Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.03.20 March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on March 20, 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 CCFD Deputy Chief Flinders. 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 There were no presentations. 7.PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 2 8.CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. a.APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 6, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2017. 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS a.APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 746 LINDEN AVENUE Mayor Ortiz asked Council to share any ex-parte contacts they had on the above titled matter. Councilmember Colson stated that she talked with some of the appellants’ associates and friends. Councilmember Beach stated that she visited the home on two separate occasions and listened to the two Planning Commission hearings on the topic. Councilmember Keighran, Councilmember Colson, Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz all stated that they did site visits. CDD Meeker presented the staff report stating that Council is considering an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the appellants’ application for design review and special permit request for an attached garage. CDD Meeker stated that Brandy and Peter Yarema (“appellants”) propose to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage. The property in question is zoned R-2 and contains 5500 square feet of lot area. The proposed house will contain four bedrooms with a total floor area of 2,796 square feet, where 2,865 square feet is the maximum permitted. As well, the appellants’ design includes a covered parking space in the attached garage, and an uncovered parking space in the driveway. CDD Meeker stated a special permit is needed because the appellants’ application includes construction of an attached garage. CDD Meeker stated that the Planning Commission considered this item at their February 13, 2017 meeting and effectively denied the appellants’ request via a split vote of 3-3-1, as Commissioner Terrones was absent. CDD Meeker explained that the Commissioners’ concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached garage. He stated that Commissioners perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 3 containing single-family dwellings was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding the height of the structure. CDD Meeker added that by the time of the February 13, 2017 hearing, the appellants had lowered the height of the roof to comply with the law. CDD Meeker explained that as a result of the Planning Commission’s denial, the appellants, submitted a timely appeal and later sent a letter to the Council explaining their reasons for filing an appeal. Mayor Ortiz asked the appellants to speak on the project. Ms. Yarema began by distributing a letter to the Council with the signatures of 20 of their neighbors who were in favor of the appellants’ proposed project. She explained that she didn’t believe that the proposed project was fairly compared with the homes in their neighborhood. She explained that that their lot is an abnormal size and shape. Therefore, if the City required them to have a detached garage, they would be left with a long driveway on a very narrow lot with a tight home and awkward layout. Additionally, she stated that the detached garage requirement would result in them losing a bedroom and bathroom from their design. Ms. Yarema discussed the idea that currently there is no consistency in their neighborhood. She explained that there are 8 attached garages on their block and a variety of housing styles including duplexes, tri-plexes, bungalows and two-story homes. She ended by stating that the design would allow them to stay in Burlingame. Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants counted the amount of detached garages on their street. Mr. Yarema stated that there were 8 with attached garages. Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants knew how many homes were on the street. Mr. Yarema replied in the negative. Councilmember Keighran asked how many of the attached garages were at the front of their lots in the appellants’ neighborhood. Ms. Yarema stated that on Linden Ave there are two and on Park Ave there are two. Mayor Ortiz asked if the lots for the duplexes and triplexes were larger than the appellants. Mr. Yarema replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if the frontage on the appellants’ property was 50 feet. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. He added that if you measured perpendicularly to the side property line the measurement is just over 46 feet. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the side setbacks were each four feet on this house. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 4 Councilmember Beach asked what the distance was between the proposed house and 748 Linden Ave. CDD Meeker stated that the proposed house has a four foot setback from the property line and that the neighbor’s house has a 22 foot setback from the property line. Councilmember Beach asked if there was a larger distance between the neighbors on the left than the neighbors on the right. Ms. Yarema replied in the affirmative and stated that with the proposed redesign they would have more distance with the neighbors on the right. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the height of the proposed design and roof pitch with Natalie Hyland, the designer of the project. Specifically, he asked if she was required to return to the original pitched roof of 8 and 12, could she keep the proposed house within the 30 foot height limitation. Ms. Hyland replied that she believed this was possible. Councilmember Keighran asked if the plate heights were 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second floor. Ms. Hyland replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission brought down the plate heights. CDD Meeker replied in the negative and explained that it was the pitch of the roof that was reduced. Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission had asked for the plate heights to be decreased. City Attorney Kane stated that the Planning Commission does often ask for lower plate heights but in this case the project does fall within the overall height limit. Councilmember Keighran asked what the usual plate heights are for Burlingame homes. CDD Meeker stated that it is usually 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor. Councilmember Colson discussed that the appellants’ neighbor to the left, had expressed a concern about the proposed attached garage diminishing their daylight. She explained that from reviewing the landscape plan for the proposed house there was a poured concrete walkway on the left side of the house. She asked for the width of the walkway. Ms. Hyland stated that it was four feet. Councilmember Colson suggested installing a screening hedge along the walkway to soften up the view. Mayor Ortiz asked why the plate height was 10 feet on the first floor. Ms. Hyland responded that the appellants wanted to do a box-beam ceiling. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems the Planning Commission wrestled with two separate issues when hearing the appellants’ case. One was the attached garage and the other was the height of the building. He stated as a former Planning Commissioner he doesn’t like to be in a position to rule against their decision. However, he noted that in this particular situation the Planning Commission was deadlocked. He stated that with respect to the garage, the appellants make a compelling argument for attaching the garage. He reminded the Planning Commission that the City doesn’t ban attached garages rather it tries to discourage attached garages. He explained that the reason the City discourages attached garages is that they don’t want March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 5 the first thing pedestrians see to be a garage door and also they want to create daylight between houses. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wished the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the design of the attached garage versus whether the appellants should have one. Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that the problem with the appellants dropping the pitch of their roof is that the appellants are creating a larger roof. He asked the appellants to go back to the 8 and 12 pitch but stay within the 30 foot height limitation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the proposed design would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that when she did her site visit she looked at the other homes on the block. She stated that in her opinion most of the garages are detached and if they are attached, they are in the back of the lot. She explained that she was on the Planning Commission when they came up with the design review guidelines and the decision to discourage attached garages. She stated that it was to make neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly. She explained that she believed if the garage was going to be attached it should be setback further. Councilmember Keighran stated that the 10 and 9 foot plate heights are not normal in Burlingame. She stated that if the appellants wanted to have 10 foot plate heights on the first floor she wanted to see the plate heights shrunk on the second floor so that it was within the City average. Councilmember Beach stated that the street that the appellants’ house is on has great variation. She discussed the design guidelines and stated that she put a lot of stock in the Planning Commission process. She explained that the appellants’ property was unique with a lot of strange angles and was smaller than other lots. She discussed giving deference to how architects design on abnormal lots, of this nature, to make the design work within the community. Councilmember Beach stated that the proposed design makes sense to her and that the side setbacks give the neighbors room. As well, she stated that she believes the proposed house will benefit the neighborhood. Councilmember Beach stated that her only complaint is that the attached garages don’t allow for as much neighbor interaction. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the garage in the front of the lot because of the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. She stated that she would like great attention paid to the quality of the garage door and would like the left side of the lot to include some landscaping to soften the neighbors’ view. Mayor Ortiz stated that the width of the lot is a compelling reason to let this project go through. He stated he is comfortable with the location but agreed with the Vice Mayor on the pitch of the roof. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated Councilmember Keighran’s concerns about front facing garages. He stated he wished that the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the actual design of the attached garage versus whether an attached garage should be allowed. March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 6 Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve the appellants’ plan with the provision that the height of the house be under 30 feet with the roof having an 8 and 12 pitch; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against). 10.STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a.ADOPTION OF THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FY 2017-2018 GOAL- SETTING SESSION Assistant to the City Manager (“ACM”) Blackburn presented the staff report on the adoption of the priorities identified during the FY 2017-2018 Goal Setting Session. She stated that staff is recommending that the Council adopt the five priorities that were identified during the City’s Goal Setting Session. As well, she stated that they are asking for Council’s input on the implementation of the task force methodology for advancing the five priorities. ACM Blackburn gave a brief review of the Goal Setting Session. She stated that the session occurred on January 28, 2017 and that the City Department Heads gave updates of significant achievements during the first half of FY 2016-17 and foreseeable challenges they faced going forward. ACM Blackburn explained that in a departure from previous years, the Goal Setting Session focused on a single question developed by Mayor Ortiz: “How do we make Burlingame a better place to live and work.” She explained that after public comment periods and input from staff and Council, dozens of ideas, thoughts, recommendations and insights emerged. She stated that from this, five key priorities emerged. ACM Blackburn summarized the five key priorities: 1.Sustainability - use the City’s climate action plan to measure and evaluate policy decisions related to transportation, infrastructure, and housing so that Burlingame can exceed its carbon reduction targets. 2. Transportation – improve roadway safety and reduce congestion for all modes of transportation (cars, pedestrians, and cyclists). 3.Quality of Life – pursue initiatives and events that promote a sense of intergenerational engagement, community, safety, and wellbeing. 4. Housing – establish policies that provide home ownership opportunities for below median income levels, so that Burlingame’s neighborhoods retain socioeconomic diversity and stability. 5.Infrastructure – create a near term, fiscally responsible funding strategy to renovate City facilities in order to improve service for Burlingame’s residents. Next, she reviewed a chart that she had created based on the Goal Setting Session. (The Council’s discussion for much of the remainder of this staff report focused on this chart so it has been attached at the back of the meeting minutes for reference.) March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 7 ACM Blackburn stated that at the close of the meeting the Council and City Manager discussed the need to identify task forces or groups of stakeholders that will advance each of the five priorities. She explained that recommendations were made as to the stakeholders of three of the priorities. 1. Sustainability would be led by the City’s Sustainability Coordinator, with input from Burlingame’s Citizens’ Environmental Council. 2. Transportation would be led by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, with input from the Council and staff. 3. Quality of Life would be led by staff with input from the Council and members of the community. ACM Blackburn stated that the priority of Housing warranted further discussion. She explained that the April 15, 2017 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission would focus on this topic. As well, ACM Blackburn noted that the composition of a working group or stakeholders for the priority of Infrastructure needed Council direction. Lastly, ACM Blackburn stated that staff was looking for Council to review and approve the FY 2017-2018 priorities and recommend the composition of the groups that will be working on each of the five priorities. Mayor Ortiz thanked City Manager Goldman and ACM Blackburn for their hardwork. Councilmember Colson discussed on the chart the “ideas raised” section under the Housing priority and asked that it include rental opportunities for below median income levels as to create the socio-economic diversity. ACM Blackburn replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson expressed her support of the City’s approach to the Housing priority, by first having a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission. She explained that she believed this meeting would create goals, working groups, stakeholders and help the City map out a plan to tackle housing issues. Councilmember Keighran stated that on the chart the “ideas raised” section under the Housing priority should include commercial impact fees. ACM Blackburn replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what staff needed from the Council on this report. ACM Blackburn explained that staff was looking for approval of the five priorities and for Council direction on how to structure implementation of each priority. City Manager Goldman added that staff is trying to not overburden Council and instead create stakeholders from staff, the community and commissions to assist in these priorities. . Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he agreed with the five priorities. He recommended combining in the “ideas raised” section under the Quality of Life priority: “increased engagement”, “more volunteer opportunities” and “more open, community events” as “ more public city engagement.” Vice Mayor Brownrigg added that the Bayside Park was missing from “ideas raised” under the Quality of Life priority. City Manager Goldman stated that the Bayfront, in general, was listed under the Infrastructure March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 8 priority. She stated that staff could change the phrasing from “develop plan for Bayfront” to “develop plan for Bayfront including state lands parcel”. Vice Mayor Brownrigg agreed. ACM Blackburn stated that the “ideas raised” section was staff’s attempt at capturing ideas, thoughts and action items that arose from the Goal Setting Session. She explained that “ideas raised” weren’t definite but rather examples of actions for each priority. Councilmember Keighran stated that the City is already working on some of the topics like “develop plan for Bayfront” and therefore she asked why these were included on the chart in the “ideas raised” section. She stated that she found the priorities and the “ideas raised” section to be too broad. City Manager Goldman explained that what ACM Blackburn did was capture ideas that were raised during the meeting and created the chart that expressed that information. Councilmember Keighran stated that her concern was that Council was being asked to assign working groups or commissions these projects and a lot of the projects are already being addressed. Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmember Keighran agreed with the five priorities. Councilmember Keighran stated that they were fine. However, she stated that she believed the Quality of Life priority, wasn’t necessarily a priority, but rather an umbrella over the other four priorities. She explained that each of the remaining four priorities were concerned with Quality of Life. Councilmember Colson agreed with Councilmember Keighran. Councilmember Beach stated that Quality of Life could be a “common theme” in the middle of the chart. She stated that Sustainability was such a critical topic that it could either be its own priority or it could be a “common theme”. Councilmember Beach stated that the important question is how to put into action what is on the chart and what has been identified as the City’s priorities. She explained that she believed the City needed to be “laser-focused” with what work the Council commits to undertake each year for these priorities. She voiced her concern that the City could get bogged down with too many ideas under each priority instead of focusing on a few. As well, she expressed that the Council should take these priorities into the budget study session to determine what projects move the City’s goals forward. Mayor Ortiz asked his colleagues if they were comfortable with stating that there are four priorities: Sustainability, Transportation, Housing and Infrastructure. Councilmember Colson suggested having only Transportation, Housing and Infrastructure as the priorities with Quality of Life above as an umbrella and Sustainability as a “common theme”. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson. March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one area that was unique to Quality of Life was safety. He explained that he believed that the community has become increasingly nervous about that issue. City Manager Goldman stated that safety was also listed as a “common theme”. Mayor Ortiz stated that there seemed to be consensus to limit it to four priorities: Sustainability, Transportation, Housing, and Infrastructure. Mayor Ortiz then asked the Council to turn their attention to each individual priority starting with Sustainability. Councilmember Keighran expressed her concern about the “ideas raised” section of the Sustainability priority. She explained that the City is already working on the Climate Action Plan. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought Council should focus more on what the process should be for each priority instead of the “ideas raised”. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. She stated the question that staff is asking Council is how they want to make progress on the priorities. Mayor Ortiz stated that the way to look at “ideas raised” is to think of them as examples of potential projects under the priorities. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed staff’s recommendation that the Sustainability priority be led by the Sustainability Coordinator with input from CEC was right. Council agreed with this statement. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed Transportation was a little more difficult. He explained that the staff recommendation was that TSP Commission would lead this priority with input from staff. However, he expressed concern that the Transportation priority was a lot broader than the focus of TSP. City Manager Goldman stated that an option would be form a subcommittee formed with two members of TSP, two councilmembers and staff. Councilmember Keighran suggested that Council wait until projects or matters arose that needed a working group before creating a subcommittee. She explained that she felt that these discussions were premature. Mayor Ortiz stated that the idea is that Council has identified what the priorities are and then the subcommittees should come up with ideas to move forward the priority. City Manager Goldman agreed, explaining that these subcommittees would be places where community members or staff could go to voice opinions and suggestions. She stated that the Goal Setting Session created a lot of good energy around improving Burlingame but that staff and Council now needed to figure out a way to harness that energy. Mayor Ortiz asked the Council if they could agree that the priority of Transportation should be led by the TSP Commission. Councilmember Beach stated that this was an opportunity to engage with citizens who are interested and educated in policy making for these priorities. She explained it will allow the community to work together to March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 10 improve Burlingame. She stressed that there needed to be a cross-section of the community involved in these groups including commission members, councilmembers, staff and members of the community. Mayor Ortiz asked if there should be a separate body to deal with the priority of Transportation when the TSP Commission already exists. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that TSP Commission was the lead for the Transportation priority but that this priority also needed input from councilmembers and staff. Councilmember Keighran voiced their concern that by creating these separate committees they would be reinventing the wheel when a commission already existed for the priority of Transportation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed what ACM Blackburn was trying to assist the Council with is how do you go from words to action. He discussed the idea of accountability with these priorities. He stated that the best idea might be for the accountability to rest with staff and have staff ping Council as projects and ideas arise. He stated that if the selected staff member believed that a project required an ad hoc committee or Council direction, then a working group could be created. He stated that this is how he sees the priority of Sustainability working with the Sustainability Coordinator holding the accountability. However, he discussed that Transportation being led by the TSP Commission might not work because they only meet once a month. He suggested that Transportation be headed by a staff member from Public Works who would work both with the Council and TSP Commission on projects. DPW Murtuza stated that staff regularly brings projects to Council for direction. He added that he agreed with the Vice Mayor that the accountability is on staff to deliver on what the Council establishes as the City’s priorities. Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that he appreciated that and stated that the Council should figure out which staffmember(s) to task with the other two priorities. He added that he would like to see regular updates made to the Council on projects that affected the key priorities. He gave the example of the shuttle service in Burlingame, stating he didn’t believe he knew enough about it and if expansion was possible. ACM Blackburn discussed the work load on staff and the operational constraints that the City faces. She stated that this needed to be taken into consideration when reviewing how to move the City’s priorities forward. She explained that the Council should think of the priorities as the guiding principles that they use to review the budget and future projects. As well, she explained that the working groups would be a cross section of the community that gets together and figures out how to move that priority ahead. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated ACM Blackburn’s summary and she agreed that Council needed to start looking at the priorities even if projects take years to accomplish. Councilmember Colson suggested that two councilmembers help form a subcommittee on each priority. She suggested they set up monthly meetings with the staff liaison. March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 11 Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson’s suggestion and stated that updates could be given during the Council committee and reports. City Manager Goldman stated that these would be standing committees. Councilmember Keighran stated that all members of Council are already on multiple subcommittees. Accordingly, she felt that Council might be giving themselves more work than is necessary. As well, she stated that they needed to consider the budget and see what they are able to realistically achieve. Mayo r Ortiz stated that he believes that even quarterly meetings would be good. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Sustainability, Transportation and Quality of Life are already in good hands. However, he explained that Housing is a large issue and he thought this was an issue that all five of the councilmembers should be involved in. He stated that he felt the same about Infrastructure. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if Council should set up a working group on Housing now because of its importance in the community. CDD Meeker suggested waiting until after the April 15th joint meeting with Planning Commission. Council agreed with CDD Meeker’s suggestion. Mayor Ortiz asked for Council to send ACM Blackburn ideas on how to move the priorities of Sustainability, Transportation and Infrastructure forward. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about BPAC. DPW Murtuza stated that BPAC has not officially formed any group but that staff is trying to work with those that are interested. City Attorney noted that public comment had not been opened on this item because no members of the public were present during the staff report’s presentation. Mayor Ortiz wrapped up the item by asking staff to formulate a plan for how the City benchmarks the projects and presents updates to Council so that the public is aware of progress. b.ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH DATASAFE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR RECORDS STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the staff report requesting that the Council authorize the City Manager to renew the service agreement with Datasafe Information Management Solutions for records storage and management. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that since 2001, the City has had a service agreement with Datasafe. She explained that Datasafe is an off-site storage facility that maintains approximately 1600 boxes of the City’s March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes 12 records. She stated that the service agreement with Datasafe has been renewed twice, and that staff is looking to renew the agreement a third time. C ity C lerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the City is currently planning on purchasing an electronic content management system and that the City’s retention schedule is being reviewed. Mayor Ortiz stated that the reason he wanted to discuss this item was to ask if the reason an RFP had been issued for the storage of City records was because the City is in the middle of purchasing an electronic content management system. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to the public. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 18-2017; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed 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 Mayor Ortiz asked for a presentation on the shuttles, how they are being utilized and how to get more ridership. 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 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk Sustainability Transportation Quality of Life Housing Outcome of 2017-2018 Goal Setting Session COMMON THEMESPRIORITIESIDEAS RAISEDUpdate Climate Action Plan with data driven planning and reporting Develop plan for Bayfront 100% Clean Energy – PCE Shuttles Bike safety lanes Pedestrian safety (ADA & Seniors) El Camino Real Shuttles New resident packet Seniors’ safety, outreach, mobility Increase engagement More volunteer opps More open, community events Intergenerational sharing/training Build community cntr Crime/safety updates/ perception mgmt Update zoning Research soft story buildings Offer financial assistance to first time buyers Housing impact fees Earmark future revenue Rehab existing stock Consider hiring staff to address housing issues Update zoning Research soft story buildings Offer financial assistance to first time buyers Housing impact fees Earmark future revenue Rehab existing stock Dedicate staff to solutioning Infrastructure C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & O u t r e a c h F i n a n c i a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s M o b i l i t y Seniors S a f e t y Community Center City Hall Grade Separation Develop plan for Bayfront