Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.09.06 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 6, 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 Sandy Comaroto. 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 There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke about the 3 minute time limits on public comments at City Council meetings and asked if the Council would consider expanding the time as it is not prevented under the Brown Act. Burlingame resident Eileen Kim invited the community to attend the Citizens’ Environmental Council meeting on September 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in the Library’s Lane Room to garner new sustainability ideas. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2016 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes August 15, 2016. b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of opening up the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 1, 2016 “BAY DAY” Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 87-2016. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A $70,000 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE GRANT Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 88-2016. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 15-01), LOT COMBINATION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS NO. 97-044852 AND 97-044853 – PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO. 2 SUBDIVISION AT 601 ANSEL ROAD Director of Public Works Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 89-2016. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (HMP) Fire Chief Kammeyer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 90-2016. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM- Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT; A FENCE EXCEPTION; A TENATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP; AND A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION FOR A PROPOSED ELEVEN (11) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1509 EL CAMINO REAL The Council’s disclosure concerning contact with this project happened throughout the item. However, for purposes of simplification it is all being stated now. Councilmember Beach acknowledged that she lived within 1000 feet of the development but that she has no property or economic interest in the development. She also stated that she had received a phone call from a constituent, visited the lot and watched the Planning Commission meeting on this topic. Councilmember Colson stated that she hadn’t met with anyone on this matter but had walked the property. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he visited the lot and discussed the property with the neighbors years ago. Mayor Keighran stated that she received emails about the property and had watched the Planning Commission meetings concerning the property. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he had met periodically with neighbors and was a Planning Commissioner in 2007 when the project first came before the Commission. CDD Meeker presented the staff report concerning the proposed ordinance to rezone property from two- family residential (R-2) to multi-family residential (R-3) and consideration of a general plan amendment to designate property from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. He gave a brief background of the issue, explaining that this proposal is the result of a project on El Camino Real. The project consists of two adjacent lots. The primary lot is at 1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 and makes up 77% of the project site. The second lot is the adjacent lot, zoned R-2, makes up 23% of the project site and consists of a creek and an unkempt piece of property. He stated that the developer owns both lots and proposes to build a new three-story, 11 unit residential condominium, including 1 affordable unit, set back on both lots. Accordingly, for the developer’s project to move forward, the creek lot would need to first be rezoned from R-2 to R-3 and then annexed with the primary lot. Mr. Meeker reviewed the developer’s meetings with neighbors and the resulting changes the developer made to the proposed project. He stated that the developer’s proposal called for the removal of 1 protected sized cedar tree. However, it would be replaced with 10 24-inch box trees and 48 supplemental trees. As well, per the neighbors’ request, the developer was building a 10 foot tall fence along the rear property. Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot, featuring the creek, was a viable piece of property for future development if it was not combined with the R-3 lot. CDD Meeker responded in the negative. Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot was rezoned and combined with 1509 El Camino Real would the homeowners association for the development be responsible for taking care of the creek. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the lots were not combined would the owner of the creek lot be responsible for its maintenance and would the City be able to require the owner to maintain the creek. DPW Murtuza stated that the creek was the jurisdiction of Fish and Games. Accordingly, the City did not have the authority to require maintenance of the creek. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 Mayor Keighran asked if the preliminary title is correct in showing that both the R-3 and R-2 lots are owned by 1509 El Camino LLC. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked about the R-2 lot being landlocked and if the City had previously dealt with any similar situations. CDD Meeker replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City/other jurisdictions encouraged eliminating lots of this nature. Mr. Meeker stated that when a lot is landlocked, like the creek lot, it is a good idea to combine it with another lot so that it has utility and doesn’t become abandoned. Mayor Keighran asked if the lots are not combined what could be built on the primary lot (R-3). CDD Meeker stated that conceivably a mid-20 unit complex could be built on 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it is possible when combining lots to restrict the height of the building to the R-2 requirements. CDD Meeker stated that you cannot require the property to follow the restrictions of the R-2 zone it is rezoned an R-3. Mayor Keighran asked how tall a development can be in an R-3 zone. CDD Meeker stated that with a CUP, a development can have a maximum height of 55 feet. He stated that this project’s highest point is the tower at 44.5 feet. Mayor Keighran asked if when heading south on El Camino Real, if the other apartment buildings are subject to the 55 foot height limit. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to introduce the measure; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Mr. Pat Fellows representing the development spoke about the project. He explained that for the past 2-3 years he met several times with the neighbors to address their concerns. As a result of those meetings, he has reduced the height of the building, worked on the front façade and agreed to build the ten foot tall fence in the rear. He expressed his frustrations with the process. He stated that after these meetings he would then go the Planning Commission meetings and the neighbors would voice new issues they had with the development. He also explained the history of the two lots and why they were originally divided. Burlingame resident Samantha MacPhail discussed her concerns with the project: protecting the creek, loss of privacy, increased traffic and parking problems, and issues with the sewer system. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 Mayor Keighran asked if it is determined that an upgrade needs to be done to the sewer lines who is responsible for the upgrade. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer. Councilmember Brownrigg asked Ms. MacPhail if the residents considered going to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to request inclusion in the residential parking permit program to alleviate parking issues. Ms. MacPhail stated that they had gone to the TS&P Commission about this issue and that the Commission had not responded to their concern. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked Ms. MacPhail if currently, the residents had an issue with long term parking on their street. She replied in the affirmative. Burlingame resident Ann Wallach stated that the TS&P Commission informed them that there was resistance to the neighborhood being included in the residential parking permit program because of the cost. As well, Ms. Wallach discussed the issues her property suffered as a result of the creek not being maintained including the need to constantly repair the bank and use sandbags to protect her property from flooding. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht spoke about traffic and parking concerns that already existed in this neighborhood and how they would be heightened by the proposed development. Councilmember Brownrigg assured the neighbors that Council would do whatever it could to make sure Balboa could avail itself of a residential parking permit program – which would substantially reduce or eliminate nonresident overnight parking – provided that the appropriate majority of residents were in accord. Councilmember Beach asked about the traffic analysis that was conducted for the proposed development. In particular she asked about the metrics that were used to determine the amount of trips that the development would generate. CDD Meeker stated that Mark Spencer, a principal from W-Trans, the company responsible for the traffic analysis, was here and could answer these questions. Mr. Spencer stated that he used industry standard rates that are based on 100s of surveys. He stated that because these units are owned versus rentals, they generate fewer trips. He explained that owned units tends to remove situations like roommates and instead are more easily equated to single family homes. Accordingly he stated that he would expect the project to generate fewer trips than the current 11-unit rental apartment that is on the property. Burlingame resident Patricia Gray stated that she was against the demolition of the apartment building that is currently on the site because of the community’s growing need for affordable housing. Burlingame residents Yan Ma and Don Mitchell spoke against merging the two lots. Councilmember Beach asked how many parking spaces were included in the proposed development. CDD Meeker said there would be 28, 2 more than required. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni stated her concerns about the deed for the creek lot. Mr. Fellows was invited back up to speak. He discussed the developer’s intent to fix and maintain the creek. He expressed sympathy for those affected by the creek but stated that the developer had not wished to move forward with permits from Fish and Game to work on the creek prior to obtaining approval from the City on the proposed development. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 Mayor Keighran asked for clarification on how many trees would be added to the site. CDD Meeker stated that there would be 10 24-inch box trees, and 48 tree ferns along the south and west property lines. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the bocce ball court that was originally a part of the proposed development. Mr. Fellows explained that the neighbors were concerned about the noise that the court would generate so as a result it was removed from the proposal. Mayor Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Colson discussed that the critical issue before the Council was whether to rezone the creek lot to an R-3 lot and then combine the creek lot and 1509 El Camino Real. She stated she would prefer combining the lots because she felt that the homeowners association would maintain the creek, as it was in their best interests to keep it safe. She stated that she was concerned that if the lots weren’t combined, the creek would continue to be an issue for the neighbors and that the lot would remain abandoned. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson. He also addressed the neighbors’ concerns including: sewer lines, traffic, parking and privacy. He stated that the developer had worked with the neighbors to rectify their concerns. Therefore, he felt that the lot should be rezoned from an R-2 to an R-3 and combined with 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Beach discussed the need to stay focused on findings and facts instead of opinions and emotions. She stated that the findings of the traffic study and the several meetings at the Planning Commission show that the developer met the requirements to move forward with the project. She then addressed each concern stating that the developer was answering these concerns and also attempting to blend in with the community by planting trees and ensuring that the creek is maintained. She ended by stating that if this project didn’t move forward another project that is larger could meet all the standards set by the City and build at 1509 El Camino Real. Accordingly, she felt that the City should rezone the creek lot and combine it with 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the height of the building. He stated that only the tower reaches 44.5 feet but that a majority of the roof line is at 35 feet. He explained that this is the common height of a second floor in the area. He noted that the developer could build a four story building completely within Burlingame codes on the single lot and that in his view this would lead to a much greater breach of privacy and intrusion on the neighbors. In short, by combining the lots and allowing the developer to create a wider, shorter structure would lead to a much better and more compatible building for the neighborhood. Mayor Keighran discussed the 28 parking spots and stated that she didn’t believe there would be an increased parking problem because of the 11 units. She also discussed the school impact comparing it to a previous development unit where only a few additional students were added to the elementary school. Mayor Keighran asked that staff include language in the agreement concerning the care and maintenance of the trees that were planted on the property. She asked that the trees be checked on a yearly basis by an arborist to make sure they were healthy. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 Mayor Keighran stated that the Council was in agreement and with no further discussion thanked the community for voicing their concerns. She stated that the matter would be on the September 19, 2016 agenda for consideration of adoption of the ordinance to rezone the lot from R-2 to R-3. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION HOURS City Attorney Kane presented the staff report introducing a proposed ordinance that would restrict construction hours in the City. She stated that the proposed amendments to the City’s construction hours were the result of Council’s concerns about the resurgence of construction in the City. She stated that based on Council’s direction she drafted an ordinance that amended the ordinance in two sections: (1) weekday construction would begin at 8 a.m. instead of 7 a.m. and (2) construction would not be allowed on Sundays and holidays. Holidays would be defined as those included in Section 13.04.100 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Councilmember Beach discussed her concern about the affordable housing development the City was working towards and whether or not there would be exceptions to the City construction hours. CDD Meeker stated that under the ordinance, individuals, especially those with larger projects, were able to apply for exceptions. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame residents Pat Giorni and Russ Cohen voiced their support for the amendments. Mayor Keighran closed the public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg recommended that the item come back for adoption. Councilmember Colson asked when the ordinance would take effect. City Attorney Kane stated that if the ordinance is adopted at the next meeting it would take effect 30 days thereafter. Councilmember Beach advocated for patience and communication among neighbors, particularly for do-it- yourself homeowners. She cautioned that eliminating construction hours on Sundays and holidays would not eliminate all noise (for example power washing or constructing furniture) but is pleased this ordinance will eliminate commercial construction on those days. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) TO UPGRADE THE AGING POTABLE WATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WATER RATES Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 DPW Murtuza presented the staff report asking City Council for direction on options for funding the CIP to upgrade the aging Potable Water System infrastructure and associated water rates, and provide direction to staff. He gave a brief background stating that the City’s potable water system is 70 to 100 years old and needs to be upgraded in order to provide a reliable and high-quality drinking water supply to the community. He explained that currently, the City invests $2.5 million a year for CIP funding to improve the water system. However, he explained that there is still an $88 million backlog of CIP work. DPW Murtuza explained that at the study session on August 15th, Council discussed increasing the water rates in order to better fund the CIP. At the study session, Council asked staff to look into what the rates would be if they increased funding from $2.5 million to somewhere under the original CIP funding level of $4.5 million. Council wanted to ensure that staff had the resources to keep up with the projects that the additional funding would allow. Mr. Murtuza discussed a phase in option of $3.5 million in CIP funding over 5 five years. This would look like this: 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Phase in funding of $3.5 million $2.5M $2.75M $3.0M $3.0M $3.5M Water rate increase with phase in funding of $3.5 million 9.0% 7.5% 7.5% 4.0% 4.0% Mr. Murtuza discussed under Councilmember Brownrigg’s suggestion a new graph to compare monthly water utility expenses per capita. In this graph he compared Millbrae, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Belmont. He discussed the fact that Burlingame invests the most in CIP funding. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mr. Murtuza for this analysis. He stated that he believed the key element of the graph was that it shows that the City of Burlingame is running their system efficiently and although they are spending more it is because they are investing more. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the water cost. He explained that he had thought when the City buys water from SFPUC that the water’s cost is passed through to the citizens. However, he stated that it seemed there was a markup on the price of the water when it reached the citizens. DPW Murtuza stated that what they are charging the customer is what it costs to buy the water, transport the water, store the water and keep the water. Mayor Keighran explained that the Council’s decision today is whether or not they want to maintain the $2.5 million in CIP funding or phase in funding of $3.5 million in CIP. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 Councilmember Beach stated that although she’d prefer to see the infrastructure CIP investment maximized, she felt $3.5 million was a reasonable compromise and that it was a good investment. Councilmember Brownrigg made an argument for the City to be more aggressive. He discussed the increasing amount of clean water requirements, the age of the pipes and sea level rising. He stated that while it is never fun to raise rates, it is important that the City take this opportunity to investment more in a viable water infrastructure. He stated that the City should not drop water rates increases in 2019/20 from 7.5% to 4% and instead should remain at 7.5%. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated his support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Councilmember Beach asked if staff felt that $3.5 million was the right number or should it be increased to $4.5 million. DPW Murtuza stated that it is a Council policy decision. Councilmember Colson asked if staff was capable of splitting the bills instead of billing sewer and water together. DPW Murtuza stated that staff was looking into this and monthly billing. Councilmember Colson asked if the City charges rates and is not able to spend all the money collected could the City bank the funds for future use. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran and Councilmember Colson stated their support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Mayor Keighran asked if staff could include the new graph and the monthly sewer and water survey in the City’s monthly billing statements. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. 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 Councilmember Beach asked about City Council acknowledging veterans in the community on Veterans Day. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2016, LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES JUNE 21, 2016 b. AUGUST, 2016 PERMIT ACTIVITY 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk