HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.09.19
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on September 19, 2016
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 Anne Hinckle.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. MAYOR’S CUP SILICON VALLEY TURKEY TROT
Sarah Qureshi, a Senior Associate with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, discussed the annual Silicon
Valley Turkey Trot. She stated that those interested can register at www.svturkeytrot.com. This year money
raised will be donated to Healthier Kids Foundation Santa Clara County, Housing Trust Silicon Valley,
Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa
Cruz County and The Health Trust.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
2
b. BUSINESS LANDSCAPE AWARD
Beautification Commission Member Anne Hinckle presented the 9th annual Beautification Business
Landscape Award to Dave Richanbach, and his tenant Mondi Hair Salon. Dale Perkins, a beloved local
artist presented the winner with a pen and water color rendering of his property. Thanks Dale and
congratulations to Dave Richanbach and Mondi Hair Salon.
c. CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE AWARD
San Francisco Bay Area Chief of CHP Paul Fontana discussed the California Law Enforcement Challenge.
He explained that the challenge is a competition between similar size and type of law enforcement agencies
for the best traffic safety programs in California. The competition focuses on an agency’s efforts in occupant
protection, impaired driving, and speed awareness, as well as a traffic safety issue unique to the agency’s
jurisdiction.
Chief Fontana discussed Burlingame Police Department’s success in the challenge over the past few years.
He stated that this year Burlingame won 2nd place for all agencies in California with 1 to 50 sworn officers,
and the City won the special award for speed awareness which focuses not only on enforcement but also on
educational programs.
Mayor Keighran thanked the Burlingame Police Department for their hardwork and asked that the awards be
mentioned in the e-newsletter.
d. CAROLAN AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
Public Works Program Manager Augustine Chou presented the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets
Improvement Project. He discussed the project’s development background. He stated that from December,
2010 to May, 2012 staff met with the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, BPAC and the community to
review the project, needs of the community and gather potential design ideas. In December, 2012, the City
applied for an OBAG grant to fund the project. In June, 2013 the City was granted a $986,000 grant from
OBAG for the project. Staff then held two public outreach meetings to present their ideas and to obtain
feedback from the community. After the second meeting staff fine-tuned the project and presented an
updated version to the TSPC in April, 2015 and then after receiving TSPC’s feedback presented the current
version in June, 2016.
Next, PW Program Manager Chou explained the key design criteria for the project including; creating a safe
“road diet,” not increasing roadway traffic congestion on Carolan Avenue, creating a dedicated bicycle lane
and safe transition and access points for bicycles, lowering traffic speeds, improving crosswalks at
intersections, improving visual aesthetics of Carolan Avenue and improving the roadway surface through
pavement resurfacing.
Mr. Chou explained that based on public feedback and preliminary design discussions with BPAC, the
design team arrived at a preferred design. The preferred design contains travel lane reduction from 4 to 2
lanes, bulb-outs on the side streets, bicycle lanes with green striping for enhanced visibility, extended
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
3
southbound right-turn pocket at Oak Grove Avenue and an added southbound left-turn pocket at Oak Grove
Avenue. As well, he stated that the estimated cost for the project is $1.4 million. Accordingly, the project
will be paid through the use of the OBAG grant and from the City’s streets resurfacing funds.
John Pulliam from Kimley Horn and Associates (the consultants hired for the project) stated that the goals
for the design selection were to provide a complete streets improvement by offering safer bicycle, pedestrian
and vehicle usage. He explained that currently Carolan Avenue is a 4-lane roadway with no dedicated bike
lanes, parking on both sides and roadway pavement issues. Mr. Pulliam explained that under the proposal
Carolan Avenue will become a 2-lane roadway with center left-turn lane and dedicated bike lanes with a 3’
striped bike safety buffer zone against moving traffic. As well, the parking lane will be 9 feet wide to reduce
“dooring incidents.” There will also be new pedestrian sidewalk safety lighting at Morrell, new ADA curb
ramps at all intersections, landscaped bulb-outs at corners/intersections, new bicycle detector loops at
Broadway signal and a completely resurfaced street.
Mr. Pulliam showed the design layout of the proposed Carolan Avenue project from three different
directions: Broadway to Cadillac Way, Larkspur Drive to Morrell Avenue and Park Avenue to Oak Grove
Avenue.
