Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.06.05 Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on June 5, 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 McKinley Girl Scout Troop #62295. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON LOTS F AND N A study session was held on the Affordable Housing Project on Lots F and N. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION BY THE MCKINLEY GIRL SCOUT TROOP #62295 Mayor Ortiz introduced the McKinley Girl Scout Troop #62295. He explained that the troop would be presenting on what they believe would make Burlingame a better place to live in order to earn their “Inside Government” badge. Troop #62295 explained that they held a brainstorm session on how to improve Burlingame. Then they met with each department at City Hall to learn about the different roles that local government plays in the community. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 2 Troop #62295 stated that after reviewing what they learned, they decided that one way to improve Burlingame was to have more public art. The troop suggested city murals, public art shows, performing arts at the park, teen run art activities at the library, and displays of kids’ art at the Recreation Center. Mayor Ortiz and the Council thanked Troop #62295 for their presentation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council shared the troop’s view on the importance of art in the City. b. PRESENTATION BY BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDATION Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation President Randy Schwartz gave an update to Council on what the foundation has done and is planning for the coming year. He stated that the mission of the Foundation includes providing scholarship assistance for Parks and Recreation programs and assisting in improving Burlingame’s park facilities. Mr. Schwartz stated that last year with the money raised, the Foundation was able to donate $5,000 in scholarship assistance, purchase agility equipment for the dog park, assist BYBA in purchasing Bayside Park dugout fences, and develop a new website and Facebook page. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the Foundation’s goals for 2017 including: 1) continuing to assist City events such as Music in the Park and the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony; 2) participating in the annual Bayfront clean up; and 3) assisting with rebuilding Burlingame park facilities. In particular, he discussed the plans to improve Paloma Park Playground. He explained that the Foundation will be selling different-sized bricks that will be installed at the park to assist in funding the rebuild. Lastly, on behalf of the Foundation, he presented Council with a check for $5,000 for scholarship assistance. Councilmember Colson asked how many youth benefited from the $5,000 donation. Mr. Schwartz stated that the donation would help 40 kids as part of the Summer Camp Program. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the funding needs for youth enrollment in recreation programs is for the City. Mr. Schwartz replied that he would need to get back to the Council with this information. Mayor Ortiz and the Council thanked the Parks and Recreation Foundation for their hard work. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame Chamber of Commerce board member Mike McKee thanked the Council for their support of the Chamber. He discussed the Chamber’s recent work including Bicycle to Work day, the farmer’s market, and assisting small businesses with social media. An anonymous speaker discussed public safety issues involving her apartment building. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 3 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 8n. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, 8k, 8l, 8m, 8o, and 8p; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Brownrigg commented on the City’s fiscal responsibility as seen in items 8f and 8g. He stated that he appreciated that staff did not accept a bid that came in 50% higher than estimated and that staff extended the life of vehicles in order to save the City money. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 1, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the City Council meeting minutes from May 1, 2017. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 10, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the City Council meeting minutes from May 10, 2017. c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 15, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the City Council meeting minutes from May 15, 2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1, CITY PROJECT NO. 84190 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 42-2017. e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING FOR THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 2, CITY PROJECT NO. 84191, AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 43-2017 and Resolution Number 44-2017. f. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REJECTING THE ONLY BID RECEIVED FOR THE EL PORTAL AND TROUSDALE CHANNELS REHABILITATION PHASE 2 PROJECT, AND Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 4 SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT, AND APPROVING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SAME – CITY PROJECT NOS. 83230 & 84740 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 45-2017 and Resolution Number 46-2017. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF SIX VEHICLES AND ONE VEHICLE/PIECE OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY’S FLEET SYSTEM DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 47-2017. h. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES FOR POLICE RADIO SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR A SIX-YEAR TERM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $314,976 Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 48-2017. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT $30,174 IN BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT FUNDS AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF THE FUNDS TO LIFEMOVES TO ENHANCE HOMELESS OUTREACH EFFORTS Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 49-2017 and Resolution Number 50- 2017. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (ACMS) FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 51-2017. k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO RENEW AN INFORMATION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING, LLC. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 52-2017. l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE VILLAGE PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION, CITY PROJECT NO. 84430 P&R Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 53-2017. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 5 m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MURRAY FIELD LIGHTING, CITY PROJECT NO. 83360 P&R Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 54-2017. n. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE-YEAR SERVICE ORDER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FROM THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 55-2017. Councilmember Keighran stated that there was a discrepancy in the staff report concerning the surcharge for work performed during non-business hours as the rate was quoted both as $25 and $86.15. Finance Director Augustine stated that it is $86.15. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City outsources its IT services to Redwood City for an annual cost of approximately $600,000. He explained that while he believed this to be a good deal, he felt that it was fiscally prudent of the City to rebid the services. Finance Director Augustine stated that next fiscal year the City is purchasing a new financial system. Therefore, she stated that the City should wait to rebid the contract until after the system is purchased and installed. Councilmember Colson asked about the dissenting argument that the City had submitted on a State bill concerning sub-contracting. She stated that the bill would negatively affect the ability of Burlingame to outsource services like IT. City Manager Goldman stated that the bill is out of the Assembly and now with the State Senate, and the bill sponsor promised that local governments would be carved out of the bill. She explained that staff will keep an eye on the matter. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 55-2017; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. o. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD REGARDING STUDY FEASIBILITY OPTIONS FOR INCREASING THE GRADE REQUIREMENT ALONG THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR FOR UNION PACIFIC’S SHORT-LINE OPERATOR City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 56-2017. p. APPROVAL OF A LETTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SUNSHARES 2017 PROGRAM Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael requested Council’s approval of a letter authorizing the City’s participation in the SunShares 2017 Program. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 6 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 24, 2017 ACTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, A PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH, AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION TO MERGE TWO EXISTING PARCELS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIVE-STORY, 27-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1128-32 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 524 OAK GROVE AVENUE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE MOVED FROM 1128 DOUGLAS AVENUE INCLUDING FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE CDD Meeker presented the staff report on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on 1128-32 Douglas Avenue. He stated that the property at 1128 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of the site and a two-story four-unit apartment building at the rear of the site. The property at 1132 Douglas Avenue currently contains a two-story single family dwelling at the front of the site and a detached one-car garage at the rear of the site. He explained that the properties are two independent lots owned by the same property owner. He added that 1128-32 Douglas Avenue is surrounded by single family and multifamily residential buildings. CDD Meeker explained that the applicant is proposing joining the two lots to construct a new, five-story, 27- unit residential apartment building with at-grade and below-grade parking. He stated that the proposed project includes demolishing the existing house and detached garage at 1132 Douglas Avenue and demolishing the existing four-unit apartment building at 1128 Douglas Avenue. Additionally, the rear portion of the existing single family dwelling at 1128 Douglas Avenue is proposed to be demolished, but the front half of the house is proposed to be relocated to 524 Oak Grove Avenue. CDD Meeker reviewed the applications that were submitted for the project and were now before the Council: 1) Design Review for construction of a new building on 1128-32 Douglas Avenue; 2) Conditional Use Permit for building height; 3) Front Setback Landscape Variance; 4) Parking Variance for driveway width; and 5) Tentative Parcel Map for lot combination. CDD Meeker stated that at the April 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners considered and approved all requests related to the project including certifying the FEIR. CDD Meeker stated that Larry Stevenson, owner of the adjacent property, at 1124 Douglas Avenue, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s action. Mayor Ortiz asked his colleagues to state any ex-parte meetings they had on the matter. Councilmember Colson stated that she met with the architect and former Councilmember John Root. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he met with John Root. Councilmember Beach stated that she did a site visit, watched the Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 7 Planning Commission meetings, and met with John Root and Larry Stevenson. Councilmember Keighran and Mayor Ortiz stated that they did a site visit and met with the architect and John Root. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the easement that runs between 1128 and 1124 Douglas Avenue and gives both properties access to the back of their respective lots. He stated that this is where the driveway for the proposed project is located. He asked where the City’s responsibility lies when there is an asset that is required by both properties. CDD Meeker stated that it is a matter that is entirely between the two property owners. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the owner of 1128-32 Douglas Avenue would be able to withdraw the easement. City Attorney Kane stated that easements generally run with the land. She noted that this is a private legal matter and not one that the City weighs in on. She explained that the question for the City is whether the project applicant has site control for purposes of the project that they are proposing. Mayor Ortiz asked if the City determined if the applicant had site control. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the applicant submitted a formal landscape plan. CDD Meeker stated that a landscape plan was included with the project plans. He noted that this may not be the final landscape plan for reasons including the addition of the circular drive. Councilmember Keighran discussed the width of the driveway. She stated that initially the driveway is 9 feet wide but that at other points it is wider. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative stating that at one point the driveway is 11 feet wide. He added that the easement is an 8 foot easement that accrues 4 feet to each property and that the proposed project has expanded the driveway an additional 1 foot on their property. Councilmember Colson stated that the original project met the 60% landscaping requirement but as a result of the neighbors’ request for a circular driveway in the front, the project was requesting a variance for 40% front setback landscape. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if delivery trucks would be able to maneuver through the circular drive. Planning Manager Gardner stated that the circular driveway was wide enough for delivery trucks but that the length of the driveway might cause issues. Councilmember Colson discussed the easement between the two properties stating that the two parties needed to comply with the easement in order to ensure their own access to the back of their lots. City Attorney Kane added that each party to the easement has a right of enforcement to the other. Mayor Ortiz discussed the redwood tree near the driveway that created a pinch point. He asked how the width of the driveway at that location was determined. CDD Meeker stated that from the information staff has, the driveway width was confirmed to be a minimum of 9 feet at all points. Mayor Ortiz gave the Appellant Larry Stevenson, and the project’s representative Jacob Furlong, 10 minutes each to speak. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 8 Appellant Larry Stevenson discussed his objections to the proposed project. He stated that the width of the driveway did not meet the 9 foot wide requested variance. He stated that from the root of the redwood tree, the driveway only measures 7 feet 9 inches. Additionally, he voiced concern that the driveway would need to support two-way traffic of up to 18 cars and would also be used for trash removal. Mr. Stevenson also explained that he believed the required setback for the property was 25 feet but that this project had a setback of 19 feet 11 inches. Lastly, Mr. Stevenson voiced his concerns about the project’s public noticing. He explained that the project didn’t appear on the Planning Commission’s agenda online. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. Stevenson if he had any solutions to the issues he had raised. Mr. Stevenson discussed the parking issues the building would create and suggested two levels of underground parking. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Mr. Stevenson would be okay with the project if it had underground parking. Mr. Stevenson stated that he still had other issues with the building. Councilmember Keighran stated that according to the staff report, 19 feet 11 inches was the front setback average for the block. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. He explained that staff took the average of the setbacks on the block, minus the property with the highest and lowest setbacks, to determine the required setback for a project. Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission meeting was properly noticed and advertised. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that staff verified at that meeting that it was on the agenda. Additionally, she stated that it is important to ensure that agendas are easily obtained on the website and that staff would follow up on this matter. Councilmember Beach discussed Mr. Stevenson’s belief that staff had not included the current front setback measurements at 1132 Douglas Avenue in the average and asked if this was typical. CDD Meeker stated that typically staff throws out the property with the highest and lowest setback. He added that even if those two numbers were included, the average came to approximately 20 feet. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that apartment buildings do not have the same open space requirements as condominiums. He asked if an apartment building is converted to condos would it need to meet the condominium open space requirements. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that front setback measurement of 19 feet 11 inches is at the front right corner. She explained that the remainder of the front setback is anywhere from 30 to 35 feet. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked how many of Mr. Stevenson’s units at 1124 Douglas Avenue are in the back and how they access their units. Mr. Stevenson stated that there is a duplex in the back and that it is accessed via the easement. Mayor Ortiz asked if 1124 Douglas Avenue currently has issues with cars going in and out of that driveway. Mr. Stevenson replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Ortiz asked if the property owners had discussed the redwood tree’s impact on the driveway and possible solutions. Mr. Stevenson stated that he had been working with the prior owner of 1128 Douglas Avenue to ensure their access to the back of the lot. Mayor Ortiz asked about trash removal. Mr. Stevenson stated that the proposed project would increase the number of trash receptacles that will be placed at the front of the driveway. Next, the architect, Jacob Furlong spoke about the 1128-32 Douglas Avenue project. Mr. Furlong stated that the project’s neighborhood consists of multiple apartment buildings. He then discussed the historical house that the developers are moving to 524 Oak Grove, at their own expense. He stated that it is estimated that the relocation of the house alone will cost $500,000. Mr. Furlong discussed the easement stating that it must be maintained for the mutual benefit of both properties. He explained that the project would be widening the driveway and reviewed the steps that the developers would be taking to protect the redwood tree including installing a curb in front of the tree. Councilmember Beach asked if the easement line aligns with Mr. Stevenson’s chimney. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted to understand the distance between the redwood tree’s root ball and the easement. Mr. Furlong stated that a survey has not yet laid out the exact distance. Councilmember Beach stated that her concern was that the redwood tree’s root ball would make the driveway at that pinch point fall below 9 feet. She asked if this would be acceptable. CDD Meeker stated that the variance request is for 9 feet, so the driveway is required to be at least 9 feet wide at all points. Councilmember Beach stated that she would be interested to know what the width would be at the pinch point of the redwood tree. Mr. Furlong stated that he has talked to an arborist about working around the tree. He added that the project has not done a survey to understand if modifications are needed. Councilmember Keighran stated that she would like the measurements double checked on the driveway’s width. She stated that the side landscape could be removed in order to widen the driveway and the first parking spot in the back could be made a compact spot. Mr. Furlong stated that they would be willing to entertain these suggestions. Councilmember Keighran stated that there is a pedestrian walkway that could be utilized rather than the driveway. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if the requested landscape variance of 40% was due to the circular driveway. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if it could be required that the City Arborist be present while work is being done around the redwood tree. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 10 Councilmember Keighran asked if there was a way to require a bond to cover any future damage to the redwood tree or its roots. CDD Meeker stated that this has previously been done but it proved problematic. Councilmember Keighran asked how the wood treatments were going to be maintained on the building. Mr. Furlong stated the wood that they are proposing is finish free and is a resilient material. Councilmember Colson asked if there was currently any protection around the tree. Mr. Furlong replied in the negative. Councilmember Colson asked if the width of the driveway is being decreased from what is currently there. Mr. Furlong replied in the negative. Councilmember Colson asked if the purpose of the curb was to protect the redwood tree. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the developer considered setting aside some of the units as affordable to households meeting 110-120% of the AMI. Mr. Furlong stated that the developer is willing to entertain that as a condition of approval. Mayor Ortiz asked if setting aside units as affordable housing was previously discussed. Mr. Furlong stated it was brought up after the public comment period at the Planning Commission. Councilmember Beach asked what the procedure was to include as a condition that units be set aside as affordable. CDD Meeker stated that the City can’t require affordable units, as the developer isn’t requesting a density bonus. City Attorney Kane stated it would be considered a community benefit of the project. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the project could do another layer of underground parking. Mr. Furlong stated that it is his understanding that this has been executed on other properties in the nearby neighborhood. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment. Burlingame residents Carolyn Root, Betsy Bogel, Rusty, June and Danelle discussed their concerns for the project including the height of the building, parking and congestion issues, driveway access during construction and that it would change the neighborhood. Former Councilmember John Root discussed his concerns for the project stating that the project was too large and would create more congestion and parking issues. Additionally, he asked that the Council ensure that the project has a circular driveway and that landscaping be maintained. Councilmember Keighran stated that by requiring the project to include a circular driveway in the front it limited the amount of landscaping that could be done. She asked Mr. Root what was more important a circular driveway or landscaping. Mr. Root stated that he believed both could be done. Councilmember Keighran asked if Mr. Root’s concern was maintaining an attractive front landscape and not the request for a landscape variance. He replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 11 Burlingame resident Matt spoke about different landscaping options to prevent storm drain runoff water. Mayor Ortiz gave Larry Stevenson and Mr. Furlong each three minutes for their closing statements. Mr. Stevenson expressed his belief that at the redwood tree the width of the driveway is 7 feet 9 inches and therefore would not meet the required 9 feet. Mr. Furlong addressed the concerns he had heard by stating: 1) the project’s height was allowable under the conditional use permit in the Downtown Specific Plan; 2) parking would be assigned in the back to avoid issues; 3) an arborist would be onsite when any work is done around the redwood tree; and 4) a landscape plan was submitted that is drought tolerant. Lastly he stated that after conferring with the owner, he is willing to set aside 1 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom unit as affordable to households meeting 110% AMI. Mayor Ortiz asked if the developer measured the width of the driveway from the redwood tree’s root ball. Mr. Furlong stated not by a licensed surveyor. He added that he believes that with modifications to the root ball, under the supervision of an arborist, the driveway at all points will be 9 feet wide. CDD Meeker stated that the City Arborist would have to approve of any work done to the tree’s root ball. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned that the driveway’s width wasn’t surveyed. She asked what happens if after the driveway is surveyed; it is not 9 feet wide at all points. CDD Meeker stated it would be a modification to the approved plan and therefore require Planning Commission approval. Councilmember Beach asked if the developer decided to modify the tree’s root ball with the City Arborist’s approval, would the developer also need Planning Commission’s approval. CDD Meeker replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City Arborist weighed in on the redwood tree and its proximity to the driveway. CDD Meeker stated that the City Arborist reviewed the project and stated that tree protection measures, prepared by an independent arborist, must be included in the demolition plan and in place during all phases of construction. Councilmember Beach asked if there was a plan for the trash and recycling receptacles. Mr. Furlong stated that trash and recycling receptacles would be kept in the back and that Recology employees would haul the receptacles out during their rounds. Councilmember Colson asked if the project decided to build a driveway on the other side of the property if they would need to maintain the existing driveway because of the easement. Mr. Furlong replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was uncomfortable with the proposed project. He explained that he spent a long time looking at the plans, and reviewing the Commission meeting. He stated that the back of the building provides for a sheer wall rising five stories. Additionally, he stated that he has a 9 foot wide driveway, and that it is hard to navigate. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 12 Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the Downtown Specific Plan. He stated that a vast amount of the energy was spent on the core and not the periphery. He explained that the Downtown Specific Plan was careful about putting in height limits by right. He explained, where this building is, the building’s allowable height without a conditional use permit is thirty-five feet. He stated that he didn’t think the Planning Commission spent enough time reviewing whether the project met the requirements for a conditional use permit. He stated that he believed that in order to obtain a conditional use permit, the project must not negatively impact the neighbors or must provide benefit to the community. He stated that this project didn’t do either. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed that the project should be four stories instead of five. He added that if the building was four-stories, then the developer wouldn’t be required to provide parking in the back of the lot. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he couldn’t support the building as designed. CDD Meeker explained that conditional use permits do not require a public benefit. He explained that the conditional use permit process is intended to ensure that the proposed project doesn’t create an adverse impact and is compatible with its surroundings. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood that conditional use permits don’t require a public benefit but that it helps in reviewing applications. He gave the example of the hospital, that while the neighborhood didn’t want it, it provided a public benefit. Mayor Ortiz stated that his concern was the project’s driveway and at-grade parking. Councilmember Colson stated that she didn’t know if there was a right solution to the driveway’s width because of the redwood tree. She stated that the proposed project offers more protection to the tree then it currently has. Councilmember Colson stated that she believed the last time an apartment building was built in Burlingame was 1995. She discussed the need for more housing in the community. Accordingly, she stated that she supported the project. Councilmember Keighran stated that she is concerned about the width of the driveway. She stated that staff must ensure that the driveway’s width is 9 feet at all points, and if it isn’t, the project must go back to the Planning Commission. She also requested that an arborist be present during all work around the tree. Councilmember Keighran explained that the City spent two years working on the Downtown Specific Plan and that many discussions were had on whether or not the community wanted to increase density in the downtown area. She stated that under the Downtown Specific Plan, the project’s allowable height with a conditional use permit is 75 feet. She stated that this project was requesting 56 feet. Councilmember Keighran discussed the history of Douglas Avenue. She explained that at one point many of the structures had been single-family homes and had slowly been replaced by condominiums. She stated that Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 13 the City was entering another transition era and moving towards denser housing. Additionally, she stated that the community benefit of the project was the two affordable housing units. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned with the circular driveway as she didn’t believe it would alleviate delivery truck congestion. However, she stated she could respect the neighbors’ request. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City could require that the development have parking assignments. CDD Meeker stated that he would look into this. Councilmember Keighran asked that the building have signage to alert delivery trucks to use the circular driveway. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested painting the curb in front of the building so that it was a 24 minute parking zone during the working day. Councilmember Keighran approved of this idea. Councilmember Beach stated that she shared Councilmember Keighran’s concern about the driveway. She stated that the driveway needs to be 9 feet wide at all points without cutting away at the redwood tree. She added that she applauded the developers’ work to protect the redwood tree and preserve the historical home. Councilmember Beach stated that it is difficult to balance all the variables including: residential character, the beauty of the building, property rights, the Downtown Specific Plan, and housing advocates. She stated that this area was zoned to allow for 75 foot tall buildings. She explained that if Council thinks this is too tall, that this could be a discussion at a later time, but that it is currently allowed. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) dedicate 1 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom unit to 110% AMI for San Mateo County; 2) arborist shall be present when digging is occurring around the redwood tree’s root ball; 3) guarantee that the nine foot driveway width is maintained, and if that doesn’t occur, the project will require an amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission; 4) look at possibility of assigning parking spaces to individual units; 5) signage placed on property to promote use of circular driveway for deliveries; 6) widen driveway at side landscape barrier; and 7) parking space at north east corner of the property be made into a compact parking space. Councilmember Colson seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the protections that were put in place for the tree at the Drake development. He voiced his concern that the redwood tree could be injured by the increase of traffic. He asked that staff look at the protections that were put in place on the Drake development and that they are incorporated into this project. Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg’s suggestion and amended her motion to include this. The motion passed 3-2 by roll call vote. (Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz voted no.) Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 14 b. PUBLIC HEARING TO RENEW THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 57-2017. DPW Murtuza stated that in 2012 the Downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners voted to approve an assessment district that resulted in the construction of the downtown streetscape project. He explained that as part of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, staff makes an annual request to Council to renew the assessment. DPW Murtuza stated that the Engineer’s Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. He explained that there have been no changes from the prior year’s Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District. He stated that five property owners have prepaid the assessment and that the total assessment is $310,156. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 57-2017; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report introducing an ordinance amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to include regulations for mechanical equipment. Mr. Gardiner explained that currently, the City does not have a standard for placement of general mechanical equipment such as air conditioning compressors and generators. While this had not been an issue in the past, Mr. Gardiner explained that in recent years the building division has seen an increase in building permits for this type of equipment. Mr. Gardiner stated that as a result of a series of meetings between staff and the Planning Commission and its Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee, regulations were drafted for both new and existing residential dwellings. He explained that the regulations are intended to address both potential aesthetic and noise impacts. The regulations will be added to Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.58, the General Use Provisions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the proposed ordinance would apply to tankless water heaters that are mounted outside the house. Mr. Gardiner stated that the ordinance wasn’t designed to capture tankless water heaters. He explained that the ordinance was designed to address larger mechanical units. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to make sure that the proposed ordinance doesn’t include tankless water heaters that are mounted outside. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 15 Councilmember Colson asked if the proposed ordinance exempts solar panels. Mr. Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran voiced her concern for dwellings in the hillside area as the proposed ordinance states that mechanical equipment should not be visible from adjacent streets. Mr. Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance doesn’t preclude mechanical equipment from being screened. A discussion was had about adding in language to make it clear that mechanical equipment could be mounted outside if properly screened. Council determined that the proposed ordinance needed to be amended prior to being introduced. Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. d. PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Planning Manager Gardiner introduced the proposed ordinance adopting commercial linkage fees for new commercial development. He stated that at the January 3, 2017 Council Meeting, the Council reviewed the Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study and the Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study. At that meeting, Council directed staff to follow up on the following issues: 1) how the fees could be used; 2) potential amounts of fees that might be collected; and 3) experiences neighboring jurisdictions have had with implementation of fees. Mr. Gardiner stated that on April 15, 2017, the City Council and Planning Commission discussed commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees at their annual joint meeting. He stated that the consensus was to prepare a commercial linkage fee ordinance as a priority, and consider a residential impact fee ordinance at a later date. Mr. Gardiner stated that the commercial linkage fees are something that a number of cities have adopted in the past few years as a tool to respond to the jobs/housing imbalance in the region. He explained that commercial linkage fees have been adopted with the assistance of the San Mateo County “21 Elements,” a multi-jurisdictional effort focused on housing matters in San Mateo County. Mr. Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance includes linkage fees as suggested by the nexus study as being feasible for retail, hotel, and office development in Burlingame. He added that after the staff report went out to the Council, staff received a letter providing additional background on potential reductions to the fees for developers that utilize prevailing wages. Mr. Gardiner stated that if Council adopts the proposed ordinance, a special revenue fund will be established, for the purpose of increasing and improving the supply of affordable housing. Options for how those funds may be utilized were discussed at the joint meeting on April 15, 2017, and that discussion will continue with the Council at a later date. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 16 Councilmember Colson asked if the proposed ordinance is adopted, when it would take effect. CDD Meeker stated that typically ordinances become effective 30 days after adoption. He explained that once the ordinance is operational, staff feels that the ordinance would be applicable to projects that have not yet received their project entitlements from the Planning Commission or City Council. Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. Burlingame resident Kristen Parks spoke in support of commercial linkage fees. Ryan Guibara stated that he supported the ordinance but voiced concern about applying commercial linkage fees to projects that are already working with Community Development when the proposed ordinance becomes operational. Councilmember Keighran stated that she approved of the proposed ordinance. She noted that she believed that the City should take into consideration whether or not the project is paying prevailing wages and if it is not, then the fee should increase. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned about deciding how to apply commercial linkage fees to projects that have already begun the process prior to the ordinance taking effect. She suggested excluding projects that have completed plans. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Keighran’s definition of when to apply commercial linkage fees to projects already in the pipeline. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the office nexus fee increased from $10 to $20 per square foot. He argued that the burden on the community for housing is being created by more offices/businesses opening, and therefore the fee should be increased. Councilmember Beach stated that the consultant’s proposed linkage fees were between $5-10 per square foot for the City. She asked why the consultant didn’t propose that the City use the County’s median fees of between $5-20 per square foot. Mr. Gardiner stated that the recommendation was based on a formula that took into consideration different variables including rent, land use, and what the tipping point would be. Additionally, City Attorney Kane stated that one of the variables was the cost of land in the city and that the more it costs to acquire land, the smaller the margin there is for the project to absorb fees. Councilmember Beach asked for Council to further discuss when to apply commercial linkage fees to projects if the proposed ordinance is adopted. She noted that the City’s discussion about implementing commercial linkage fees isn’t new and has been in the works. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 17 City Attorney Kane stated that the vested rights doctrine states that your rights to a project only vest after you have those approvals and have been issued a building permit. However, she stated that many developers would take issue with being issued a fee half-way through the approval process. Mayor Ortiz stated that in terms of fairness, he believed that projects whose plans are complete at the time the ordinance becomes effective should be exempt. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that the office linkage fee should be $20 per square foot instead of $10. She asked if the fees could be changed in the future. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative stating that if the ordinance was adopted, the Council would be able to review and change fees annually as part of the Master Fee Schedule review. Joshua Abrams from 21 Elements stated that the Council could offer a discount to projects that paid prevailing wage. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the notion of prevailing wage as a discount. The Council discussed how prevailing wage should affect linkage fees. Mayor Ortiz summarized Council’s discussion by stating that the suggestion was that if a developer paid prevailing wage the office linkage fee would be $20 per square foot and if the developer did not, the office linkage fee would be $22 per square foot. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned that the $20 fee for small office projects was too high. She asked if the City could do a sliding scale. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that for example the undiscounted rates could be $22 per square foot over 100,000 square feet, $17 per square foot between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet and $12 per square foot for less than 50,000 square foot office development. He asked that staff review this idea and bring appropriate numbers back to Council. City Attorney Kane stated that direction was given and that staff would bring back an amended proposed ordinance. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 58-2017. Councilmember Keighran recused herself from this matter. She explained that she is in charge of discretionary funding from Measure K for San Mateo County Supervisor Canepa. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 18 Finance Director Augustine stated that the Finance Department issued a notice of funding availability for community service organizations on March 1, 2017 for the 2017-18 fiscal year. The deadline was April 10, 2017, and the City received applications to fund 20 programs. The Council was then provided worksheets to make individual funding recommendations. Staff averaged the Council’s recommendations to determine funding awards for each program. Councilmember Colson stated that the averaged allocations resulted in a total of $49,800 being awarded and asked if the remaining $200 could be allocated tonight. Mayor Ortiz proposed increasing Samaritan House Core Services from $4,925 to $5,125. Council agreed. Mayor Ortiz opened up the item for public comment. HIP Housing representative Laura Fanucchi thanked the Council for their funding. She also updated the Council on the projects that HIP Housing is undertaking. Councilmember Colson thanked HIP Housing for their work. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution 58-2017 as amended; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed 4-0-1 by voice vote (Councilmember Keighran recused herself from this matter). b. ADOPTION OF A POLICY FOR THE FUNDING AND USE OF THE RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT RESERVE WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME’S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 59-2017. Finance Director Augustine presented the staff report requesting adoption of a policy for the funding and use of the Renewal and Replacement Reserve within the City of Burlingame’s Capital Projects Fund. She began by stating that reserve policies are created to mitigate risk, provide guidelines for sound financial management with a long-range perspective, enhance financial management transparency, and improve credit ratings. Finance Director Augustine stated that in 2015, the City contracted with the Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”) to support the City’s goal of sustaining long- term financial strength. She stated with GFOA’s assistance the City drafted its General Fund Reserve Policy and established a Renewal and Replacement Reserve within the City’s Capital Project Fund to address the City’s unfunded needs. She stated that it is predicted that at the end of the fiscal year (6/30/2017), the Renewal and Replacement Reserve will have $20.5 million. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 19 Finance Director Augustine reviewed the objectives of a Reserve Policy: 1) memorialize the reserve target; 2) establish the intent of the City to maintain the target; 3) describe acceptable uses; 4) describe who is authorized to utilize the funds; and 5) provide guidance on how to replenish. She explained that the main focus for the Renewal and Replacement Reserve Policy should be on memorializing fund sources, acceptable uses for the funds, and outlining who is authorized to use the funds. Finance Director Augustine discussed staff’s recommendations for the Renewal and Replacement Reserve Policy. She stated that Council should continue to fund through budgeted General Fund transfers in and one- time revenues. Additionally, funds from the Renewal and Replacement Reserve should be used to fund/partially fund capital projects and leverage financing for facilities and improvements. Finance Director Augustine asked Council to consider the following questions that needed to be addressed in the Renewal and Replacement Reserve Policy: 1) whether the funds should only be used for existing facilities; 2) whether a total funding plan should be in place for a project prior to utilizing funds; and 3) whether Council wants to place a cap on the amount of funding per project. She added that if funds were to be used for new infrastructure, Council should consider renaming the reserve to provide further clarity. Mayor Ortiz agreed that the reserve should be utilized for new infrastructure and suggested renaming the reserve the Capital Improvement Reserve. Councilmember Colson asked for examples of new infrastructure. City Manager Goldman gave the examples of bike lanes or grade separation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City enters into an agreement with the School District for field use would the generated funds be placed in the Renewal and Replacement Reserve. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative stating that a separate fund would be set up for field/turf replacement. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson stated that giving staff flexibility on the usage of funds is critical. She stated that she liked the idea that the reserve be seed capital. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he had a preference for leveraging reserve funds. He gave the example of the Burlingame Library renovations and how the foundation was asked to match funds that the City provided. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was in support of having flexibility in the use of the funds without a cap. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that flexibility seemed important. She asked if they should specify that the funds are to be used for public facilities and public infrastructure that benefit all members of the public. Burlingame City Council June 5, 2017 Approved Minutes 20 Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested calling the fund the Burlingame Investment Fund or Capital Investment Fund. Mayor Ortiz stated he agreed with Council on flexibility and liked the Vice Mayor’s suggestion of Capital Investment Fund. Finance Director Augustine thanked the Council for their direction. 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 Councilmember Keighran stated that she would like to have a discussion about open space requirements for apartments and condominiums. The Council agreed that this should be agendized. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety 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 10:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk