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