Mr. Pulliam reviewed the next steps of the project stating that the City would need to submit the design to
Caltrans for their approval. Once Caltrans approves of the project, the funds will be released and staff is
targeting construction to begin in March, 2017. He stated that it is estimated that once construction begins it
will take 3-4 months to finish.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the Morrell crossing bulb-out and asked if there were any thoughts on putting
a bulb-out on both sides to ease pedestrian crossing. Mr. Pulliam stated in working within the City’s budget,
the consultants designed the project in a way where the City can come in later and make improvements as
small projects.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about what route was envisioned for bicyclists at the ends of the Carolan Avenue
Project. PW Program Manager Chou explained that the project grant had limits and so the City had to stay
within these limits. However, staff is working on creating a safe passage for bicyclists.
Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated that staff started with the goal of the project and the
reminder that this wasn’t just a cycling project it was a complete streets project. Councilmember Beach
asked if there was a discussion of putting in class 1 bicycle lanes (a more protected lane that is fenced in).
Mr. Chou stated that it was one of the first concepts. However, the more this idea was discussed, the more
issues arose, such as the PG&E electrical poles that would need to be put underground. Therefore, as the
discussion continued it was determined that the costs were too high and would not allow for a complete
streets project. Accordingly, staff felt that the proposed design would help create not only better bike safety
but also pedestrian and automobile.
Councilmember Beach asked for Mr. Pulliam to discuss the width of the automobile lanes. He explained that
the existing lanes are 12-14 feet wide while the proposed lanes are 11 feet wide. He stated that research has
shown that narrowing lanes to 11 feet slows traffic. As well, he stated that buses from mirror to mirror are
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
4
10.5 feet wide and therefore, staff settled on 11 feet wide lanes to ensure that buses could safely travel in
their own lanes.
Mayor Keighran stated that the bicycle lanes in the proposed design are 5-8 feet and asked what the average
width of bicycle lanes are in surrounding cities. Mr. Pulliam stated that 4-5 feet is the standard but many
cities are moving towards wider bike lanes and buffers to ensure the safety of bicyclists.
Councilmember Colson asked about the Summerhill project schedule and if the City had contacted
Summerhill. PW Program Manager Chou stated staff discussed the construction of Summerhill with Elaine
Breeze who let the City know the project would be done prior to the expected March start date of the Carolan
Avenue construction.
Councilmember Colson stated that the City might want to consider a parking permit program for Burlingame
High School students in this area. DPW Murtuza stated that this is currently under review.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the City wasn’t painting the entire bike lane green. Mr. Pulliam
stated that there are two reasons; (1) budget; and (2) maintenance. He also stated that municipalities are still
experimenting with what the right material is to paint the lane.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that staff should do a car count after Summerhill construction is completed
to see if there are any increases in traffic.
Mayor Keighran asked if the future Broadway Grade Separation would affect the Carolan project. PW
Program Manager Chou replied in the negative.
Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Manito Velasco asked for more public outreach on this project and discussed issues he
saw with the bike lane include having to share the bike lanes with drains.
Burlingame resident Ross Bruce stated his support for the project.
Another speaker discussed his concern about the painting for the bike lane and whether or not it would
diminish the traction between the bike and the road. He also discussed the bulb-outs and the issues that the
bulb-outs caused in Belmont with emergency vehicles.
Mayor Keighran closed public comment.
PW Program Manager Chou responded to the public comments. He stated that emergency vehicles were
taken into account when designing the bulb-outs. As well, the green paint has been used in other cities and
has not diminished the traction for bicyclists.
Councilmember Beach stated her excitement for the project and the benefits it could have for the community.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
5
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ross Bruce, Molly, Peter, Steve Stluka and Theresa Aiello voiced their concerns and opposition to Measure
R discussing its potential negative effect on the rental and housing market for future generations, property
rights, and the funding of the Rental Housing Commission.
Kristen Parks stated her support for Measure R explaining that it was a benefit to the community, would help
stabilize rents for future generations and would still allow landlords to remove tenants from the property if
they were a nuisance. As well, she stated that the landlords and apartment building owners would pay the
operational costs of running the Rental Housing Commission.
Both sides discussed the fact that residents should read Measure R and become educated on the topic for
Election Day. More information about Measure R can be found at:
https://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=3608.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8b.
Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt 8a, 8c, 8d, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes September 6,
2016.
b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE
PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL; MAKING FINDS RELATIVE 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 PROPROSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT; AND APPROVAL OF
A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT; A FENCE EXCEPTION; A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP; AND A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION FOR
A PROPOSED ELEVEN (11) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TO BE LOCATED AT
1509 EL CAMINO REAL
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
6
CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Numbers 91-2016, 92-2016, 93-2016 and Ordinance 1929.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed that at the September 6, 2016 Public Hearing, neighbors of the
applicant’s property voiced concerns about the state of the creek. He stated that Council agreed that the
applicant would need to work on maintaining the creek and building up the creek bed. Councilmember
Brownrigg asked that this condition be added to the agreement. CD Planning Manager Gardiner replied in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson voiced her concern that the creek is Fish and Game jurisdiction and not under the
City’s control.
Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment.
Mr. Patrick Fellows voiced his concern about how they worded the applicant’s responsibility concerning the
creek. He asked that staff clearly define what they wanted.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated he wanted the language to be clear on repairing the creek that is on the
applicant’s property.
Mayor Keighran asked the City Attorney for appropriate language. City Attorney Kane stated that the
agreement could include the following: to the extent permitted by applicable agencies the applicant shall
undertake creek restoration work in the area of its control.
Councilmember Brownrigg moved to approve item 8b with City Attorney Kane’s amended language;
seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION HOURS
City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance 1930.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TERM OF A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIG FOR
PREPARATION OF A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, UPDATED ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Number 94-2016.
e. REJECTION OF ALL BIDS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO RE-BID THE TREE
PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL CONTRACT FOR FY 2016-2017 AND 2017-2018 –
CITY PROJECT #84800
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 95-2016.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
7
f. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR MEDICARE-
ELIGIBLE RETIREES
HR Loomis requested Council receive the informational report on Retiree Health Insurance for Medicare-
Eligible Retirees.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
Finance Director Augustine presented the staff report recommending that the City Council hold a public
hearing to consider any protests to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District
assessment and if the protests do not represent 50% of the majority of the assessments, adopt the resolution
approving and levying the 2016-17 assessments.
Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Keighran asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer if there were any protests. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
responded that there were two.
Mayor Keighran stated that the two protests were less than 50% and therefore the assessments could be
adopted for fiscal year 2016-17.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement
District assessments for fiscal year 2016-2017; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING GARBAGE CONTAINER
REMOVAL IN COMMERCIAL AREAS
City Attorney Kane presented the staff report recommending that the Council consider the introduction of an
ordinance to amend Section 8.16.040(k) of the Municipal Code to change the hours during which garbage
containers may be left curbside in the two downtown commercial zones (Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area and Broadway Commercial Area).
City Attorney Kane stated that currently the Municipal Code provides that “any containers placed for
collection along a street, roadway or alley shall be set out only on the day established for collection … and
shall not remain thereon for more than 18 hours.” She explained that the ability of business owners to leave
garbage containers on the street after they have been emptied resulted in several complaints.
Accordingly, the Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would require garbage containers to be
removed from streets and sidewalks by 1:00 p.m. in the two downtown commercial zones. City Attorney
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
8
Kane stated that a bright-lined rule is easier to enforce and that the code compliance officer would take into
consideration if collections were delayed.
Mayor Keighran stated that she saw the ordinance as a pilot program that would allow the City to monitor
the effectiveness of the bright-lined rule and if garbage pickups were happening in the morning. City
Attorney Kane stated that her office would be tracking garbage collection hours and that the proposed
ordinance gives the City an opportunity to work with the downtown area businesses on solving the issue.
Mayor Keighran had City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to read the title of the ordinance.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded
by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote 5-0.
Mayor Keighran opened the item for public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach hoped that this was help to create a dialogue between businesses on how to fix the
problem of garbage containers on the streets.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON MEASURE R, “AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT RENT
STABILIZATION AND JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION AND REPEAL PRIOR
RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGULATION OF SALE OR RENTAL PRICE OF REAL
ESTATE”
City Manager Goldman presented the staff report on the Informational Report on Measure R. She reviewed
the background stating that in July, 2016 the proponents submitted signatures to place a measure on the
November, 2016 ballot. The petition was reviewed by the County Elections Office and the City Clerk
certified the results of the petition on August 1, 2016. At the August 1, 2016 meeting the City Council called
for an election to place the measure on the November, 2016 ballot. She explained that Council asked that
staff prepare a report on the impacts of Measure R. Councilmembers provided staff with a number of
questions that it wished to have answered. In order to answer Council’s questions, staff hired Management
Partners, a local government consulting firm. City Manager Goldman explained that Management Partners
reviewed other cities’ rent control programs but that no other city’s program was the same as what is
proposed under Measure R.
City Attorney Kane reminded everyone that staff has to be rigidly neutral in how they approach this report as
pursuant to the Government Code city resources cannot be used to advocate for or against a measure.
Councilmember Beach asked if the terms rent control and rent stabilization could be used interchangeably.
Christine Butterfield, representing Management Partners, stated that because of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act
most rent control entities will tell you that they are in a rent stabilization environment because the act limited
the number of units that are eligible to be tracked and monitored.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
9
Councilmember Beach asked for clarification on what the staffing cost would be under Measure R. Ms.
Butterfield stated that Management Partners used existing rent stabilization programs (primarily in Northern
California) and from that created a cost range. She explained that what Management Partners undertook was
not a program cost analysis or a fee study analysis. Instead, they provided a range so that there is context for
the policy discussion. She explained that Management Partners selected Alameda, East Palo Alto and Santa
Rosa when creating the ranges. She stated that all three of the communities capture 100% of their program
cost through the program fee. In creating the range for Burlingame, the consultants took the average of the
fees for the three selected cities ($159 per rental unit) and reduced it by 15% and increased it by 15%.
Accordingly, the range in Burlingame per rental unit would be $135 to $182.
Councilmember Beach stated that the estimated range for Burlingame to run the program is $680,000 to
$915,000. Ms. Butterfield confirmed.
Councilmember Beach discussed the additional costs of getting the program started and the need for city
staff to work 1500 to 3100 on the program at the beginning. She asked if the $680,000 to $915,000 was an
annual estimated range of what the program would cost once fully functioning. Ms. Butterfield replied in the
affirmative.
Ms. Butterfield stated that code enforcement is not included in the cost of any of the rent stabilization
programs the consultants reviewed. Instead the operational costs that the consultants looked at were staffing
for the commissions, training, and public outreach.
Councilmember Beach asked if the necessary support from Finance, IT and other departments to the Rental
Housing Commission was included in the operational cost. Ms. Butterfield replied that it wasn’t. However,
she stated that in some of the cities the consultants reviewed, the cities would either charge an overhead fee
or direct costs for these expenditures.
Mayor Keighran asked if because the fee of $135 to $182 doesn’t include attorney fees, litigation reserve,
office space lease, office equipment, billable staff hours if that would get added on to the per rental unit
program fee. Ms. Butterfield replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Keighran stated that based on that clarification that the fee range of $135 to $182 is on the lower end.
Ms. Butterfield replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked that the consultant highlight a few of the initial costs to the program. Ms.
Butterfield stated that some of the initial costs would be training for the Rental Housing Commission to
execute their purview, rental of office space, software for property tracking and records management,
equipment supplies and litigation reserves.
Mayor Keighran asked about the litigation reserve of $500,000. City Attorney Kane stated that staff looked
at the potential exposure to the City and that she supplied this number to cover any possible litigation. She
stated that there was potential for litigation in two forms: (1) where the decisions of the hearing officers go
directly to the Courts; and (2) upfront facial challenges to the ordinance if Measure R passes.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
10
Councilmember Beach asked if the $500,000 litigation reserves would become fenced off funds and not
available for other projects. City Attorney Kane stated that this is correct; however she stated that it wouldn’t
be taken from another project as the City currently has reserves.
Councilmember Colson asked if the salary bases included benefits and pensions. Ms. Butterfield replied in
the affirmative.
Mayor Keighran stated that the proposed ordinance states that the City may seek a reimbursement for the
upfront costs of setting up the program. Mayor Keighran asked how this would work. Ms. Butterfield
explained that the City’s existing processes as it relates to departments and commissions asking for budgets
would stay in place for the Rental Housing Commission.
Mayor Keighran stated that usually when the City is establishing a budget, the Council will ask questions
and the budget will change. However, in this scenario it’s a commission and therefore she wasn’t sure if the
process was different. City Attorney Kane stated that things like this would have to be worked out if the
measure passes. She further explained that it doesn’t mean that staff wouldn’t be able to take direction from
existing practices as long as it doesn’t conflict with the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked what the practice is in other cities for commissions to set their own budget. Ms.
Butterfield stated that only Santa Monica has a specific process for the rental board to establish their budget.
In the other communities the commission’s recommendations for their budget go to the City Council.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked staff and the consultants for their work on the report. However, he
stated that he disagreed with Management Partners assertion that the Rental Housing Commission would be
an integral part of the City government. He explained that under the proposed ordinance it states that the
commission shall exercise its duties and powers independent of the City except upon request of the
commission. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that to him that language was a rejection of the voter’s
ability to oversee an expense item.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City had rules on condo conversion. Planning Manager Gardiner
replied in the affirmative and stated that there are strict standards for an individual to overcome to convert an
apartment to a condo.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that a majority of the City’s buildings were built before 1995 accordingly
most of the City residential buildings will be held to the ordinance.
Mayor Keighran stated that in respect to Councilmember Brownrigg’s concern about integration versus
independence of the Rental Housing Commission, that there is a portion of the ordinance that states if a court
or the legislature finds a portion of the ordinance invalid, then the Commission not the Council will create
replacement ordinances. City Attorney Kane stated if the ordinance passes and once the Commission is
operational, an ordinance cannot exceed the authority that the City is granted by the State Constitution for
general law cities. Accordingly, while there may be a power for the Commission to undertake its own
revisions it has to be consistent with general law. Therefore the question of oversight and advice that the
City gives the commission if it needs to rewrite law is something that will need to be navigated.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
11
Mayor Keighran asked the consultants how long it takes for a city to implement the program. Ms.
Butterfield stated that it really depends on the program. However, she explained that in looking at the City
of Santa Rosa (City Council approved rent stabilization program) it seems that there program will be
operational in 4-6 months. She noted that Santa Rosa did not have a commission overseeing the program
and stated the more complex the program is the longer it would take to implement.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked the consultant after reviewing different cities’ programs if the programs created a lot
of legal issues. Ms. Butterfield stated that the more complex programs were implemented earlier and faced
several challenges in their early days.
Councilmember Colson asked why San Francisco was not included in the report. Ms. Butterfield stated it
was not included because the resources related to performance measurements (public information
documents, rent tracking) were very accessible from other cities. As well, the consultants looked at cities
that were more similar in size and whose programs were implemented more recently.
Mayor Keighran asked if the cities the consultants reviewed had just cause eviction for single-family homes.
Ms. Butterfield stated that she would need to get back to the Mayor on that question.
Mayor Keighran stated that 18% of single-family homes are rented out and asked if that is yearly leases or
month to month. Planning Manager Gardiner said this is from the census and therefore self-identified data
so they can’t determine if it is month to month or yearly.
Mayor Keighran gave the example of an individual going on vacation for a month and renting out their
single-family home. She asked if just cause eviction becomes a factor because the individual has rented out
the home for longer than 14 days. City Attorney Kane stated that there is a focus on the very short term
rental versus the longer stay with what protections would attach. She stated she didn’t want to hypothesize at
this time what would occur.
Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment.
Jeremy R. and Erik Winkler voiced opposition to Measure R stating their concerns that the program does not
create affordable housing, applies just cause eviction to single-family homes and what the City’s liability
may be if the measure passes.
Adela Meadows discussed the fact that the report shows that the commission will be funded by the landlords
and not funded by the City.
Peter asked if Measure T is repealed if another ballot measure could be proposed to restrict the sales price of
single-family homes. City Attorney Kane stated that the ordinance on its face appears to repeal all of
Measure T but the basis of the ordinance is about rentals.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
12
Cynthia Cornell discussed the City Council’s ballot measure argument and her concerns about the argument.
She asked that the City Council reconsider their position now that the informational report has been
presented.
Theresa Aiello asked that the informational report be amended to include San Francisco data as its program
had been running for a long time.
Kristen Parks discussed her support for the report and discussed the importance of the independence of the
commission.
Alyssa Johnson stated her concern that the proposed ordinance would invite lawsuits and asked how the City
would pay for the legal fees of these lawsuits. City Attorney Kane stated that litigation costs may be passed
through as part of the annual per unit program fee. However, she stated that ultimately the City is the
defendant so there may be situations where the City becomes responsible for the costs. She discussed her
experience in East Palo Alto where there was a concerted multi-year attack on the rent control ordinance that
was funded through the general fund as the rental fee was being used to cover the ongoing operations of the
commission.
Tom Hornblower discussed the renters in the community and the issues they are facing.
Sandra discussed the cost of funding the Rental Housing Commission and that the cost would be recoverable
by the program fee collected from landlords.
An anonymous speaker asked about renting a room out in a house and if after 14 days just cause eviction
would apply. City Attorney Kane advised him to consult with an attorney.
An anonymous speaker discussed the need to protect renters and asked that Council use the report to take a
neutral stance in the matter.
An anonymous speaker discussed her experience working as a landlord for over 30 years and her concern
that renters are mischaracterizing what is going on in the community.
An anonymous speaker discussed his concern about the approach the report took regarding inconsistencies
and ambiguities of the ordinance and stated that the report was limited in scope and flawed.
Robert B. spoke about his concern that property values will drop if the measure passes and how that will
affect the budgets of police, fire and schools.
Amin discussed the impact rent was having on teachers and how teachers were unable to live in the area.
Mayor Keighran closed public comment.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
13
Mayor Keighran discussed how commissions traditionally work in Burlingame. She stated that currently,
commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. City Attorney Kane agreed stating that virtually
every decision except for a few Planning Commission decisions can be brought to the Council.
Mayor Keighran asked how people would appeal decisions of the proposed Rental Housing Commission.
City Attorney Kane stated that the decisions wouldn’t be appealable to the City Council but instead would be
brought to court.
Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that the fact that the report was used by both sides tells him it was a well done
neutral report.
Councilmember Colson stressed the importance of having a dialogue and creating solutions to the issue of
affordable housing for purchase and lease in the community. Accordingly, she voiced her disappointment
that at the General Plan Update meeting held on Wednesday, September 7th, that although Council spent 80%
of their time discussing where they would build 1500-2000 housing units, that there were very few people in
the room for that discussion. She stated that bringing in additional housing is how the Council is going to
help solve affordable housing for the community. She thanked the people that did come to the meeting and
hoped that the next meeting would have a better attendance.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was disappointed that San Francisco wasn’t included in the report.
However, she thought the report gave the community more facts to inform their decision on Election Day.
Councilmember Beach thanked the community for coming out to the meeting. She encouraged the
community to read the informational report and the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Beach discussed the fact that some thought the report confirmed that the ordinance wouldn’t
decrease housing stock. However, she stated in looking at the report, it showed that in Santa Monica, units
were withdrawn from the rental market. Ms. Butterfield confirmed by stating that since the inception of the
Santa Monica rent control program 2,700 units were withdrawn, but 700 returned.
Councilmember Beach discussed her concern that the program may diminish the quality of the housing
stock. She pointed to the section of the informational report that discusses that in Santa Monica there is an
aggressive enforcement of code compliance in rental units. However, she stated that the report doesn’t cover
if landlords invest in the maintenance of their units.
Councilmember Beach discussed the idea that the Rental Housing Commission taxes the public. She stated
that in her opinion the annual per unit program fee could be seen as a tax.
Councilmember Beach invited members of the public to contact her if they wanted to discuss Measure R and
her concerns with the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the community for coming out to discuss this issue. He discussed the
argument that the Councilmembers submitted against Measure R. He stated that the petitioners handed in
their proposed ordinance in the final hours and as a result this informational report could not be done prior to
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
14
both sides writing their arguments. However, he stated he still would have written the same argument after
reading the report.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that while he doesn’t think Measure T was well written, the proposed
ordinance overreaches and gives the Rental Housing Commission too much power. He stated that there is no
limit on what the budget for the commission may be, as there is no clear understanding of how much
litigation the City may face if the proposed ordinance passes.
Councilmember Brownrigg acknowledged the housing problem in Burlingame. However he stated that this
wasn’t the right measure to solve the problem.
Mayor Keighran stated that the report showed how ambiguous the ordinance is. She stated that she would
have liked to see San Francisco, a city that has a history of rent control, in the report.
Mayor Keighran discussed whether rent control measures have an impact on a City’s housing supply. She
stated that the report mentions that Berkeley and East Palo Alto implemented condominium conversion
ordinances. She stated that this would not have happened if the City wasn’t worrying about a decrease in
housing supply.
Mayor Keighran stated that under the proposed ordinance if a landlord takes repossession of a unit, they need
to pay the tenant three times the market rate. She asked how the market rate is determined and who
determines the market rate. City Attorney Kane stated this is one of the things that the Rental Housing
Commission once appointed would set based presumptively on averages. She added that the Rental Housing
Commission would need to articulate the basis for their conclusions in order to avoid being called arbitrary.
Mayor Keighran thanked everyone for attending the meeting. She also encouraged the public to get more
involved and informed on the affordable housing projects that the City is working towards.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION –
AUGUST 11, 2016
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m. in memory of Dean Patenaude.
Burlingame City Council September 19, 2016
Approved Minutes
15
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk