Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.04.18 Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on April 18, 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 Pat Giorni. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Vice Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Colson removed item 8g from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8h, 8i, 8j and 8k; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2016 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2016. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A ‘NO PARKING’ RESTRICTION FROM 5:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE 1700 BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1925. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A 2-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ON THE 1500 BLOCK OF CAROL AVENUE AND THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST CAROL AVENUE DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1926. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO INSTALL IN-GROUND LIGHTS AS NEW TREES ARE PLANTED ON BROADWAY Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approve Resolution Number 25-2016. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND VB GOLF II FOR CONDUCT OF GOLF OPERATIONS AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approve Resolution Number 26-2016. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF MUSCO LED LIGHTING FIXTURES, ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND CONTROLLER FOR THE MURRAY FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approve Resolution Number 27-2016. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT WITH MASSMUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE TO PROVIDE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM SERVICES TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY TO PROVIDE TRUSTEE CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ASSETS Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 Human Resources Director Loomis requested Council approve Resolution Number 28-2016. Councilmember Colson thanked staff for their hard work and efforts in acquiring a new deferred compensation program for City employees. Councilmember Colson asked SST Benefit Consulting representative Paul Hackleman the following three questions: (1) to highlight the features of the new agreements with MassMutual to provide deferred compensation services to City employees; (2) outline the final process for implementation and timing of the new agreements; and (3) outline how the ongoing monitoring of this program will work. Mr. Hackleman stated that under the MassMutual deferred compensation program, City employees could be assured that their money would be placed in funds with a 4 or5 morning star rating. As well, he explained that the fees and expenses that City employees had paid would dramatically decrease by 30-50%. Additionally, he stated that the website would be easier to use and City employees whether or not enrolled in the deferred compensation program would have access to financial planners at no charge. Mr. Hackleman stated that it would take about 3-4 months to roll City employees’ deferred compensation plans into the new program. He added that City employees would be kept abreast of the timeline and given information about new opportunities under the MassMutual deferred compensation program. Lastly, Mr. Hackleman stated that under the MassMutual deferred compensation program there would be annual fund and performance reviews. Vice Mayor Ortiz opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how many employees are currently enrolled in the City’s deferred compensation program. HR Loomis stated that almost all employees in the City have a deferred compensation plan. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 28-2016; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 16, 2016; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015-16 Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve Resolution Number 29-2016. i. NOTIFICATION TO SBWMA OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME’S COMMITMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT EXTENSION NEGOTIATIONS WITH RECOLOGY SAN MATEO COUNTY Finance Director Augustine reported the notification to SBWMA of the City of Burlingame’s commitment to participate in the franchise agreement extension negotiations with Recology San Mateo County. Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 j. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED FY 2016-2017 GOAL SETTING IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN Assistant to the City Manager Blackburn requested Council approve the Revised FY2016-2017 Goal Setting Implementation Action Plan. k. ADOPTION OF A RSOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING WEBSITE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND HOSTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Assistant to the City Manager Blackburn requested Council approve Resolution Number 30-2016. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3(LAND-USE) OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENTS TO SETBACK STANDARDS IN THE HOWARD MIXED USE (HMU), MYRTLE MIXED USE (MMU), BAYSWATER MIXED USE (BMU), AND CLAIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW (CAR) ZONING DISTRICTS AS REFERENCED IN CHAPTERS 25.33, 25.34, 25.35, AND 25.38 (RESPECTIVELY) OF TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staff report requesting Council consider amendments to setback standards in the Howard Mixed Use (HMU), Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU), Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), and California Drive Auto Row (CAR) Zoning Districts as referenced in Chapters 25.33, 25.34, 25.35, and 25.38 (respectively) of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Mr. Gardiner gave a brief overview of the history of the Downtown Specific Plan. He explained that at the time the Downtown Specific Plan was created that HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR had residential and commercial properties. Accordingly, the City created mixed use zones and drafted regulations for these zones. Under the Downtown Specific Plan there were no specified side setback standards for the mixed use zones. Therefore, new developments could be built up to the property line with a zero setback. Mr. Gardiner explained that the expectation with the zero-setback standard was that if there were potential conflicts with adjacent existing uses, the matter could be reconciled through the Planning Commission’s design review process. However, Mr. Gardiner explained that staff has found that there is a need for fine tuning the development regulations to ensure compatibility and predictability between residential and commercial properties in these mixed zones. He gave examples of empty lots next to residential properties and explained that staff was seeing a need to establish side setback requirements as to allow the residential property owner full enjoyment of their lot. He stated that in reviewing this issue, staff discussed using R-3/R-4 side setback standards in HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR. He explained that side setbacks in the R-3/R-4 zones vary from 3 feet to 7 feet depending on lot width, and increase one foot for each floor above the first floor. Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 Mr. Gardiner explained that staff took the proposal of using R-3/R-4 standards in HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decided that their main concern was looking at side setbacks between new developments and existing residential properties within these four zones. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that Council adopt this ordinance which will set R-3/R- 4 side setback standards for new developments next to existing residential properties in HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what happens for residences that are also offices like the law office on Park Avenue. Mr. Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission went back and forth on this one and ultimately decided that it is the land use not the building form, which rules. Councilmember Brownrigg gave a hypothetical that the City could be put in a situation where an individual developing a commercial property is told they need to abide by side setback rules because they are next to a residential property. However, if the next year the residential property is bought and developed into a commercial lot, it would not have to abide by side setbacks. Therefore, Councilmember Brownrigg asked if consideration was given to just mirror the setbacks on both sides of a new development that way even if the residential property is torn down a year later the same setbacks would apply. Mr. Gardiner stated that this was not discussed. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Steve Kraus spoke about his concerns on the amendments. Vice Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Ortiz directed City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to publish notice at least five days before the next meeting. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND-SAN JOSE, CA AREA AS PUBLISHED MARCH 16, 2016 Finance Director Augustine presented her staff report asking for the adoption of Resolution Number 31- 2016. She explained that in any year, the square footage rate for impervious area can increase by an amount equal to the change in CPI, not to except 2% per year. Finance Director Augustine stated that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a CPI increase of 3%. Therefore, the rate increase for storm drainage fee would be capped at 2%. Councilmember Colson asked how the City monitors and tracks the amount of impervious areas existing in a parcel. DPW Murtuza stated that staff reviews these areas when property development occurs. Councilmember Colson asked about private home owners who do work that does not need to be permitted Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 but decreases the amount of impervious area on their property. DPW Murtuza explained that the home owner would need to come to Public Works to petition for their fee to be decreased. Councilmember Beach asked if there was any history of not raising the fee by 2% when CPI increased. Finance Director Augustine stated in FY 2011-12, the CPI was 1.5% so that was the cap. Councilmember Beach clarified that Council always goes to the cap. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach discussed who the stakeholders are in the storm drainage fee (Council, City and the residents of Burlingame) and asked if there were any other stakeholders Council should consider. Finance Director Augustine replied that the bond rating agencies look at the willingness of Council to increase rates as needed. Councilmember Beach asked if the Council didn’t approve the increase the fee would the City need to pay the difference from the general fund. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni voiced her support for the increase. Vice Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 31.2016; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. HOOVER SCHOOL TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS UPDATE DPW Murtuza presented his staff report on the Hoover School traffic and pedestrian safety improvements update. He stated that since receiving Council’s direction to pursue the short term improvements, staff retained a consultant firm to perform the feasibility study for sidewalk improvements on Easton Drive and Summit Drive. As well, staff has been meeting with residents in the Hoover School area to seek their input and address their concerns. He stated that staff is also coordinating with the School District and the Town of Hillsborough. DPW Murtuza explained the following three proposals for traffic circulation around the Hoover School: (1) prohibition of turns onto Summit Drive from either southbound Canyon Road or westbound Easton Drive during drop-off and pick-up periods, effectively making Summit Drive one-way during school drop-off and pick-up periods; (2) prohibition of westbound vehicles along Easton Drive, starting at Easton Circle during drop-off and pick-up periods, effectively making Easton Drive one-way at these times; and (3) no left-turn from Summit Drive to Easton Drive at the new traffic island, during drop-off and pick-up periods, which forces vehicles to head west down Easton Drive after exiting the school. He explained to Council where the signage would be posted to alert individuals of the changes and stated that the signage would be put up in advance of the opening of the school. DPW Murtuza explained that message boards and police would also be used at first to ensure the public’s awareness of the changes in traffic. Next, DPW Murtuza discussed the proposed parking restrictions. He stated that there would be no parking along the 2100 block of Summit Drive from Hillside Circle to Canyon Road, during school drop-off and Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 pick-up periods. As well, there would be no parking along the north side of Easton Drive from the Easton Circle to the bridge east of 2812 Easton Drive. DPW Murtuza explained that all the parking and access restrictions discussed above are recommended to be implemented as a pilot project. He stated that by issuing these changes through a pilot project the City and School District will have flexibility to make adjustments while monitoring the circulation and traffic when the school opens. DPW Murtuza discussed staff’s public outreach efforts. He stated that staff is working with the School District to conduct outreach to the affected neighborhoods and parents. As well, the school will be notifying parents regarding school routes, drop-off and pick-up locations. The School District’s notifications will be done on a continued basis before school opens and during the new session. He explained that the school, city, police department and PTA will be meeting before school opens to discuss the restrictions, routes, drop-off and pick-up procedures. DPW Murtuza stated that staff will continue to monitor the situation after the school opens and make recommendations for modifications as needed. Additionally, staff will be conducting a feasibility study to explore sidewalk improvements along Easton Drive and Summit Drive to encourage walking to school. Councilmember Beach asked how the recommendations would affect the police department. Police Chief Wollman stated that it would be about educating the public on the new regulations, and also about training drivers in the beginning through warnings and outreach. Councilmember Beach followed up by asking if the police department would have officers helping to direct traffic at the beginning of the school year. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if anyone talked to the trash collectors to ensure that the City’s plan is not in conflict with their routes. DPW Murtuza replied that staff was working on this. Councilmember Colson asked about the individuals who live on Benito Drive and if they had been noticed in this matter. DPW Murtuza stated that staff would make sure that Benito Drive residents received notification of the project. Councilmember Colson asked if the pilot program would be enforced in the summer. DPW Murtuza stated that the pilot program would only be enforced Monday-Friday when school is in session. Councilmember Colson asked about when the pilot program would start. DPW Murtuza stated that the signage would be in place along with message boards 2-3 weeks before school starts to get people adjusted to the changes. Councilmember Colson asked if the City considered offering the residential permit parking program to areas around Hoover School. DPW Murtuza stated that the residential permit parking program was originally envisioned for neighborhoods around downtown. However, there has been discussion about whether this program should be expanded. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the signs would be specific to state that they are in effect only when school is in session. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there was a way to make the no right turn signage in lights. DPW Murtuza stated that staff was looking at a variety of ways to address signage. However, he stated that residents had voiced their concern about lights in the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the City had a count of the number of cars they are expecting every morning. DPW Murtuza stated that there are approximately 170 students that will be attending Hoover School but the school may have staggered schedules. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that with carpooling, students walking to school that he is hoping the problem will be a lot smaller than what the City is expecting. Councilmember Beach stated that she would be in favor of less signage and more temporary signage as the Hoover School neighborhood is a beautiful part of the City and she believes habits will form. She reminded staff and Council that what is important is what the City does next for long term improvements. Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni suggested the City paint a stripe on the pavement to mark the route to the school. b. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) UPDATE DPW Murtuza presented his staff report on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) update. He stated that the purpose of this report was to provide feedback about the BPAC and propose its structure for the future. He explained the background of the BPAC. He stated that it is an ad-hoc committee that was formed over 10 years ago as part of the Transportation Development Act grant application process. He stated that originally the primary purpose of the committee was to provide input and support for potential grant-funded bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. Currently, he explained the committee’s format is informal and casual. He stated that the committee has become difficult to manage as there aren’t clearly defined rules and subject matter for the committee to cover. He stated that this has resulted in a blurring of the original purpose of BPAC and has increased staff’s difficulty in managing agenda items, deliverables, and the implementation of outcomes. Moreover, DPW Murtuza explained that over time the committee has become a venue seeking input from the public about needed improvements for bicycles and pedestrians with less focus on its original intent of grant-funded projects. DPW Murtuza explained that as a result, staff is looking at how to restructure the committee so that it: (1) fosters a flexible working environment; (2) encourages public comment; (3) provides guidance to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; and (4) has defined roles and responsibilities. Therefore, he explained that staff had reached out to other cities and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Association to gather information and a better understanding of the needs of the community. Accordingly, DPW Murtuza presented the draft charter to the Council for their approval. He explained that the proposed BPAC will have increased duties including input on the City’s Capital Improvement Projects where pedestrian and bicycle facilities may be impacted, participation in promotional events to increase bicycle and pedestrian awareness, input on Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, and Complete Streets programs and projects. He went to explain that the proposed structure of BPAC will Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 be a five-member committee comprised of two Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners and three public members. The committee will report to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. He explained that initially staff is proposing that the committee will meet on a bi-monthly basis, with dates and times set by the Chair and staff. Councilmember Colson asked if BPAC would be subject to the Brown Act. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that she was worried that the free-flowing collaborative feel that BPAC currently had would go away if they were subject to the Brown Act. City Attorney Kane stated that the issue was because this wasn’t a short-term (ad hoc) committee with limited focus the BPAC would be subject to the Brown Act. City Attorney Kane added that the benefit of this committee being subject to the Brown Act would be that meetings would have agendas so that the public would be aware of issues and matters and could comment on those of interest. Councilmember Colson agreed. Councilmember Beach asked if the formation of the committee would preclude the committee from holding study sessions to allow for a more open collaborative format. She explained further stating that the study sessions could be held to have more of a back and forth communication between individuals who are interested and passionate about biking and walking in the community. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach read the mission statement out loud and then stated that what was missing from the mission statement was the why. She asked staff and Council to consider rewriting the vision as: “The City of Burlingame created the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to help improve the safety, convenience and enjoyment of walking and cycling in Burlingame.” She stated that she felt that this statement brought together the real issues that BPAC would be involved in. Councilmember Beach asked if the onus would be on staff to communicate a project/issue to BPAC. DPW Murtuza stated that what staff envisions is that staff and the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission would bring development issues to BPAC for its input. Councilmember Beach stated that the BPAC could advise on various projects that fall under Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed an important task for the BPAC would be to help the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission prioritize bike and pedestrian projects. She also clarified the fifth duty in the charter stating it should be rewritten as: “recommend ways to improve pedestrian and cycling connectivity throughout the City.” Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the decision for the meetings to be every other month. DPW Murtuza said that this came down to resources. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed charter was going to be brought to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for their input. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that his concern was that in formalizing the BPAC that the committee will lose some of its spontaneity and creativity. He also leant his support to Councilmember Beach stating that he agreed the mission statement should be re-written. Burlingame City Council April 18, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he agreed with Councilmember Beach that the mission statement should be rewritten and agreed with her re-write of the fifth duty. He asked what the next steps were. DPW Murtuza replied that staff would take into consideration Council’s recommendations and present another draft to Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the existing members of the BPAC for their input. After which the matter would be brought back to Council. Councilmember Beach discussed the idea that either BPAC formalizes and obtains advisory authority or if they want to meet casually and not be subject to the Brown Act, they can do that but it won’t be a City sanctioned committee. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated she would be interested to hear what BPAC members and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners thought of the proposed structure. Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni voiced her concern about formalizing the BPAC. 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 items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY – MARCH, 2016 14. ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk