections and the land use diagram were confirmed for study. He stated that this summer the land use diagram was refined based on work with traffic consultants and the EIR team. Additionally, more detailed assumptions and estimates were made based on the projections related to growth. This resulted in refined employment projections. Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key differences between December’s employment projections and the current projections was that consultants began using traffic analysis zones (TAZ). TAZs are tightly-defined geographical areas that correspond to regional traffic models and allow a more fine-grained analysis than the broader application of employment assumptions to land use. Using the TAZs in combination with the land use designations allowed employment ratios and floor area ratios (FAR) to be adjusted for each business district. Mr. Amsden stated that the refined employment projections are most noticeable in the Bayfront area. He stated that the adjustments resulted in a much lower jobs baseline because existing Bayfront office and commercial uses have lower FARs and employment densities than typical commercial or office uses. Mr. Amsden explained that the refinement resulted in the following changes: December 2016 Employment Projections September 2017 Employment Projections Existing 36,810 29,879 General Plan Buildout (2040) 38,356 39,610 Net New 1,547 9,731 Therefore, under the new refined projections, the current employment number is much lower than what it had been projected to be in December. However the employment numbers projected for 2040 are similar to those presented in December. Mr. Amsden stated that the questions staff has for City Council are whether the refinement process makes sense, and should the team proceed with the refined employment projection in the EIR analysis. Mayor Ortiz asked how the projection for current employment went from 36,810 to 29,879. Mr. Amsden stated that the discrepancy was due partially to overestimating the number of employees and also due to refining land uses under the General Plan process. Councilmember Beach stated that the new employment projections show an aggressive job growth rate. She discussed job growth concerns including traffic, lack of housing, overcrowding, etc. She asked what the value is in studying these numbers if they are concerned if this might be too much job growth. Dan Amsden Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 11 stated that the value is that the projected numbers show the upper threshold, which allows them to more accurately review all the potential impacts in the EIR. Councilmember Colson stated that the Home for All initiative has reported that the jobs/housing gap from 2010-2015 was 19 to 1. But the jobs/housing gap from 2010-2014 was 24 to 1. She explained that the numbers reflect the fact that the County is slowly improving. She discussed that in looking at the refined employment growth projections, she wondered where the City was in comparison to the County. She stated that the City’s goal should be to keep the jobs/housing gap in Burlingame below the County’s reported numbers. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was comfortable with the projections and the uses that the General Plan laid out for the Bayfront. He stated that he believed it makes more sense to look at the jobs/housing gap from a County perspective as opposed to each individual city. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was okay with the numbers with the understanding that it is the upper level. Additionally, she stated she was concerned that the City’s current projected employment level had drastically changed with the refinement. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with the refinement process. Councilmember Colson asked if the consultants consider legislation like “By-Right Housing” when they create their projections. Mr. Amsden stated that they are aware of the legislation but that the projections are based on the existing data. Councilmember Beach asked if potential future infrastructure projects, such as the Peninsula 101 Interchange project, are considered in the traffic analysis and EIR. Mr. Amsden stated that the analysis takes into account projects in the pipeline that are approved and funded. Mayor Ortiz stated that the new projected growth seems extremely reasonable when considering the projects that are underway for the Bayfront including Topgolf. He wondered if the number might be too conservative and if the employment growth would be more. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what happens if the City goes beyond the projected job growth in the next eight years. CDD Meeker stated that if the City exceeds the upper threshold, any future projects would be required to undertake additional environmental analysis, and the City would have the opportunity to update the General Plan. Councilmember Keighran asked how often cities update General Plans. CDD Meeker stated that General Plans should be reviewed every 10-15 years. Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Approved Minutes 12 Councilmember Colson made a motion to accept the refinement process and proceed with the refined employment projection numbers in the Environmental Impact Report analysis; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were proposed. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk