Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.05.16 Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on May 16, 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 Bobbi Benson. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION The Council met in closed session but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION ON SAN MATEO COUNTY’S OWL VIEW PROJECT AT COYOTE POINT Michael Barber, from San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine’s office, gave a presentation on “OWL”. He stated that OWL is a visualization system that will be installed at Coyote Point to help understand sea level rising. He stated that the goal of the project is “to increase the sense of relevance and urgency around flooding from sea level rise and associated impacts as well as motivate stakeholders, the public and decision makers to engage in efforts to reduce risks locally.” Mr. Barber stated that the hope is that OWL will inspire action from key stakeholders and more deeply engage the public in conversation with decision makers about sea level rising. Mr. Barber stated that the OWLs would be installed in mid-late June. Council discussed the OWLs and thanked Mr. Barber for his presentation. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Bobbi Benson thanked Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad and the Parks and Recreation Department for their work at Mills Canyon. Burlingame resident Charles Voltz spoke about the high-speed rail meeting and encouraged the public to attend the next meeting. Burlingame resident Irvin Dawid discussed Bike to Work day and San Mateo’s launch of a bike share program. Burlingame resident Adele Dunnigan discussed her concern about train and pedestrian safety. 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 8e from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d and 8f; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2016 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2016. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT AND SECURE CALRECYCLE GRANT PAYMENTS Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 38-2016. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO MINERVA CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 84200, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 39-2016. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. FOR AGENDA MANAGEMENT AND VIDEO STREAMING SERVICES CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 40-2016. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY COMPANY DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 41-2016. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City require companies to include their sexual harassment policy/training when responding to RFPs. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 41-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. This motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RECONGIZE COUNCIL 57 OF AFSCME LOCAL 829 AS THE NEW BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BURLINGAME MIDDLE MANAGERS, FORMERLY RECOGNIZED AS THE BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE MANAGERS (BAMM) HR Loomis requested Council adopt Resolution Number 42-2016. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) RELATED TO COVERED PORCH FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) EXEMPTIONS At the beginning of this item, Councilmember Colson recused herself. She stated that she currently had a project undergoing review in Community Development that included a porch, and therefore she stated that it was best that she recuse herself from this public hearing. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staff report requesting Council to consider passing an Ordinance amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to covered porch floor area ratio (FAR) exemptions. He stated that currently new homes and additions to existing homes were able to exempt up to 100 square feet of floor area for covered porches which would otherwise be included in the total floor area for the house. The exemption exists to encourage homeowners to build front facing porches as a means of contributing to a positive relationship between the home and the neighborhood. He explained that the Planning Commissioners felt that the exemption was successful and proposed that Council amend the code to allow for an exemption of 200 square feet. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his support for the amendment. Mayor Keighran asked whether the Planning Commission’s focus for this amendment was on front porches. She stated that her concern was that the amendment did not specify where the porch needs to be located on the house. Mr. Gardiner explained that the Planning Commission had several discussions about wanting the exemption to apply to front porches, wrap-around porches and porches on corner lots. He stated that because Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 of this, the Planning Commission wanted to keep the language broad and that the Commission believed that they would intercept any issues through the design review process. Councilmember Beach stated her concern that the amendment would be used to increase the footprint of a house. Mr. Gardiner agreed. However, he stated that often in reviewing projects, the Planning Commission was encouraging/requiring applicants to install porches. He stated that this was a result of applicants putting more value on the inside of the house and not worrying about porches. Therefore, the Planning Commission wanted to create a larger incentive for individuals to build porches. Mayor Keighran asked the 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 Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote 4-0-1 (Councilmember Colson recused herself from this item). Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Keighran stated that she was concerned that while the intent was for porches on the front façade that people could potentially put the porch on the back of their houses. She stated that the City may want to consider revising the language to ensure that the 200 square foot exemption applied to the front façade of houses. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this was a good point and thought they should prohibit the exemption for porches on the back of lots. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated maybe the wording should be street facing elevations so as to include corner lots. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that it could be phrased that the exemption would apply to street facing porches and not rear facing porches. Mayor Keighran agreed with Mr. Gardiner’s proposal and asked the Council if they agreed. They did. Accordingly, she asked that Mr. Gardiner re-introduce this ordinance with the new incorporated language. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 Finance Director Augustine presented her staff report asking Council to approve Resolution Number 43- 2016 that would set the 2016-17 fiscal year assessments. Mayor Keighran opened up the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Keighran closed the public hearing and asked the City Clerk if any protests had been filed. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that no protests had been filed. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 43-2016; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING THE BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE DPW Murtuza presented his staff report regarding feasible alternatives for the Broadway Grade Separation Project. He gave a brief background stating that the Broadway corridor between U.S. Highway 101 and California Drive is heavily travelled and is the most congested roadway in Burlingame. He stated that with over 10,000 at-grade railroad crossings throughout the state, Burlingame’s Broadway at-grade railroad crossing was ranked as second priority overall, and number one priority for Northern California. Mr. Murtuza explained that in 2015, the City initiated a feasibility study, funded by the San Mateo County Measure A Program and handled by AECOM. As part of this process, the City held three public meetings, one meeting with the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission and two City Council meetings. As of the last City Council meeting staff narrowed their focus to two of the six design alternatives (Alternative A and Alternative B). Alternative A consists of partially lowering the roadway and raising the railroad tracks. Alternative B is the reverse, involving partially depressing the railroad tracks and raising the roadway. AECOM Project Manager Etty Mercurio briefly reviewed the purposes of the project: (1) improve traffic circulation and safety; (2) improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety; and (3) provide an opportunity for a gateway treatment. Next, Ms. Mercurio discussed the issues around the project. She explained that the geographical limits stating that the project was contained between the Millbrae and Burlingame Stations (north – south) and Highway 101 and the Downtown Broadway Commercial District (east – west). She stated that AECOM conducted a traffic study to show what the delays at this intersection would be like in 2040, with and without grade separation. Then she reviewed the safety benefits of grade separation in reducing the time it takes for fire and police to respond to emergencies. Ms. Mercurio discussed the two proposed alternatives. For both Alternative A and B she discussed the phases of the construction and took Council through the impacts of both the final product and the construction of each alternative. As well, she showed the Council 3D animations of both alternatives. These animations can be found at: https://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=3488. Mayor Keighran asked what happens with the Broadway Station in Alternative A. DPW Murtuza answered that the historic building would be preserved and moved. Ms. Mercurio stated that with both alternatives the Broadway Station had to be moved. Councilmember Beach asked under Alternative A if at the Broadway crossing if there was any additional fencing that was necessary because of the trains. Ms. Mercurio replied in the affirmative. However, she stated that it was less fencing than Alternative B would require. Mayor Keighran asked if the railing could be made out of any type of material. Ms. Mercurio stated that as long as it meets the load requirements it could be made out of any type of material. DPW Murtuza stated that the best example was Ralston Station. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 DPW Murtuza covered the pros and cons of Alternative A. He stated that the pros of Alternative A include: (1) improved safety; (2) improved traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation; (3) minimal impacts on adjacent properties and Broadway commercial district and auto dealerships; (4) minimal impact to trees; (5) no safety concern by running electric trains in a potential flooding situation; (6) faster contraction period and lesser construction related impacts; and (7) significantly less expensive than Alternative B ($250M vs. $415M). As far as cons for Alternative A, DPW Murtuza discussed the visual concerns due to a partially elevated track and slightly higher train noise than depressed tracks. For Alternative B, DPW Murtuza stated that the pros were: (1) improved safety; (2) improved traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation; and (4) no visual impact due to partially depressed railroad tracks. However, DPW Murtuza explained that there were many cons to Alternative B including: (1) major disruption to traffic during construction; (2) significant right of way impacts to nearby properties; (3) visual impacts from necessary safety fencing; (4) safety issues with high voltage lines that are lowered where they can be reachable; and (5) impact to trees. Next, DPW Murtuza discussed the community meetings that the City held on the two proposed options. He stated that staff received 25 comments cards with 20 in support of Alternative A, 2 in support of Alternative B and 3 were in favor of the No-Build Alternative. As well, the City received a petition from local Broadway businesses supporting Alternative A. DPW Murtuza stated that staff is now looking for Council’s input to see which alternative they prefer so that the study can be completed. Mr. Murtuza stated that the next phase would involve designing the project, conducting EIRs and then finally construction. However, he stated that currently, there was no funding for any of the next steps. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about Alternative B’s depression in comparison with the Bart tracks in San Bruno and Millbrae. He asked what problems were occurring if any as a result of depressing the tracks for Bart. Ms. Mercurio stated that Bart is having long term maintenance problems as a result of the trenching. She discussed that as a result of the trenching Bart was experiencing power outages and it had become necessary to hire full time staff to deal with ongoing maintenance issues at those locations. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how picking Alternative A would affect high-speed rail. Both DPW Murtuza and Ms. Mercurio discussed that at this point it was pure speculation how the Broadway Grade Separation would affect high-speed rail. Mr. Murtuza stated that the amount of traffic at existing intersections would determine whether the city was interested in grade separation. However, he stated that if high-speed rail is generated, whatever alternative the City picks will most likely be used for the other railway crossings in Burlingame. He stated that the City would have to undergo engineering and EIR studies to determine what is best for each intersection. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if he was correct in stating that if the Council chose Alternative A and high-speed rail came to fruition that the only option for the Oak Grove railway intersection would be to elevate the tracks. DPW Murtuza stated that Oak Grove hadn’t been studied so he couldn’t answer that question. However, he stated that Oak Grove is so close to the Broadway Grade Separation that he felt that whichever alternative was selected for Broadway would have to be selected for Oak Grove. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 Burlingame resident Ross Bruce voiced his support on behalf of Broadway Bid for Alternative A. Burlingame resident Charles Voltz discussed what he foresaw as the impacts on the other five intersections if Alternative A is chosen. Burlingame resident Irvin Dawid voiced his support for Alternative A and focused on the safety concerns that would be resolved as a result. Burlingame resident Michael Barber, Patrick Kilroy and former Mayor Rosalie O’Mahony voiced their support of Alternative A. Burlingame resident David Harris, Bobbi Benson and Garbis Bezdjian stated their support for Alternative A and stated that whatever option the Council chooses will set a precedent for high-speed rail. Burlingame resident Mike Harvey stated his concern that Alternative B was a lot more expensive than what was stated as it didn’t take into consideration the cost of the taking of commercial property and the loss of automobile tax revenues. Burlingame resident Adele Dunnigan voiced her concern that whichever alternative is chosen, the City should work on improving the safety of railroad crossings. Burlingame resident Gordon Foster asked under Alternative B who would pay for the necessary maintenance. DPW Murtuza stated that likely the City would be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs. Vice Mayor Ortiz voiced his support for Alternative A but stated that the City needed to be realistic about what would happen as a result of the Council’s decision at the other railway intersections in Burlingame if high-speed rail came to fruition. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed Alternative A is the more reasonable option, however she discussed the importance of taking into consideration the impact of their decision and the impact of high- speed rail. She went on to discuss how Alternative A could be made beautiful and workable. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for Alternative A. She stated that the City needed three things to get this done: (1) full Council approval; (2) Community support; and (3) a plan involving how it’s going to be paid for, what it would look like and how it would improve safety. Councilmember Brownrigg reminded Council that there is another option which is to leave the intersection alone. However, he stated that with this option, the community would be dealing with the continued growth of traffic congestion. He stated that he believed that Council’s decision would set a precedent for high-speed rail. Mayor Keighran voiced her opinion that she is against high-speed rail. However, she stated that as much as she doesn’t want an elevated rail, that it is important to consider safety. She stated that if the City does nothing, it will get worse. Accordingly, she stated that she supported Alternative A. DPW Murtuza stated that staff would take Council’s direction and move forward. He also stated that staff would be taking into consideration all the comments they received on design. Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY OF NOT TO EXCEED $19,500,00 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS TO REFUND BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2007; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS AND A BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCING WITH THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 44-2016. She presented a staff report recommending that the Council adopt the resolution to approve all actions relating to the refinancing of the 2007 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds. She reviewed the background of the bonds, stating that in 2007 they were issued at $25 million. She explained that currently the bonds are outstanding in the amount of $19,525,000 with interest rates ranging from 4% to 5%. The remaining principal currently matures from 2017 to 2031. The 2007 Bonds can be prepaid beginning April 1, 2017 at a call price of 100%. She stated that refinancing the 2007 Bonds can save the City $1.9 million over the course of the bonds. Councilmember Colson stated that what she appreciated about this is that unlike refinancing your home, this refinancing doesn’t require extending the length of payments for the bonds. Councilmember Brownrigg followed up and asked if this was the case for the all of the underlying bonds. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 44-2016; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. DISCUSSION OF ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS-METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MERGER Councilmember Brownrigg explained that the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) is funded by member dues and by a large ($3.9 million) annual grant from the Metropolitan Commission (“MTC”). He stated that recent friction over “Plan Bay Area” led to MTC threatening to withhold the annual grant unless ABAG cedes control of planning to MTC. Then in January, 2016, MTC and ABAG hired Management Partners to conduct a merger study to examine the policy, management, financial, and legal implications associated with integration of the two agencies’ planning functions, up to and including institutional merger between MTC and ABAG. He stated that the consultants gave a dozen options but focused on two: (1) merge the staff first and worry about governance later; or (2) figure out governance at the same time as the functional merger. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed resistance to the merger was futile. However, in talking to other City members, he saw that there were really three options: (1) resist the merger; (2) allow the merger; or (3) insist upon rewriting the rules of governance. He stated that the merger would be a Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 fundamental change to how the region receives advice and funding. Therefore, he wanted to understand how the rest of the Council felt before voicing the City’s opinion to ABAG. City Attorney Kane seconded Councilmember Brownrigg’s opinion on addressing the issues of governance in this merger. She stated that the City’s pooled liability assets were coordinated through ABAG. Accordingly, she stated that there is a risk to the plan’s assets if there isn’t an established form of governance administering the plan. She stated that while she and others had voiced this concern to MTC, they had not heard anything from MTC on what the transition plan would look like. Mayor Keighran stated that her concern was that local cities would lose their voice once the merger occurs. Councilmember Colson discussed the “nitty-gritty” of merging two companies. She stated that the amount of care and consulting it takes to integrate two entities is huge. Therefore, she stated she would like to understand how this would work. Councilmember Beach discussed the speed at which the merger is going through. She stated that having the merger done by July 1st is very quick. She asked what about requesting the merger be pushed back to allow MTC more time to draft the rules of governance. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked why the merger was being rushed. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Michael Barber stated that ABAG’s budget is not in good shape and accordingly that is why this merger is moving quicker than the local cities want. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he shared the Mayor’s concerns about MTC. He stated that his only interactions with MTC previously, were through high-speed rail. He stated that in those meetings MTC only cared about the big cities and made it clear that they were a top down organization. Accordingly, he was concerned that Burlingame and other local cities would get lost in MTC. He stated that his concern in giving MTC more time to address the rules of governance is that the merger would occur and MTC would indefinitely delay writing the rules of governance. Therefore, he thought that the City should support allowing the merger if MTC rewrites their rules of governance now. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the Council and staff for the thoughtful discussion. 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 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 15, 2016 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING MINUTES Burlingame City Council May 16, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 b. APRIL MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame Financing Authority was held on the above date. 2. ROLL CALL BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. BOARD ACTION a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $19,500,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS TO REFUND BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2007; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS AND A BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCING Finance Director Augustine requested the Financing Authority adopt Resolution Number Fin2-2016. Chair Keighran opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Boardmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number Fin2-2016; seconded by Vice Chair Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 4. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk