Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2017.01.17 Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on January 17, 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 the Youth Advisory Committee. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. HOME FOR ALL SAN MATEO COUNTY INITIATIVE San Mateo County Sustainability Program Manager Jessica Mullin gave a presentation to Council on the Home for All Initiative in San Mateo County. In reviewing the need for the initiative, she stated that from 2010 to 2014 the County added approximately 54,600 jobs and 2,100 units of housing. Therefore, the County has a significant gap between housing and jobs. She added that this problem is heightened by the fact that 75% of the land in San Mateo County is preserved for open space and agriculture. As well, more than 2/3rds of the current housing stock is single Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 2 family homes. She stated that all of this has resulted in increased housing prices and congestion in the County. Ms. Mullin stated that the housing-job gap has created issues for businesses. She stated that businesses are having issues with recruitment and retention as housing costs increase. Ms. Mullin stated that as a result of the growing concern over housing in San Mateo County, the Board of Supervisors asked for a Housing Study Session in March, 2015. She stated that from this meeting, the Board called for the convening of a Jobs-Housing Gap Task Force. The purpose of the task force was to bring community leaders together to: 1) learn about the challenges created by the current housing market; 2) work together to develop a menu of “solutions”; and 3) commit to taking action. Ms. Mullin explained that from the Jobs-Housing Gap Task Force the Home for All Initiative was developed. The mission of the initiative is to “establish a climate in San Mateo County where a diversity of housing is produced and preserved.” The vision is a “future where everyone in San Mateo County has an affordable home” and with the outcome that “San Mateo County will be a culturally, generationally and economically diverse community with housing for all.” She explained that the initiative proposes to achieve these goals through four key work groups that will look at: 1) Outreach and Education; 2) Funding – maximizing funding for development and preservation of all types of housing; 3) Legislation and Policy – developing and promoting policies and sponsoring legislation that promotes the development of housing; and 4) Mobility – expanding the aspects of the current transportation system to better serve residents of new and existing housing. In discussing the Home for All Initiative Action Plan she stated that there are four key areas: 1) Building partnerships and community support by having cities and towns adopt the Home for All resolutions, meeting with stakeholders and reaching out to local businesses 2) Funding affordable housing through partnerships, Measure A, state and federal legislation and the Affordable Rental Housing Preservation Fund 3) Supporting all types of housing development by facilitating community meetings for proposed development projects and including information on the Home for All website 4) Securing land and strengthening community infrastructure Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked Ms. Mullin for the presentation. He stated that Burlingame is updating the General Plan and is considering opening up land for housing development. However, he stated that this decision would be significantly jeopardized if the Governor imposes his by-right legislation. He stated that he believed the by-right legislation would have a freezing effect on land that cities had for housing. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Ms. Mullin to discuss the Affordable Rental Housing Preservation Fund. Ms. Mullin stated that it is a ten million dollar fund and that its goal is to acquire and preserve the affordability of existing multi-family buildings within the County that are rented at below-market rates and not currently subject to rent restrictions. She added that ten million dollars goes very quickly. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 3 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought this was a great approach but that it was about 50 times underfunded. He stated that the County might be able to create a private sector funded vehicle that would underwrite the acquisition of units by nonprofit developers thereby assuring their affordability. Additionally, he stated that the County should work with the State to create incentives for the seller such as remitting property taxes or capital gains. Councilmember Keighran asked Ms. Mullin to explain where the $63 million is coming from for the funding commitments. Ms. Mullin stated that it comes from a variety of sources including Measure A, funds the County received from the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, boomerang funds and funds from other organizations. Councilmember Keighran asked if Measure K will make an additional $30 million available for funding commitments. Ms. Mullin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson talked about the Home for All meetings and the amount of time and money that the County is giving to this issue. She thanked Ms. Mullin for coming and asked the County to make regular progress reports to the community. Councilmember Beach thanked Ms. Mullin and complimented the County on the website. Mayor Ortiz thanked Ms. Mullin and stated he looked forward to working together to find regional solutions. b. LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN City Librarian McCulley gave a presentation on the Library Strategic Plan. He thanked staff, trustees and the Library Foundation for helping bring this plan to fruition. He shared the timeline of creating the strategic plan, stating that it took 8 months and consisted of meetings, focus groups, gathering data and reviewing survey answers. He stated that under the strategic plan, the Library developed a new vision, mission and five key areas for staff to focus on over the course of the next three years. He stated that when the Library was conducting its survey it went out into the community to gather answers. He stated that the Library asked the community: “What is it that the community needs to make it a better place.” He explained that the question didn’t focus on asking the community what services they wanted from the Library. Rather, the Library asked broader questions in order to better understand the needs of the community. He stated that the Library’s vision statement is: “An incubator for sharing information, imagination and innovation.” He explained he wanted the vision to be something that staff could discuss with patrons. Next he reviewed the Library’s mission statement which is: “Burlingame Public Library. Awaken your curiosity. Spark your creativity. Strengthen your connections.” He stated that the mission answers the question: how to reach their vision. City Librarian McCulley stated that the five goals the Library came up with are: Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 4 1) Provide engaging, customized experiences 2) Build inclusive community connections 3) Foster a wide range of literacy and life skills 4) Listen to our community and share our stories 5) Enable our staff members to thrive, grow and be deeply engaged in realizing our vision and mission. He explained that these five goals were the result of survey responses and discussion amongst staff, trustees and foundation members. Councilmember Colson thanked the Library for the large number of programs the Library offers the youth. She asked how long and how much money did the Library raise during their Capital Campaign. City Librarian McCulley stated that the Library Foundation raised one million dollars in 2.5 years. Councilmember Beach stated that she loved the culture of continuous improvement at the Library. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pointed out that as a community, Burlingame spends more for library services per capita than others in the County and he stated that the Council is grateful for the Town of Hillsborough who helps pay for the Burlingame Libraries. Councilmember Keighran commended the Library for all the work they have done and thanked them for their innovation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Parks and Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (“YAC”). She reviewed the mission of YAC and stated that most members of YAC will acquire 120 hours of volunteer service within the school year! YAC representatives discussed the events that they had completed in the previous quarter including: representing the City at the YAC social; assisting in the tree lighting; and participating in the toy drive. YAC representatives discussed upcoming events including the Senior Valentines Dance, the Princess Project, the Royal dance and their annual Mission Impastable event. The Council thanked YAC members: Emily Williams, Nicole Chan, Christopher Yu, Aastha Adhikari, Leona Gomez, Bronwyn Miguel, Taylor Abbey, Edie Arteaga, Ben Matthews, Josie Licavoli, Lauren Shannon, Vivian Yuen and Kaia Stannard-Stockton for all their hard work. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Burlingame resident Cindy Cornell asked to pull item 8f. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 8e; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Councilmember Beach noted her dissent on item 8b. Therefore items 8a, 8c, 8d and 8e were Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 5 approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. Item 8b was approved by voice vote; 4-1 (Councilmember Beach voted against). a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 3, 2017 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 3, 2017. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND ESTABLISH A ‘TWO-HOUR PARKING’ RESTRICTION FROM 2:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, ON CAROLAN AVENUE FROM NORTH LANE TO OAK GROVE AVENUE DPW Murtuza asked Council to adopt Ordinance 1938. The motion to adopt Ordinance 1938 was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Beach voted against). c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM R-4 (HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CAR (CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM R-4 INCENTIVE DISTRICT TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE MIXED USE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS RELATVE TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RELATED TO A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND ALL LAND USE APPLICATIONS RELATED TO A PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT; AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A NEW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY AT AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 85 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CDD Meeker asked Council to adopt Ordinance 1936, Resolution Number 6-2017, Resolution Number 7- 2017 and Resolution Number 8-2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21 – HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 21 – HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING PROVISIONS DEFINING “ADAPTIVE RE-USE” AND OUTLINING PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 6 CDD Meeker asked Council to adopt Ordinance 1937 and Resolution Number 9-2017. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION COMMITTING THE CITY TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE COUNTY TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS ON A REGIONAL BASIS, INCLUDING THROUGH ONGOING SUPPORT OF THE HOME FOR ALL SAN MATEO COUNTY INITATIVE City Manager Goldman asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 10-2017. f. REVIEW OF THE 2015 AND 2016 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR) ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CDD Meeker asked Council to accept the 2015 and 2016 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and authorize its transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Burlingame resident Cindy Cornell voiced concern that the progress report stated that Trousdale Assisted Living Facility would have ten below market rate units. However, she explained that at a City Council meeting the developer testified that they couldn’t guarantee until the building was open if there would be any below market rate units. As well, she stated that below market rates were not affordable housing. Lastly, she asked what the current status was on developing Lots F&N into affordable housing. CDD Meeker stated he would follow up with Ms. Cornell on her questions. Councilmember Colson discussed the fact that she had corresponded with CDD Meeker about projects the City was working on with the County and whether it should be included in the progress report. She stated that CDD Meeker had informed her it would be referenced in next year’s Housing Element Progress Report. Councilmember Beach asked to see that list of projects. CDD Meeker stated he would send it. . Councilmember Keighran asked if the report incorporated the Summerhill Project. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson made a motion to accept the 2015 and 2016 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and authorize its transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25, CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 7 RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852 RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS This item was addressed after 10a. A majority of the public was here for item 10a: “Management of the Golf Center Site” so it was moved up on the agenda. CDD Meeker presented the staff report on the proposed ordinance that would amend Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Secondary Dwelling Unit Regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852 related to accessory dwelling units. CDD Meeker stated that on September 27, 2016, Governor Brown signed into law AB 2299 and SB 1069. These two pieces of legislation amended Government Code Section 65852.2, the regulations for accessory dwelling units. The amendments are intended to streamline housing production in the face of the State’s ongoing housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to construct an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) associated with a single family dwelling. CDD Meeker continued by explaining that revisions to State law became effective on January 1, 2017 and that local jurisdictions are required to comply with the new requirements, which supersede local ordinances. Additionally, jurisdictions are required to provide a copy of the new ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days of adoption. He continued by adding that at the December 12, 2016 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as proposed. CDD Meeker stated that in summary the proposed ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing secondary dwelling unit regulations to ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new State regulations. He explained that under the proposed ordinance in compliance with state law, parking requirements are waived for ADUs for the following reasons: are within ½ mile of a major transit stop; if part of the existing main residence or an existing residential accessory structure was intended for human habitation; if its located within one block of a car share vehicle; and when on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. CDD Meeker stated that under the proposed ordinance there is no longer an occupancy restriction on number of residents. As well, the proposed ordinance requires the City to give either a ministerial approval or denial within 120 days of an individual’s request for an ADU. CDD Meeker stated that pursuant to the Burlingame Zoning Regulations, the square footage for an ADU is still counted towards the lot coverage and floor area allowed for the subject property by the underlying zoning district. CDD Meeker stated that the Council would be seeing Building and Fire Code amendments proposed in the near future concerning ADUs and the recent legislation. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Keighran asked about the occupancy restriction of two individuals. CDD Meeker stated that he believed that must be in the fire code as the zoning code doesn’t include occupancy restrictions. Councilmember Keighran asked if someone wanted to build an ADU if they would still need to remain in the FAR allowance. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked about converting a garage. CDD Meeker stated it wasn’t impossible but that it would be difficult. Councilmember Keighran asked if basements could be converted to ADUs. CDD Meeker stated that he believed they couldn’t as bedrooms under the code couldn’t be in basements. He stated staff may need to look at modifications. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern that if an individual can’t build above a garage or convert a basement into an ADU, that under the current average lot size in Burlingame there is nowhere to put an ADU. He stated he didn’t believe this was in the spirit of the law. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the requirement that parking surfaces drain to the public street. He thought that the City should change its drainage rules so that if you could handle it on your own property you did. Vice Mayor Brownrigg and CDD Meeker discussed converting a garage into an ADU or building an ADU over a garage. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the requirement that a property owner has to live on site if they have an ADU. CDD Meeker stated that this requirement existed prior to the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Colson asked about the number of lots in the City that are over 6,000 square feet. CDD Meeker stated he would have to get back to the Councilmember on this number. Councilmember Colson stated that what this might lead to is a discussion about Airbnb. City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed ordinance was drafted with the notion of preserving as much of Council’s current policies given the new state law. Therefore, it doesn’t advance any new policies the Council is grappling with concerning affordable housing. She stated that the question tonight is should the City introduce the proposed ordinance as is and have the Council discuss policy later or should Council wait and do it all at once. Mayor Ortiz stated that a policy discussion could be had at a later date, but that from what he understood, staff was amending the code to meet the bare minimum requirements of the State’s new legislation. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. 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 Colson. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-1 (Vice Mayor Brownrigg voted against). Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Ortiz opened the hearing for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach stated that the issues Vice Mayor Brownrigg brought up were important and welcomed a thorough policy discussion as soon as possible. Councilmember Colson made a motion to bring the proposed ordinance back at the next meeting; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-1 (Vice Mayor Brownrigg voted against). 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. MANAGEMENT OF THE GOLF CENTER SITE This item was moved up on the agenda because it represented a majority of the public’s interest. Accordingly, this item was addressed after the Consent Calendar but prior to Public Hearings. Before the staff report was presented, Councilmember Keighran recused herself, due to the fact that she is employed by a San Mateo County Supervisor and one of the proposals incorporates the County partnering with the City of Burlingame and/or contributing financially. Councilmember Keighran left the Council Chambers for this item. City Manager Goldman presented the staff report on the Management of the Golf Center Site. She began by explaining that in June 2016, staff asked Council if they wanted to issue a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the lease management of the Golf Center Site. The RFP indicated that the City would not provide any financial commitment. As well, it indicated that operators of the site were required to provide a minimum annual guaranteed rent and depending on the business model, a percentage from gross revenues. The RFP was issued on October 12, 2016 and the City received three responses by the deadline from: Mid- Peninsula Ice Rink Foundation (“MIRF”), US Badminton Center Group (“USBC”) and Topgolf International (“Topgolf”). City Manager Goldman explained that a committee comprised of Councilmember Colson, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Dito, City Manager Goldman, Finance Director Augustine, Public Works Director Murtuza and Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the proposals and recommended that all groups be invited to present their proposals in person. On December 4, 2016 the group minus City Manager Goldman met with each group to learn more about their proposals and ask clarifying questions. Next, City Manager Goldman went through each proposal and explained that attached to the staff report is a matrix that compares and contrasts each proposal. She stated that MIRF wants to build two new indoor ice rinks with supporting services including locker/restrooms, restaurant, pro shop and a meeting space. She explained that this would be on the existing parking lot, short range game area and golf bays at the Golf Center Site. City Manager Goldman stated that Exhibit B in the staff report shows how MIRF proposes to use the Golf Center Site. She stated that the Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 10 design leaves a significant portion of the driving range untouched and under maintenance of the City. MIRF proposal offers a variety of programming for all ages including figure skating, hockey, broomball, curling, adaptive ice sports, leagues and tournaments. She continued by explaining that MIRF is a 501c(3) nonprofit public benefit corporation and would work in conjunction with a private operator – Sharks Ice, LLC, an affiliate of the San Jose Sharks. She stated that as of the time that MIRF submitted their proposal they did not have an agreement in place with Sharks Ice LLC. She stated that San Jose Sharks operates ice rinks in San Jose, Oakland and Fremont. She explained staff had talked with Oakland about how the ice rink was operating and the partnership with Sharks Ice LLC. City Manager Goldman stated that currently MIRF had not secured the funds needed for the project, but that MIRF anticipates financing construction through a combination of donations from local government entities (the City of San Mateo and the County of San Mateo) and the general public, plus a bank loan from a commercial bank. She explained that at this point neither the City of San Mateo nor the County of San Mateo have formally considered whether they would be giving any funding to this proposal. In lieu of paying fixed rent to the City of Burlingame, MIRF proposes negotiating a profit-sharing agreement with the various public stakeholders in which the stakeholders would receive a share of net profit after all other expenses are paid. That was what was in MIRF’s original proposal however she stated she understood that they had since modified their proposal. City Manager Goldman next reviewed USBC’s proposal. She stated that their proposal includes building a facility that would contain 20-50 badminton courts, a 10,000-20,000 square foot Wellness Center, an outdoor training facility, a food court, a pro shop and supporting spaces. As well, they would maintain 20-25 golf bays. The facility would be built on the existing parking lot and the short game and driving range area. City Manager Goldman stated that Exhibit C in the staff report shows how USBC proposes to use the Golf Center Site. The facility would offer memberships and drop-in options for a variety of badminton and health/fitness programs for all ages including yoga, senior fitness, personal training, massage therapy, sports leagues, tournaments, and youth camps. In USBC’s proposal the funding for the project will be capitalized by USBC. USBC would directly operate the facility and proposes an annual lease payment of $80,000, plus 5% on annual revenue in excess of $2.5 million. Lastly, City Manager Goldman reviewed Topgolf’s proposal. She stated that their proposal includes building a 65,000 square foot LEED Silver certified facility with 102 hitting bays, 3,000 square feet of event space, a full-service restaurant and bar, a rooftop terrace, pool tables, shuffle board, and supporting areas. The facility would be built on the existing Golf Center site as is displayed in Exhibit D. Topgolf would offer general entertainment, food and music, golf lessons for all ages, summer camps, tournaments, and leagues. For funding, Topgolf would draw on its partners, line of credit, and corporate financial resources to finance the project. Topgolf would directly operate the facility, and it proposes an annual lease payment of at least $500,000 per year. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 11 City Manager Goldman stated that the committee looked at whether they could combine more than one proposal on the site. However, it is a constrained site and there is not sufficient space to combine the proposals. City Manager Goldman discussed the landfill clay cap. She stated that any excavation on the site and/or structural foundations will very likely impact the clay cap and the subsurface systems, requiring mitigations and future maintenance costs for the operator. City Manager Goldman explained that the committee that handled the interviews looked at several criteria when evaluating the proposals: 1) proven and sustainable business model; 2) community benefit and the broadest public market served; 3) use of the golf center land for development with minimal impact on the remaining site; 4) economic impact – capital investment, quality jobs, payroll, sales taxes, and transit occupancy taxes; 5) financial contribution to the City – lease terms, financial model viability; 6) developer/operator financial presentation – capital structure and debt; 7) experience developing and operating similar projects; 8) green construction and business practices; and 9) ability to begin timely negotiations and start the planning/entitlement process. City Manager Goldman stated that Exhibit E in the staff report is a comparison chart that contains the City’s analysis of the three proposals. She stated that the committee did an unbiased thorough review of the three proposals. She stated staff recommends that the City move forward with Topgolf. She explained that the staff report contains a list of reasons why Topgolf was chosen. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for questions from the Council. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the prevailing wind direction was at the Golf Center Site. P&R Director Glomstad stated the wind comes from the west. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues if they believed that the Council would be making a decision on this matter tonight. Mayor Ortiz and Councilmember Colson stated that they would like to get to a decision tonight. Councilmember Beach stated that she would like to see how the item unfolds. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he didn’t believe a decision would be made tonight. Councilmember Beach asked if the City investigated using this site for additional sports fields. P&R Director Glomstad stated that in 2015 the Recreation Commission explored options for additional field usage. She explained that they looked ad adding soccer fields and baseball diamonds at Murray Field. However, she stated that staff was told it would cost $17-22 million depending on the parking configuration. She discussed the reasons for this including the slope of the land, the cost to flatten out the land and the implications of the clay caps. Councilmember Beach asked if the developer that is awarded the lease would take over full maintenance of the land and what responsibility would the City still have for the Golf Center Site. DPW Murtuza explained that the Golf Center Site was formerly a landfill. He stated that any development on this site that requires regrading or excavation would alter the conditions of the landfill site. Therefore, it would require reconstruction and as a result the developer would have to meet several requirements to safeguard the Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 12 community and user groups from the potential exposure of volatile gases. Accordingly, the developer would need to monitor the site. Additionally, City Attorney Kane stated that legally the City remains responsible for the landfill. She explained that while any developer making changes would need to make the City whole for the increased costs, the City needs to maintain concurrent access to the site and that the City remains on the hook with the State. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how staff calculated that all three proposals required 500 parking spots. P&R Director Glomstad replied that the way they estimated parking was by seeing what else could they fit on the Golf Center Site with any of the proposals. CDD Meeker stated that once a proposal is chosen they would further review the specific parking needs of the project. Councilmember Colson asked if there were any restrictions on how the revenues the City obtained from leasing the Golf Center Site could be used. City Attorney Kane stated that the only requirement is that the funds must be used for a public purpose. Councilmember Colson explained that Sharks Ice LLC is a for-profit corporation and worked with the City of Oakland on their ice rink. She asked what the profit was at the Oakland rink. P&R Director Glomstad stated that she spoke with staff in Oakland and that they reported that this past year the program had a net profit of one million dollars. Councilmember Colson asked if that profit goes to Sharks Ice LLC. P&R Director Glomstad stated that the net profit is split between the different partners. Councilmember Colson asked if there was any debt service on the ice rink in Oakland or if it is owned free and clear. P&R Director Glomstad stated that she would have to get back to the Council on that question. Councilmember Colson asked how much the City had in deferred maintenance on City facilities. DPW Murtuza replied that the City had approximately $100 million dollar infrastructure backlog. Mayor Ortiz asked for each applicant to give a five minute presentation on their proposal. Topgolf representative Devin Charhon spoke about their proposal. He discussed the many different activities that a person can enjoy and participate in at Topgolf including the hitting bays, corporate events and restaurants. He discussed their community impact stating that they are a hospitality company that is committed to being a good neighbor. He said they partner with local middle schools and high schools and allow golf teams to play for free at their facilities. Councilmember Beach stated that Burlingame is a residential community with a growing number of young families and asked Mr. Charhon to explain how Topgolf would benefit young families. He stated that Topgolf believes it’s providing an out of home experience that regardless of age or skill level, the community will enjoy. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 13 Councilmember Beach asked if Mr. Charhon could explain the catchment area for Topgolf. Mr. Charhon stated that they look at a 25 minute radius around the site. Vice Mayor Brownrigg began by stating that all three applications would benefit the City of Burlingame. He stated his concern for the long-run nature of Topgolf and worried that it was a fad. He asked about Topgolf’s challenges in Fairfax Virginia. Mr. Charon stated that it was Topgolf’s first location in the US and that it was a retrofit of an existing driving range. He stated they no longer do retrofits and that when Topgolf opened the Fairfax location they were still figuring out their business model. He explained that from that experience, Topgolf made a lot of changes in order to ensure that they are a good neighbor. Councilmember Colson asked about the current litigation Topgolf is involved in. Mr. Charhon stated that he is not handling that project but that Topgolf is working with the development group and the community to better understand the issues. Councilmember Colson asked Mr. Charhon to talk about the company’s green and sustainability efforts. Mr. Charhon stated that all of the company’s buildings are done to a LEED Silver standard. Councilmember Colson asked in the event that the lease is up in twenty years, would Topgolf work with the City to decommission the site. Mr. Charhon replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if Topgolf had leased land from cities in the past. Mr. Charhon replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked about the jobs that Topgolf would produce. Mr. Charhon stated that typically it is in excess of 450 jobs and that they hire locally. USBC representative Solomon Tsai discussed their proposal. He stated that they would be utilizing the existing parking lot to build an indoor facility that would have indoor badminton courts, a wellness center and a restaurant. Mr. Tsai stated that they are not running USBC to make a profit but rather because they think good health and wellness is necessary. Councilmember Beach asked if USBC would be a membership based club. Mr. Tsai stated that it would be but that it would also open to drop-ins. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was concerned with the “sponginess” of the proposal as the size of the building and the number of courts were variable. Mr. Tsai stated that it depended on how many parking spots the City determined were necessary. As well, he explained that by the time he heard about the RFP he had less than 30 days to put together his proposal. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how USBC would finance the project. He stated that he and his partners had working business partnerships in the Bay Area for the past 40 years. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how much the project would cost. Mr. Tsai stated between $8-15 million. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 14 Councilmember Colson asked USBC to describe who their clientele were and what the community benefit would be. Mr. Tsai stated that clientele would be anyone from very young to very old. Mr. Billy Yeh from USBC stated that their mission is to train individuals to compete in the Olympics and put Burlingame on the map for badminton. MIRF representative Ray Miolla discussed that after hearing the input and questions during the original RFP presentations, they revised their proposal to address the City’s concerns. He stated MIRF was offering $250,000 in a fixed annual rent plus a percentage of profits. He explained that in terms of financing, the lynch pin is the availability of up to $8 million in seed money from the City of San Mateo. He asked that the City delay making a final decision until the Council has more time to review MIRF’s revised proposal and until the City of San Mateo and the County of San Mateo have made a decision on if they will help fund the ice rink. Sharks Sports Entertainment Vice President Jon Gustafzon discussed the passion of the community to create an ice rink. He stated that Sharks Ice LLC manages SAP Center for San Jose Sharks and other facilities in the Bay Area. MIRF representative Tim Hennessey stated that MIRF understands that nearly 40% of the City’s budget is from TOT. However, in his experience managing and owning hotels, he believes the ice rink proposal will positively impact weekend occupancy at Burlingame hotels. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about profit for the ice rink and the concern that ice rinks run out of money. Mr. Gustafzon stated that they operate three facilities in the Bay Area that are all profitable. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked how confident MIRF is that Burlingame would be a profitable market. Mr. Gustafzon stated that with two local facilities having recently closed he is very confident that there is a market for an ice rink in Burlingame. Vice Mayor Brownrigg spoke about the belief that ice rinks are really just for hockey players and asked MIRF representatives to explain how this is not true. Mr. Gustafzon stated that it is really a recreational facility that offers a variety of options. He discussed how their three Bay Area rinks are at capacity all day with leagues, ice skating and curling among other activities. Councilmember Beach asked what is different about this rink from the two facilities that recently closed. Mr. Gustafzon stated that this rink would have two sheets while the other rinks only had one. This would double revenue. Councilmember Beach confirmed the history of the Oakland ice rink and how Sharks Ice LLC stepped in to help the City of Oakland run the rink in 2007-8 after the developer defaulted on an $11 million loan to the city. She asked when the Oakland ice rink started seeing a profit. Mr. Gustafzon stated that for the past three years, the Oakland ice rink had seen a profit of about one million dollars. Councilmember Beach asked if Oakland was able to put its entire portion of the profit into the general fund or if some of its share had to be used for rink maintenance. Mr. Gustafzon stated that the City can choose to put funds back into the rink. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if is Sharks Ice LLC’s responsibility to handle any depreciation or maintenance requirements at the Oakland facility. Mr. Gustafzon replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 15 Councilmember Beach asked about major capital improvements. Mr. Gustafzon stated that the City funds major capital improvements to the rink by using their share of the profits. The Sharks also contribute to capital reserves. Councilmember Colson asked how much the rink will cost to build. Mr. Miolla stated it depended on the clay caps and the quality of the soil. However, he stated that MIRF estimated the cost of the rink to be in the range of $16 to $20 million. Councilmember Colson discussed the funding behind the MIRF proposal and asked if MIRF had a commitment from the County. She noted that San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine was in the audience and asked if he would like to answer these questions. San Mateo County Supervisor Pine stated that he was in favor of the ice rink. He stated that the City should take more time to consider the proposal and the regional importance of the facility. He explained that he would be going to the Board of Supervisors to request funding. He stated that each supervisor has funds that are earmarked for projects in their own district. However, he stated he couldn’t make a promise of the size of the contribution. Councilmember Colson asked Supervisor Pine if there was a range of what funding the County would be giving MIRF to build the ice rink. Supervisor Pine stated that he couldn’t make any promises. He stated that each Supervisor has one million dollars to allocate to projects in their district pending Board approval. Councilmember Colson asked why the County doesn’t look at County land to use for an ice rink. Supervisor Pine stated that Supervisor Groom has worked with MIRF to look at sites but that it was his sense that the sites weren’t available. Councilmember Colson and Supervisor Pine discussed potential locations in other cities for an ice rink. Councilmember Colson asked MIRF to review the funding for the ice rink. Mr. Miolla stated that the sources of funds begin with the City of San Mateo and County of San Mateo. As well, he stated that MIRF met with a professional fundraiser who told them they can raise a minimum of $4 million over a short period of time. He stated that they also talked with a large number of banks to obtain a loan of $8-10 million. Councilmember Colson asked if the other rinks were owned free and clear. Mr. Gustafzon stated that San Jose has debt on their rink. Councilmember Colson asked who is responsible for debt service payments if the project ends up being unsustainable. City Attorney Kane stated that this is something that would need to be negotiated. Mayor Ortiz reviewed the funding for MIRF’s proposal and his concern that MIRF may not be able to fund the project. With no further questions, Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Due to the time, he asked that children and parents of children, who were present, go first in order that they are able to get home early. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 16 The following students discussed their support for the ice rink: Taylor Bezoza, James Lee, Reece Hamilton, Josh Swire, Annie Conway, William Friedman and Lawrence Viola. They all discussed their participation in various ice-recreational activities including ice skating and hockey. They asked the Council to consider the fact that the ice rinks in the area had shut down and now they have to travel to Redwood City or Cupertino to practice and that these ice-rinks were overcrowded. The following parents of the students spoke in favor of the ice rink: Jennifer Bezoza, Dan Conway, Sarah Hamilton, Eileen Conway, Bridget Storm, Lawrence Viola and Todd Friedman. They discussed the community of families that participate in ice-related sports and the belief that a rink would be a benefit both fiscally and recreationally to the community. As well they asked Council not to make a decision tonight but instead to give the potential developers more time to answer Council’s questions. Irby Morvant, Clifton Clark, Anne LeClair and Jim Ensign, hospitality experts and boardmembers, spoke in favor of Topgolf. They acknowledged the benefits of all three proposals, however they discussed the fact that the Topgolf proposal was the most fiscally responsible choice. They stated that Topgolf was family- centric and would benefit the City’s budget by assisting with TOT. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that currently the Burlingame hotels are running at 85-90% occupancy and asked Ms. LeClair how much more business could the hotels squeeze in. Ms. LeClair talked about the different periods of time when hotels are busy. As well she stated that the San Mateo County Silicon Valley Convention Bureau had done formal research about what the perceived weaknesses are for Burlingame hotels and that it is the lack of entertainment. Kevin Yeh spoke in favor of the USBC proposal stating that it helps build community, health, communication and understanding of different cultures. Sarah Feldman, Rolf Haag, Brian Baum, Thomas Weissmiller, Litton Chen, Regan Fletcher, Michael Swire, Daryl Thomas, Isako Hoshirio, Jeremy Verba, Chris O’Neill, Matthew Machlis, Alize Mansell, Spencer Post, Jean Sternke, Len Rosenduft, Matthew Wolfe, Lucia Lachmayr, and Jason Sole all spoke in favor of the ice rink. They listed various reasons for their support including: 1) growing up playing ice sports and the community that is created in ice sports; 2) the lack of ice rinks in the area; 3) the need for a recreational facility; 4) the belief that tournaments will keep the local hotels busy; 6) the belief that the ice rink community would be successful in a short amount of time fundraising for the rink; and 7) the desire to pass on their love of ice sports to future generations. As well, they asked Council to delay making a decision at the meeting until more information was received. Tom Salter, Alisa Ferrari, JoAnneh Nagler, Marshall Burgamy and former Councilmember John Root spoke in favor of Topgolf. They listed various reasons for their support including: 1) Topgolf would be utilized by a larger cross section of the community than an ice rink or badminton; 2) Topgolf has its financial backing in place; 3) the money made by entering into an agreement with Topgolf could be utilized for affordable housing; and 4) Council needs to think in terms of what is financially best for the community. San Mateo Councilmember Joe Goethals discussed the fact that the San Mateo City Council approved the creation of a subcommittee at their meeting that night, to work with Burlingame to discuss San Mateo’s Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 17 financial commitment to building an ice rink. He stated that Deputy Mayor Rick Bonilla and Councilmember Diane Papan asked to be on this subcommittee. Mayor Ortiz closed the public comment. Mayor Ortiz stated that he had concerns with the viability of the fundraising and finances for the ice rink. He explained that looking at the MIRF proposal from his banking perspective; he didn’t believe MIRF’s finances were in place. Mayor Ortiz stated that the finances of the Topgolf proposal were in place and that their proposal would provide impactful revenue to the City. Mayor Ortiz expressed his concern about the $100 million backlog of infrastructure needs and stated that the real question became what was the City and community willing to pay for. He stated that if the City chose the ice rink, the City would be walking away from a revenue stream and instead the City would need to turn to the taxpayers to pay for necessary infrastructure projects. As a result, Mayor Ortiz stated he was leaning towards Topgolf. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council and City are fiscally prudent, but that he didn’t believe the City should be driven by the incremental revenue differences of the proposals. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council should not make a decision on this matter tonight. He stated that he came to the meeting open-minded, but that with the input of the community, he believed that an ice rink or badminton center make more sense. However, he stated that it is reasonable to make sure an incoming group has the finances for the project. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the statement he found the most telling was from the Topgolf representative, that Topgolf doesn’t need public land to develop a new site. He stated that this is a dramatic difference from the other two proposals that can’t afford to buy private land. He stated that the City should lean into the nonprofit and more recreational use. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was intrigued by the idea of getting both the badminton and ice rink on the Golf Center Site and asked that this be explored. Councilmember Beach thanked the community for coming out and expressing their opinions. She stated that Supervisor Pine’s statement that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity resonated with her. She explained that because she has so many more questions she needs answered, she doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision tonight. She stated that the big challenges are that Togolf needs to sell their community benefit and more information is needed from MIRF to prove their financial viability. Therefore she said she wanted more time, formal presentations of the three RFPS and she wanted site visits to see the different options. Councilmember Beach stated that the City needed to stay centered on the question of what provides the best community benefit. She stated that she had talked to a lot of community members that discussed how they would enjoy an ice rink casually a few times a year. She explained the rink, however, serves a deep need for community members who have a passion for ice sports and are watching the rinks in the region disappear. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 18 Councilmember Beach stated that if one group was able to revise their numbers, then the Council should not make a decision until all groups had that opportunity. She stated that this was a difficult and complex issue and that the Council needed more time. She assured the community that the Council was taking this matter seriously and carefully reviewing the options. Councilmember Colson stated that all of the proposals from a recreational standpoint are fun and interesting. She discussed all the things that the City already did for the youth including over 100 programs at the recreation center. She explained all the infrastructure needs there were at the current fields. She talked about the city’s support of AYSO, Burlingame Schools and the programs at the library. She discussed the fact that she had been reviewing these proposals for the past four months and that her concern is to make sure that they create something that benefits the largest cross section of the community. Councilmember Colson stated that she didn’t want to create indebtedness as there was already $100 million backlog of infrastructure needs and an affordable housing problem. Councilmember Colson stated that with all that in consideration she was leaning towards Top Golf. Mayor Ortiz stated that what he was hearing is that the Council needed to defer their decision in order to collect more information. Councilmember Beach stated that she thought the City should have a study session on this matter with formal proposals from each group. City Manager Goldman stated that she would suggest a study session on a separate night from a regular Council meeting. She stated that she would poll the Council on availability. The Council agreed. Mayor Ortiz stated that the plan would be to set up a study session on its own night in the next sixty days. Councilmember Beach asked if they could have contact with the applicants. City Manager Goldman stated that if the Council has questions for the applicants they should be routed through the City Manager. She stated that she would make sure they are capturing everything and that it is organized. Councilmember Colson asked about visiting the sites. City Manager Goldman stated that they should go on their own. b. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON SB415, THE “CALIFORNIA VOTER PARTICIPATION RIGHTS ACT” Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 19 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed SB 415 and why the City needs to move their general elections to an even-year cycle. She outlined the six options to move city elections to an even-year cycle: 1) extend all Council terms by a year; 2) decrease all council terms by a year; 3) extend all Council terms by a year during election years; 4) decrease all Council terms by a year during election years; 5) extend all Council terms by seven months; or 6) any combination of the above. She stated that in reviewing the actions of other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, currently 15 cities and school districts have chosen to extend the terms of their current members by a year. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer discussed the fiscal impact of moving to an even-year election cycle. She stated that the City would see a decrease in costs as more jurisdictions moved to an even-year cycle. However, she stated it was hard to predict the costs for a 2017 election. She stated that in reviewing the costs of standalone elections, she looked at the 2014 Coastside Fire Protection District Recall Election that cost $167,869. She stated that if the Council held an election in 2017, with more and more jurisdictions not having an election, this is the likely cost. Councilmember Keighran asked why it is so expensive. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that instead of sharing costs with other jurisdictions because it was a standalone election, the Coastside Fire Protection District had to pay for all the associated election costs. Councilmember Beach asked if the City had an election in 2019, was it likely to be more expensive than the 2017 election. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz explained that he reviewed this situation, and stated he didn’t believe in cutting back terms as three years is too short. Therefore, he stated either Council needs to run for five year terms or extend their terms. Mayor Ortiz opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Kristen Parks spoke about her concern of representatives extending their terms without the approval of the voting public. Councilmember Colson reviewed the number of elections each option would result in. She stated the reduction of terms by a year would result in more elections and therefore more costs. Councilmember Colson stated she didn’t feel comfortable extending terms. She stated that she was elected for a four year term and stated that whatever decision they made should be done during an election year. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated he was in favor of Option 3. Burlingame City Council January 17, 2017 Approved Minutes 20 Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of Option 2 because she didn’t want to extend Council terms and felt that it was the most cost effective option. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was in favor of Option 3. She explained that Option 2 created an extra election which would result in the City paying more money. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for Option 3. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion in favor of Option 3; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. Council discussed the costs of each option and stressed the importance of allowing the public to vote people in to serve terms and not extending terms. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council decided to review their committees and activities reports at the next meeting because of the late hour. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Ortiz stated that ADU with on-street parking and short term leases would be discussed at a later date. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. DECEMBER 2016 PERMIT ACTIVITY 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 12:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk