HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.05.15
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on May 15, 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 Chief Kammeyer.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney stated 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. CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT UPDATE
Public Works Senior Civil Engineer (“SCE”) Andy Wong gave a presentation on the California Drive
Complete Streets project update.
SCE Wong discussed the background of the project. He stated that the City has seen an increase of bicycle
and motor vehicle traffic along California Drive, especially north of Broadway. As a result, over the last
several years the City has installed various safety improvements including additional signage and striping
along California Drive. However, additional improvements are needed.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
2
SCE Wong explained that last year Council approved funding to undertake a feasibility study to implement a
dedicated separated bicycle facility along the east side of California Drive adjacent to Caltrain’s tracks.
As part of the feasibility study, staff conducted public workshops to educate residents on the different classes
of bicycle lanes. The first public workshop was in July 2016, and after discussing the different options, staff
asked for residents’ input. SCE Wong stated that the residents made the following requests: lower speeds
along the corridor, maintain on-street parking, improve bicycle lanes, maintain access on California Drive for
residents and through traffic, and maintain the trees along the corridor.
SCE Wong stated that staff reviewed the residents’ input and held a second public workshop in January
2017. At this meeting, staff presented the public with three options. He stated that a majority of those in
attendance were in favor of the second option. Afterwards, the second option was further refined into two
variations. Then staff presented all four options to members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory group
and later to the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission.
SCE Wong explained that prior to each workshop, over 550 individual notifications were sent out to
community members living along and near California Drive.
Next, SCE Wong discussed the four design options.
Option 1 costs approximately $10 million and is a Class I bicycle facility. He stated that Option 1 creates a
dedicated and separated 12-foot wide path for pedestrians and bicyclists. He stated that it would be located
on the east side of California Drive adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Option 1 would require a complete
removal and re-planting of existing mature trees along the corridor and relocation of major utilities.
SCE Wong shared mock-ups of what Option 1 would look like. He stated that under this option from left to
right, there would be an 8-foot wide parking lane, two 12-foot wide shared travel lanes, a shoulder, and then
a 12-foot wide bicyc le and pedestrian path ending with a planted buffer. He also explained that staff would
need to create crosswalks for individuals to enter and exit the bike path. He noted that even though there
would be a separate path for bicycles, by law bicyclists would be allowed to ride in the street.
SCE Wong reviewed the benefits and challenges of Option 1.
In reviewing the benefits of Option 1 he stated that it:
1. Provides a separate facility for bicyclists and pedestrians
2. Provides the safest facility for bicyclists and pedestrians
3. Creates a parkway like setting along the roadway corridor and increases potential for active
transportation and recreation activities
4. Improves aesthetics of the corridor upon full growth of the trees
5. Maintains the current configuration of the roadway
6. Maintains on-street parking
In reviewing the challenges of Option 1 he stated that it:
1. Requires complete removal of existing mature trees and shrubs, which provide screening
2. Has significant opposition from residents along California Drive
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
3
3. Requires significant utility relocation
4. Requires acquisition of right-of-way
5. Requires extensive engineering and environmental studies
6. Requires coordination with Caltrain, High Speed Rail and SFPUC
7. Has a longer timeline to implement vs. the other options
8. Is the highest cost option, not including the right-of-way acquisition.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if under Option 1, trees could be planted between the tracks and bicycle path
to create a screen. SCE Wong stated that this was staff’s intent.
Mayo r Ortiz asked if under Option 1 the plan would be to cut down the mature trees and plant new trees.
SCE Wong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how long it would take for the trees to mature. DPW Murtuza estimated ten
years.
Councilmember Colson asked if there was anything between the trees and the train tracks. DPW Murtuza
stated that there is a fence.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked where the Broadway Grade Separation would come down on the north end.
DPW Murtuza stated it would come down close to the Mills and Grove area.
Next, SCE Wong discussed Option 2, which has two versions (2A and 2B).
Option 2A costs approximately $1.15 million and is a Class II bicycle facility. He explained that under this
option, dedicated 5-foot wide bike lanes would be created in both directions on California Drive. In order to
do this, existing traffic lanes would be narrowed to 10-feet wide, and left-turn lanes would be eliminated at:
Murchison, Dufferin, Rosedale, and Juanita. Additionally, under Option 2A five on-street parking spaces
would be eliminated. SCE Wong explained that because California Drive narrows south of Mills Avenue,
roadway widening would be required. He stated that widening the road would require eliminating the
planting strip and landscape buffer along the west side of the street and relocating some of the utilities. SCE
Wong showed mock-ups of Option 2A and an overhead of what California Drive would look like.
Option 2B costs approximately $500,000 and would create Class II bike lanes on most of California Drive.
He stated that everything north of Mills Avenue is the same as Option 2A. However, south of Mills Avenue,
the bike path would become a Class III facility, with an alternate Class III route to Laguna Avenue.
Therefore, under Option 2B, the road would not need to be widened. He explained that under this option,
there would be signage directing bicycles to take a right turn onto Mills Avenue and then a left turn onto
Laguna (this would only be in the southbound direction). Then at Lincoln Avenue, bicyclists would be
directed back to California Drive.
SCE Wong reviewed the benefits and challenges of Options 2A and 2B.
In reviewing the benefits of Options 2A and 2B he stated that they:
1. Provide a dedicated bike facility for bicycle commuters
2. Add traffic calming measures
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
4
3. Have no impact to existing trees
4. Provide for a continuous bike lane between Murchison Avenue and Broadway (Option 2A)
5. Have a significantly lower cost than Option 1
6. Provide for increased safety with buffered bike lanes between Murchison and Trousdale Avenue
7. Have a significantly shorter construction timeline than Option 1
In reviewing the challenges of Options 2A and 2B he stated that they:
1. Remove left-turn lanes at some locations
2. Require some roadway widening (Option 2A), but this can be mitigated with Option 2B
3. Require the removal of 4-5 on-street parking spaces
Councilmember Beach discussed the elimination of some left-turn lanes under Options 2A and 2B. She
asked if staff had examined what if any effect the elimination of these lanes would have on the flow of
traffic. SCE Wong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if removing left-turn lanes would create queueing and thereby cause congestion
on California Drive. SCE Wong stated that after reviewing the intersections where left-turn lanes would be
removed, staff predicted small delays but nothing significant. He added that left-turn lanes would not be
removed at intersections like Lincoln Avenue, where queueing would significantly impact the flow of traffic.
Councilmember Beach stated that it seemed that the community preferred to eliminate the left-turn lanes
instead of on-street parking at those intersections. SCE Wong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach discussed the Laguna re-route in Option 2B. She asked if there was any plan to
review the placement of stop signs on Laguna as to create a better traffic flow for bicyclists. DPW Murtuza
stated that because of how narrow Laguna Avenue is, staff would need to study appropriate signage to ensure
cyclist safety.
Next, SCE Wong discussed Option 3.
Option 3 costs approximately $760,000 and creates a Class III bike lane along California Drive. He stated
that it is similar to what the City currently has with the road being marked with “sharrows.” Sharrows are
shared lane markings on the roadway to alert individuals that the lanes are for both bicycles and vehicles.
SCE Wong explained that the sharrows would be enhanced by the introduction of traffic circles, bulb-outs,
and curb extensions for traffic calming. He added that this option would eliminate left-turn lanes at two
intersections and remove five on-street parking spaces. However, he stated that there would be no impact to
existing trees or utilities. SCE Wong showed mockups of Option 3 and explained that the bulb-outs at
Dufferin and Rosedale would slow down vehicles.
SCE Wong discussed the benefits and challenges of Option 3.
In reviewing the benefits of Option 3, he stated that it:
1. Adds significant traffic calming measures
2. Has no impact to existing trees
3. Provides for a continuous bike facility
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
5
4. Has a significantly lower cost than Option 1
5. Has a substantially shorter construction timeline than Option 1
In reviewing the challenges of Option 3, he stated that it:
1. Removes left-turn lanes at Murchison and Rosedale Avenue
2. Removes approximately 5 on-street parking spaces
3. Though traffic calming is introduced, bikes and motorists still share the same lane
SCE Wong next summarized the public feedback staff received on these options. He stated that the residents
who live along California Drive strongly opposed Option 1 due to the removal of the mature trees and loss of
screening. However, he explained that the residents were supportive of Option 2B because of the traffic
calming improvements. He explained that the bicycle and pedestrian community and TSPC supported
Option 2B with the hope that Option 1 would eventually be constructed.
Councilmember Beach asked how much right-of-way access is needed under Option 1. DPW Murtuza stated
that staff estimated that the necessary right-of-way is 3.1 acres.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff considered lowering the speed limit on California Drive under Option 2.
DPW Murtuza stated that the traffic calming improvements would naturally reduce vehicle speed.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he liked Option 1, but understood that it might not be the right choice financially for
the City at the moment. He added that he would like to see the City begin creating a separate bicycle path on
a portion of California Drive and continue to do so as funds become available. Accordingly, he stated that he
supported Option 2B and implementing Option 1 between Mills and Lincoln Avenue. DPW Murtuza stated
that this stretch would be the most challenging portion because of the trees and right-of-way issues.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that under Option 2, staff proposes narrowing California Drive to 10-feet wide
travel lanes. He asked what the lane width is now. SCE Wong stated that it varies, but that it is 14-feet or
larger in some sections.
Councilmember Beach asked if 10-foot wide lanes could accommodate buses, trucks, etc. DPW Murtuza
stated that previously 10-foot wide lanes weren’t utilized, but that they are becoming more popular. He
stated that by implementing additional signage and traffic calming measures, the roadway will accommodate
larger vehicles.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the width of the travel lanes were on El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza
stated that the lanes are approximately 11-12 feet wide.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Irvin Dawid stated his support for any option that could improve bicycle safety on the
roads. He added that he believed that Option 1 would help to promote cycling in the community.
Emma Shlaes, Policy Manager for Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, stated that she was in support of a
phased approach. She explained that the City should adopt Option 2B but as funding became available, the
City should transition portions of California Drive into Option 1.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
6
Councilmember Colson asked how long it would take to obtain funding for Option 1. DPW Murtuza stated
that prior to seeking bicycle grants, the City needs to acquire all necessary rights-of-way and obtain
community support.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City would need to purchase right-of-way access from SFPUC. City
Attorney Kane stated that the City would likely need to purchase an easement. She added that there are a
number of governmental entities that the City would have to negotiate with for that right-of-way.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Option 1’s $10 million cost included right-of-way acquisition. DPW
Murtuza replied in the negative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how much it would cost to acquire right-of-way. City Attorney Kane stated
that in previous sales SFPUC had not accepted less than market value.
Councilmember Beach stated that Option 2 improves safety through traffic calming measures. She stated
that this benefits all modes of transportation. Accordingly, she explained that she was leaning towards
Option 2B as it is a realistic undertaking, is less expensive, and improves safety.
Councilmember Beach stated that the Council’s long-term vision should be implementing Option 1 and that
the Class I bike lane should extend to San Mateo. She stated that while the City is currently amending the
General Plan, the City should be discussing Class I bike lanes and how they would benefit the community.
She stated that this would help garner necessary public support to obtain bicycle grants.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he attended some of the public workshops. He explained that while the
meetings were noticed for residents who lived in the affected neighborhood, it wasn’t possible to notice
cyclists that use California Drive. Therefore, a majority of the individuals who attended the workshops were
homeowners and not cyclists. He stated that while he is not sure how to correct that, he wanted to note that
public comment was skewed towards property owners.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the City backed into Option 2B because of the public’s dislike
of Option 1. He stated that he believed Option 1 is the right choice.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that the City should treat the issue of property owners’ requesting traffic
calming measures on California Drive separate from the need to create a dedicated bike lane.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the City should start funding and creating a screen now
between the tracks and where the bike path would be built. He explained that this would allow the trees time
to mature before the original screen is removed. He added that he believed that the City would be able to
work with SFPUC on right-of-way acquisition as long as the City ensured SFPUC access to its utility lines.
DPW Murtuza discussed the Vice Mayor’s suggestion stating that pre-planting the screen would require
relocation of utilities and grading.
Councilmember Colson stated that she believed that Option 1 was the best option for the community.
However, she noted that the City currently has pension liabilities and $100 million in unfunded infrastructure
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
7
needs. Accordingly, she stated she supported Option 2B because it improved the safety of California Drive
and was a less expensive option.
Councilmember Keighran asked how many bicyclists use California Drive during peak hours. SCE Wong
stated that there are approximately 40 daily cyclists.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she favored Option 2B. However, she noted that she was concerned
about the road being narrowed to 10-foot wide lanes.
Councilmember Keighran stated that Option 1 might be the most ideal but with the possibility of high speed
rail, Caltrain electrification, and the need to acquire right-of-way access she thought that Option 2B was the
City’s best choice.
Councilmember Beach asked if the first step under Option 1 would be acquiring right-of-way access. DPW
Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked how funds would be spent under Option 2B. DPW Murtuza stated that
California Drive has catch basins along the east side of the road to prevent flooding. He explained that under
Option 2B the City would need to modify the basins to make them bicycle friendly.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he would continue to push for Option 1, but that he understood that the City would
need to deal with right-of-way issues. Accordingly, he stated that he agreed with his colleagues that Option
2B was the right option.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed the City should move forward with Option 2B. However,
she explained that she wasn’t sure that Option 1 should be the long-term goal.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would like the Council to agendize a discussion on Option 1.
Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for the presentation.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled item 8b.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, and 8i; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
8
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO W.R.
FORDE ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE SUMMIT DRIVE CULVERT REPAIR PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 84100
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 32-2017.
b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., FOR THE CAROLAN AVENUE
COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT, AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH THE HANNA GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACTS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 33-2017 and Resolution Number 34-2017.
Councilmember Keighran asked how this project coincided with the Summerhill project. DPW Murtuza
stated that staff has had extensive conversations with Summerhill about both projects’ timelines. He
explained that based on the latest information, Summerhill will not begin construction until the end of 2018.
Accordingly, DPW Murtuza explained that the City can’t wait for Summerhill to complete their project. He
explained that federal funds are included in this project and if the City continues to delay construction, the
City may lose those funds. He added that when the Summerhill project does begin, Summerhill would be
responsible for any damage their trucks cause the road.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 33-2017; seconded by Councilmember
Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME
AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 35-2017, Resolution Number 36-2017, and
Resolution Number 37-2017.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND PROMOTION SERVICES IN FISCAL
YEAR 2017-2018
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 38-2017.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
9
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER FOR
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 39-2017.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH NEXLEVEL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE FINANCE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 40-2017.
g. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR 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 requested Council set June 5, 2017 as the date of the public hearing for the appeal of Planning
Commission’s April 24, 2017 decision.
h. WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION
REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMTI FOR FIRST- AND SECOND-STORY ADDITIONS TO A
HOME LOCATED AT 1556 ALTURAS DRIVE
CDD Meeker requested Council withdraw an appeal of 1556 Alturas Drive.
i. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2017
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt the Quarterly Investment Report.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
10
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WORKPLAN FOR DEVELOPING A
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (GIP) RELATED TO STORMWATER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUNICIPAL REGIONAL
PERMIT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
DPW Murtuza introduced the City’s Environmental Coordinator Jennifer Lee who presented the staff report
on approving a workplan for developing a Green Infrastructure Plan related to stormwater.
Ms. Lee began by explaining stormwater runoff. She stated that stormwater runoff is water that is runoff
from the rain or the snow and is not absorbed in any impervious surfaces like roofs or streets. The
stormwater runoff captures pollutants such as grease, oil, trash or pet waste and enters the storm drains.
After which the stormwater with pollutants head into the San Francisco Bay. She explained that like most
cities, Burlingame has a separate storm sewer system where any runoff that comes from stormwater gets
discharged without being treated.
Ms. Lee discussed the background of how stormwater runoff is regulated. She stated that in 1987, the
federal Clean Water Act was amended to address urban stormwater runoff pollution of the nation’s waters.
Then in 1990, the US EPA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
stormwater program. The NPDES Program has been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board
and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
Ms. Lee explained that at the local level, the Water Board issued county-wide municipal stormwater permits
in the early 1990s. Then in 2015, the Water Board re-issued these countywide stormwater permits as one
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (“MRP”) for the San Francisco Bay region. She showed a
copy of the permit which is 200 pages of stormwater regulations and requirements. She stated that the MRP
covers municipal operations, new development and redevelopment, construction sites, industrial sites, illegal
discharges, public outreach, and water quality monitoring.
Ms. Lee explained that under Provision C.3.j. of the MRP, each jurisdiction must develop a Green
Infrastructure Plan (“GIP”) that demonstrates how each permittee will gradually shift from traditional “gray”
storm drain infrastructure to a more resilient storm drain system comprised of “green” infrastructure. She
explained that “gray” infrastructure channels polluted runoff directly into receiving waters without treatment
while “green” infrastructure captures, stores, and treats stormwater using specially designed landscape
systems. She gave the example of Lot C where vegetation was planted to treat and filter stormwater.
Ms. Lee stated that there are many requirements for the GIP. She explained that the GIP must map and
prioritize green infrastructure projects and track the locations of completed public and private projects.
Additionally, the City needs to develop green infrastructure guidelines and standard specifications. She
explained that the City is working with San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention program on creating
guidelines and standard specifications. The GIP also requires that the City update its planning documents,
integrate green infrastructure into future documents, evaluate long-term funding options and adopt legal
mechanisms to implement the plan. Lastly, the City must conduct public outreach to residents, staff and city
officials.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
11
Ms. Lee discussed the next steps in the project. She stated that the City has two years to develop and submit
a GIP workplan. After that, the City will have to submit a summary of staff’s outreach efforts on a yearly
basis to show how the City is educating the public on green infrastructure.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City can use its storm drain measure funds for green infrastructure
improvements. DPW Murtuza stated that when the storm drain measure was passed it identified how funds
would be utilized. Accordingly, the funds can only be used for previously identified projects. However,
green infrastructure improvements may be included in some of the projects.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if staff would be presenting to Council what the quality targets for mercury
and PCBs levels were under the GIP. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that there was a great opportunity to use green infrastructure on upcoming
developments. She asked that the City conduct public outreach so that residents were educated on the
importance of green infrastructure.
Councilmember Beach asked if the GIP would require the City to change their construction materials and
whether this would cost the City more. DPW Murtuza responded in the affirmative stating that the
requirements had not yet been mandated by Regional Board but the County has commissioned a study on
this matter. He added that construction materials do contribute to the quality of water in the bay.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 41-2017; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. 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
There were no future agenda items.
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.
a. APRIL 2017 PERMIT ACTIVITY
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Burlingame City Council May 15, 2017
Approved Minutes
12
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk