Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.02.21 Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 21, 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 Police Chief Wollman. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM STUDY SESSION A study session was held on a public art display to honor Anson Burlingame and Lots F and N in Conference Room A. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION Fire Chief Kammeyer gave a presentation reviewing the formation and future of Central County Fire Department (“CCFD”). He stated that in four years, over half of CCFD’s staff will have less than seven years remaining until they are eligible for retirement. Therefore, CCFD’s main goal in the coming years is succession planning. Fire Chief Kammeyer reviewed CCFD’s formation in 2004. He stated that Burlingame and Hillsborough decided to combine fire departments with the goal of maintaining a high level of service and increasing Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 2 efficiency. He reviewed what the departments looked like pre and post-merger, focusing on the staff levels. He stated that initially staffing remained at over 90 full time employees (“FTE”) but that as the recession hit the number dropped to 73.5. In 2011, Engine 36 was closed and became CCFD’s administrative office. As well, CCFD had 67 FTEs, the board began funding OPEB and CCFD officially became a stand-alone agency. In 2012-2013, labor contract negotiations were completed with significant reductions in operating budget, wages and benefits. As well, for the first time in nine years, CCFD hired two new firefighters. During this time, the administrative merger with MFD and SBFD was completed and it was the first year CCFD began fully funding OPEB. In 2015, CCFD entered into a contract with the City of Millbrae for fire services which included the addition of 2 engine companies/stations and 19 full time employees. He explained that this brought staffing up to 84.25 FTEs. In looking ahead, Fire Chief Kammeyer stated that CCFD is focused on succession planning, workers compensation and OPEB funding. Councilmember Colson asked if CCFD would be affected by the CalPERS rate changes. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked the Fire Chief for his presentation. He discussed the many benefits of the merger stating that CCFD was able to efficiently and effectively cover a larger area with less firefighters. As well, he stated that the merger helped Burlingame get through the recession by decreasing the funding needs of running a fire department. Councilmember Beach thanked the Fire Chief and stated that it was clear to see not only how proud he was of the department but how proud the department was of the work they did. Councilmember Keighran thanked Fire Chief Kammeyer for his hardwork. She stated that CCFD is an example of multiple cities working together for a common goal. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Paula McKay asked Council to consider declaring Burlingame a Sanctuary City. 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 removed item 8a. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8b, 8c, 8d, and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 3 a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2017. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked for an amendment on page 3 to his statement. He asked that it reflect the fact that he had discussed putting sensors in the creek to provide an early warning to homeowners in the area. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2017 as amended; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 1219 AND AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE BY CONSOLIDATING THE CITY’S GENERAL ELECTION WITH STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION DATES COMMENCING NOVEMBER 2022 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Ordinance 1940. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.10 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND THE 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS Fire Chief Kammeyer requested Council adopt Ordinance 1941. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS OR HER DESIGNEE TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE MASTER AGREEMENT AND THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 12-2017. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO COMPLY WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 2135, SURPLUS LAND ACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 13-2017. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR BURLINGAME SQUARE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 4 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that in FY2016-17, funds were allocated to complete conceptual plans for the beautification of Burlingame Square. P&R Director Glomstad stated that staff worked with Landscape Architect John Cahalan, Parks Superintendent Bob Disco, Burlingame Historical Society members Jennifer Pfaff and Cathy Baylock and Public Works staff to develop a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan was brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on December 15, 2016. The Commission heard public input and then reviewed and approved the conceptual plan. Landscape Architect John Cahalan presented the conceptual design to the Council. He began by reviewing what the site currently looks like and some needs that the committee wanted to address. Mr. Cahalan stated that the square has a 28 foot wide circular planter that takes up a majority of the square and pushes pedestrians out onto the edge of the street. He reviewed safety concerns the committee wanted to address including: fencing the area off with bollards, making the square ADA accessible, and improving the slope of the square towards the train station. Lastly, he stated that the committee wanted to maintain an open view of the train station and make the square a gathering place for the public. Mr. Cahalan showed the Council different views of the proposed conceptual design. He stated that the diameter of the planter would be decreased to 16 feet to allow more movement in the area. As well, he explained that pavers would be installed up to the train station and that conversation tables and seating areas would be added to the square. Mr. Cahalan reviewed the proposed materials for the project included plant choice, bollard and bench styles and the paver options. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the decision to extend the pavers to the train station. Mr. Cahalan stated that the end of the pavers aligns with the edge of the building to give the square a finished feel. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern over the cost of the project. He stated that while he understood the need to finish off the Burlingame Avenue project, he is not convinced that this will be a meeting area, as it is surrounded by parking lots and Caltrain. Accordingly, he stated to save money the pavers should end at the edge of the square and not continue to the train station. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he liked that the planter would be smaller and asked that the flag pole be moved as it impedes the view of the train station. Councilmember Colson stated that she was also concerned with the cost of the project. She stated that she would like to see the project scaled back a bit and for developers in the area to assist in funding the project. She added that she felt it was important to address the ADA and safety concerns of the square as BHS students use the intersection to get back and forth to school. Councilmember Beach confirmed that the total project cost is $615,715. Mr. Cahalan replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 5 Councilmember Beach asked if the committee discussed lessons learned about the pavers used on Burlingame Avenue. DPW Murtuza replied that he would have reservations about using the same pavers and would prefer to use something else. Councilmember Beach asked if Council approved the conceptual design, would funding be triggered for the project. P&R Director Glomstad stated that Council’s approval tonight would signify that they like the design and if money is allocated for the project, this is what the money would fund. Councilmember Beach stated that in FY2016-17, $200,000 was allocated for the project. Therefore, she asked if Council approved the conceptual design would more of the $200,000 be spent before Council reviews whether to fund the project. P&R Director Glomstad stated it would be beneficial to get construction documents to at least 50% so that the actual cost is known. City Manager Goldman stated that more of the funds would be spent to address Council’s design critiques. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned about using the Burlingame Avenue pavers on this project. She stated that the square is a high trafficked area and that she would like to see the City use pavers that are durable and low maintenance. Councilmember Keighran thanked the committee for working on the conceptual design. She stated that the design is great but that the cost is too high. She concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that the flag pole should be moved so that it doesn’t obstruct the view of the train station. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Russ Cohen spoke about the fixed seating in the design. He stated that the City should consider seating and tables that aren’t fixed so that the area could be used for a variety of events. As well, he suggested continuing the pavers into the parking lot and asked for more lighting for the train station. Jennifer Pfaff discussed her approval of the project and the lengthy discussion the committee had on the pavers. Councilmember Colson asked DPW Murtuza if it was really $550 a linear foot to pour precast concrete. DPW Murtuza stated that he had not reviewed these numbers. Mr. Cahalan stated that this number was based on averages in the area and costs that he has incurred in the past. Mayor Ortiz asked about the movable seating that Russ Cohen discussed. Mr. Cahalan stated that he thought it was a good idea. Mayor Ortiz asked about lighting the areas under the train station alcoves. Mr. Cahalan stated that this was Caltrain property. Mayor Ortiz asked about the cost of moving the flag pole. Mr. Cahalan stated he didn’t have an estimate but that it would be more than a $1,000 less than $10,000. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 6 Councilmember Beach explained that she liked the design and the community space it created. As well, she liked Russ Cohen’s idea of portable seating. She discussed her support for putting in bollards and lighting if these are immediate issues. Councilmember Beach stated that the project is expensive and she hopes that developers will assist with funding for the project. She explained that Council has to review and prioritize the number of infrastructure needs the City currently has including City building and street repairs and affordable housing. She stated that she saw this project as a beautification project and wanted to see projects of this nature put on pause until the City prioritizes the goals that arose during the Annual Goal Setting Session. Councilmember Keighran stated that it was a great design. However, she stated that the timing of the project is off and that it is a high price to pay when there are a lot of other priorities. She explained that if this project is something the community wants then it is an opportunity to fundraise for it. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for the conceptual design and asked if the project could be split into phases. She stated that she would like to see the City pay for the safety and ADA improvements and look to community members to raise the rest. Mayor Ortiz stated that it is a marquee area of town that feels unfinished and he believes it needs to be completed. However, he stated that it needed to be scaled down. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the project felt like a “nice to have” not a “have to have” project. He stated that the Council should review beautification project priorities during the budget session in the spring. From there, the Council can determine how much the City can give for these projects. Councilmember Beach discussed the beautification projects the Council recently discussed including: public art honoring Anson Burlingame, welcome pillars and the Burlingame Square project. She agreed with the Vice Mayor that the Council should discuss and prioritize these projects. Councilmember Beach asked what the harm would be in approving the conceptual design now and not moving forward with the construction or funding of the project. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he believed there was a consensus that $615,715 was too much. Therefore, his concern was that if the project stopped, then in 5 months or 14 months you would still be left with a project that cost $615,715. Instead he asked that staff divide the project into phases with a breakdown of costs that Council could review during the spring budget session. Mayor Ortiz asked staff to create a phased approach. DPW Murtuza stated that staff is revising the list of capital improvement projects and would be presenting that to the Council during the spring budget session. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern that the City still needs to fund projects outside of the CIP list. City Manager Goldman stated that the CIP list spends a lot of money on “bread and butter” projects that are Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 7 rapidly increasing. She stated that it is important to be cognizant of projects that need to be done for safety and risk management purposes versus the “nice to have” projects. City Attorney Kane stated that to be clear what she was hearing was that the Council did approve of the project with some minor design alterations. However, the Council did not want to fund the project at the moment because of its cost but would be open to outside partnerships. She stated that what the Council wants to see from staff is not only phasing but value engineering so that some alternatives are presented. Council agreed with City Attorney Kane’s assessment. b. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR FLOOD- RELATED DAMAGE REPAIR CDD Meeker presented the staff report requesting Council direction on waiver of building permit fees for flood-related damage repair. CDD Meeker began by stating that Burlingame and Northern California as a whole have experienced a large number of powerful storms during January and February of 2017. He stated that on January 20th, a storm produced a localized rain and flooding event equivalent to at least a 500-year storm in parts of the City. Moreover, the event created flooding in certain areas that was outside of historical experience, meaning that residents were not able to anticipate or protect against the damage they incurred. CDD Meeker continued by stating that the City received requests to waive building permit fees for repairs made necessary by the flooding experienced in the January storm events. He explained that Building Department staff has been taking all measures to expedite flood-related repairs. However, staff does not have the authority to waive fees embodied in the Master Fee Schedule absent Council direction. CDD Meeker explained that staff doesn’t have a sense for what the cost of waiving permit fees would be but if approved staff would keep track of all building permit fee waivers and request an adjustment from the General Fund. He stated that staff suggests that all applications requesting a building permit fee waiver be made no later than April 1st. Councilmember Colson asked if this could be considered a “gift of public funds.” City Attorney Kane stated that the gift of public funds doctrine is sufficiently broad that if the Council finds that there is an immediate crisis that is inhibiting the well-being of the residents or that is having economic effects in the City, then this would not be a gift of public funds. She explained that staff would need to memorialize Council’s intent to waive permit fees and address the gift of public funds doctrine in a resolution. Councilmember Colson asked that because some claims are outstanding with ABAG, if the City would be able to later recapture the cost of the permit fees. City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s third party administrators have not made a final determination on the claims that were submitted. She stated that a way around this problem would be to ensure the permit fees are not included in claims. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Keighran asked if this would set a precedent for future “acts of God”. City Attorney Kane stated that it doesn’t set a legal precedent but it might set a precedent in the community for what to expect. Councilmember Keighran asked how many permits did staff believe would be pulled and what type of work would be done. CDD Meeker stated most likely individuals would apply for permits to replace drywall, and handle plumbing and electrical work. CDD Meeker stated that it is estimated that there are 38 properties within the flood zone that could be impacted and 8 outside the flood zone that had some damage. However, he explained that as of the meeting, staff had not received any permit applications. Councilmember Keighran stated that it sounds like most won’t be structural and therefore the permit fees will be at the lower end. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that is not known how many people would request this waiver. Councilmember Keighran asked if there was a way to put a dollar amount in the criteria. CDD Meeker stated that Council could phrase the waiver in different ways. He gave the example of the Council approving a waiver of 50% of an individual’s building permit fee for flood related damage. City Attorney Kane gave the example of Council approving a waiver of the first $200 of applicants permit fees. Councilmember Beach asked to confirm that the City doesn’t make any profit off of building permit fees but rather it is the cost of processing that permit. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any past precedent in Burlingame of waiving building permit fees or if it is a common municipal practice. CDD Meeker replied that he didn’t believe Burlingame previously waived fees. Councilmember Beach asked about the earthquake 20 years ago. DPW Murtuza stated that after the earthquake, residential structures didn’t have any major issues and building permit fees were not waived. Councilmember Beach stated that she felt sympathetic for all homeowners that suffered damage but especially the 8 properties outside the flood zone. She asked to confirm that outside the flood zone, homeowners aren’t required to have flood insurance. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked if there was any sense what the deductible is on the insurance. DPW Murtuza stated that there is a $1,000 to $1,500 deductible. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked for a range of what kind of permit fees Council may be waiving. CDD Meeker stated he had not done that calculation. City Attorney Kane stated that one of the challenges for staff will be determining the scope of the permit that is submitted and that the work is flood related and not improvements. Mayor Ortiz asked how staff would do this. CDD Meeker stated that the building officials would be able to tell by the nature of the damage if it was caused by the flood and what it would cost to repair. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Brownrigg that Council’s discussion revealed the complexities of this issue. Therefore, he asked if it was good to cap the waiver at $500 per home. As well, he stated that Council should consider limiting the waiver to homes either in the flood zone or within 100 feet of a creek. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern over determining whether damage was flood or water damage. Additionally, he stated that leaving this up to staff discretion would put a large burden on staff. Councilmember Keighran asked what happens if there is a dispute between the staff and the homeowner about what caused the damage. City Attorney Kane recommended that there not be a right of appeal. Councilmember Colson asked if homeowners with flood damage could have their applications for building permits reviewed expeditiously. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. A Burlingame resident who lives on California Drive spoke about the damage to his residence. He asked for Council’s assistance and to extend the deadline if they approved the waiver of permit fees. Mayor Ortiz stated his support for waiving permit fees, explaining that while it would only be a small amount it would show support for community members who had suffered. Councilmember Beach stated that she was concerned about drawing the line between flood and water damage. She explained that she was concerned that the distinction would open up a can of worms. Councilmember Colson stated that she felt that the best way the City could help homeowners was to facilitate and expedite the permit processes. She stated that this would assist in calming homeowner concerns and getting them back into their houses. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that waiving permit fees was a community gesture. He stated he didn’t think it should be a catch all for everyone but focus on those properties that had flood damage. He stated he was in favor of a cap and extending the deadline till after April 1st. Councilmember Keighran asked for staff assistance on defining the criteria for waiving permit fees. She stated she doesn’t know what the cap should be as she doesn’t know what the range of fees would be. She asked if staff could provide Council with a range. CDD Meeker stated he would ask the building officials if this was possible. City Attorney Kane stated that one of the difficulties is that no one has filed for a permit yet, so it is hard to create a range for Council. Mayor Ortiz made a motion for a permit waiver with the following limitations: May 1st deadline, $500 cap and only flood related damage. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 10 CDD Meeker stated that the Council might also consider phrasing the waiver as either a $500 credit or a certain percentage whichever is greater. Councilmember Beach stated that the Council is proposing to subsidize some residents who have had storm damages through public dollars. She stated that while it may be a worthy subsidy it is a subsidy. She stated that the Council should consider this and that using a percentage seemed more fair to her. Council discussed different approaches and whether to go with a percentage or a capped waiver. City Manager Goldman stated that the Council was wrestling with this idea of being fair but that there is nothing fair about people having their lives turned upside down because of storm damage. She stated that anyway Council slices it some people are going to come off better than others. Councilmember Colson asked about Mayor Ortiz’s limit of flood related damages only. She asked about the example of a tree in the creek that is flooded and as a result the tree hits the house. She asked if this would be included. City Attorney Kane stated that it sounds like what the Mayor was trying to get at was “flood related water damage to a habitable structure.” Mayor Ortiz agreed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he was happy with that definition and staff discretion. Mayor Ortiz made a motion that May 1st is the deadline to file your application for a building permit fee waiver, $500 cap, and that the wavier would only apply to flood related water damage to a habitable structure. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked for habitable to be removed. Therefore the motion was amended that May 1st is the deadline for homeowners to file for a permit fee waiver, $500 cap, and that the waiver only applies to flood related water damage to a structure and that there are no appeal rights of staff’s decision. Vice Mayor Brownrigg seconded. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. City Attorney Kane stated that staff would bring this back in a resolution form to Council at the next meeting. However, she added that if an individual applies for a permit between now and then and meets the qualifications they will receive the waiver. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. Burlingame City Council February 21, 2017 Approved Minutes 11 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 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 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk