Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.01.04 Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting of January 4, 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 Karen Dittman. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM STUDY SESSION Mayor Keighran stated that the Council had held a study session on Peninsula Clean Energy and that it would be on an upcoming agenda. 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 Cynthia Cornell from B.A.R.P. spoke concerning renter protection and just cause evictions. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach asked to pull item 8d. Councilmember Beach and Councilmember Colson abstained from voting on item 8a (as they were not yet on the Council). Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt item 8a of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Councilmembers Beach and Colson abstained). Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8b, 8c, 8e, and 8f of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5- 0. a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2015 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of December 7, 2015. b. RECOMMENDATION TO CONFIRM MAYOR’S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2016 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Council Assignments for 2016. c. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution Number 1-2016. Councilmember Beach commended staff on applying for Measure A funds for bicycle infrastructure. Mayor Keighran asked when the decision concerning the grant would be made. DPW Murtuza stated that the City expected a decision in March. Councilmember Colson asked about the letters of support that the staff report discussed. DPW Murtuza stated that staff reached out to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Chamber of Commerce to write letters of support. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to approve item 8d; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD FORCE MAIN AND CAROLAN AVENUE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83670 DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution Number 2-2016. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE 2015 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM, CITY Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 PROJECT NO. 83820 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution Number 3-2016. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF A REDWOOD TREE AT 2325 POPPY DRIVE Mayor Keighran reviewed the process of the hearing stating that the appellant (Chip and Shirin Coleman) and the applicant (Peter Kelly) would each get 10 minutes to state their position, the matter would then be opened to the public, followed by 3 minute rebuttals from both the appellant and the applicant. Mayor Keighran asked the Council to report any ex-parte communication. Councilmember Beach stated that she talked to both the appellant and the applicant, visited the site and talked to some of the neighbors. Vice Mayor Ortiz and Councilmember Brownrigg visited the site. Mayor Keighran and Councilmember Colson stated that they visited the site and talked to the appellant and applicant. City Arborist Bob Disco reviewed the staff report explaining the history of the appeal. He stated that the tree in question is a 70 year old redwood tree with multiple codominant leaders. He explained that the applicant requested a permit to remove the tree and that he asked the applicant to obtain a report on the tree from an independent arborist. The independent report stated that the tree was too large for the small backyard and that the tree’s roots were causing damage to the applicant’s garage. Moreover, the report stated that only by removing the tree would all hazards and liabilities associated with the tree be eliminated. City Arborist Bob Disco explained that he visited and assessed the tree to see if there were other options including: requiring the homeowners to properly maintain the tree, topping, and removal of one of the leaders. However, he stated that these measures would not solve the problem because of the size of the tree in relation to the size of the backyard and the proximity of the neighbors. Accordingly, based on the structure of the tree, the multiple codominant leaders, included bark, damage to the garage foundation and because the tree met the requirements for removal per Chapter 11.06.060d(1)(2)(7) of the Municipal Code, the City Arborist approved removal. Councilmember Colson asked how much time the homeowner is given to replace a tree. City Arborist responded that usually an individual is given 6 months. He further explained that for this redwood tree he required the applicant to plant two 24 inch-box Scarlett Oak trees. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his concern that approving the removal of the redwood tree would open the door to future removals. Accordingly, he asked if codominant leaders are a normal growth pattern for redwood trees, what made this situation different as to demand the removal of the tree. The City Arborist stated that the difference was that this redwood tree was located in an area where there was no room for it to safely grow. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the City’s liability when labeling a tree on private property unsafe. City Attorney Kane stated that the risk of loss is born by the homeowner. The appellant, Chip Coleman spoke first. Mr. Coleman stated that at the Beautification Commission hearing the decision to remove the tree was a close vote, 3-2. He stated that from this hearing arose a lot of issues Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 that still need to be evaluated and discussed prior to removing the redwood tree. He explained that he was concerned that the City may base its decision to approve the removal of the tree on liability rather than the enjoyment of the neighborhood. Mr. Coleman asked that the City research the health of the tree prior to approving the tree’s removal. He explained that within a 6 block radius of the redwood tree, there were 28 other redwood trees with 1/3 having multiple codominant leaders. He stated that this was a natural growth pattern for redwood trees. Accordingly, he was concerned that if the Council approved the removal of this redwood tree it would set a precedent for the removal of all other redwood trees. He stated that the City should look at other viable options to prevent the removal of the tree. He asked about raising the floor of the garage or moving it 10 feet closer to the street in order to save the redwood tree. Furthermore, he discussed the decision of Council regarding other redwood trees in the neighborhood and the measures the Council previously enacted to save redwood trees, specifically Drake Avenue. In closing, Mr. Coleman asked the Council to: (1) require real estate tree disclosures; (2) keep analytics of tree removals in the City; and (3) research other methods besides removal to protect trees that are in densely populated areas. The applicant, Peter Kelly, spoke about why he requested the removal permit. Mr. Kelly explained that the tree was causing a significant amount of issues and damage to his property. He added that the remodel that the Planning Commission approved for his house was minor and therefore because he was upholding the integrity of the house there was no room to work around the tree. He explained that a structural engineer assessed the tree and stated that the cost of fixing the damage the tree caused the garage was $30,000. Moreover, the structural engineer stated that the $30,000 would not be a one-time cost. Instead, he informed Mr. Kelly that he would need to make repairs regularly and that at some point the garage floor would become unrepairable. Mr. Kelly stated that both the City Arborist and the independent arborist found that there was a safety issue. Mr. Kelly explained that the safety issue was not just a concern for him but because he lived in such a dense neighborhood, the tree’s safety was an issue for his neighbors. Therefore, he stated that his close neighbors supported the tree’s removal. Mayor Keighran asked CDD Meeker what the scale of the remodel was on Mr. Kelly’s house. CDD Meeker stated that it was minor modifications inside the envelope of the structure with none of it trigging the City’s design review process. Mayor Keighran asked about the grove of redwood trees on Drake Avenue. CDD Meeker stated that the Drave Avenue project involved new construction and therefore the City was able to require the contractors to work around the redwood trees. However, because Mr. Kelly only requested a minor modification to an existing structure the same requirement could not be made. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing for comments. Burlingame residents Brian Benn, Linda Ryan, Liz Overheul Curry spoke about the beauty of the redwood trees and the need to look at other options to protect the tree such as topping, pruning, or moving the garage forward. Karen Dittman, former Beautification Commissioner, spoke about why she voted against the removal of the tree, stating that the tree was in good health. Two BIS middle school students spoke about the importance of protecting trees. Burlingame resident Dottie Bajnoczi spoke about how she originally wanted her neighbor’s tree removed but that she came to love the tree and is glad that it still stands. Burlingame resident Alisa Ruiz-Johnson discussed the issues that Mr. Kelly would face if the tree was not removed. Burlingame resident Brian Chu stated that this tree was affecting his sewer lines and that he regularly had to pay to have the roots removed from the sewer lines. He added that he needed to replace his sewer lines but was unwilling to incur the large expense until the tree was removed or the damage would just continue. Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 Mayor Keighran closed the public hearing and asked the appellant and applicant to come forward with their rebuttals. Mr. Coleman stated that the tree’s health must be understood before removing the tree. Mr. Kelly stated that this particular tree with this particular set of circumstances requires that the tree be removed. Vice Mayor Ortiz explained that the City established a process for reviewing whether to remove trees and if damage were the only criteria on whether a tree is removed too many trees would be cut down. However, he stated that in this situation there is a question of safety. Accordingly, because Mr. Kelly followed the process and because no new information arose, Vice Mayor Ortiz felt that the Beautification Commission’s decision should stand. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that if the City removed every tree that presented a danger, too many trees would be lost in Burlingame. Furthermore, Councilmember Brownrigg felt that the decision the Council had to make was whether the City should allow large trees to grow on small lots. He went on to explain that he has a large tree on his property and that he understands the challenges one faces with having a large tree. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it is important to preserve these trees. Accordingly, he stated that he would vote to protect the tree. Councilmember Colson discussed her desire to protect the trees in Burlingame. However, she stated that she was overwhelmed by the size and magnitude of the multiple codominant leaders on this redwood tree. Accordingly, because Mr. Kelly followed the process and met the necessary requirements to remove the tree she believed the Beautification Commission’s decision should be upheld. Councilmember Beach stated that she heard that Mr. Kelly received an anonymous angry letter and that this is not acceptable as there is a system in place by which to voice your opinion and ensure that decisions are properly made. She stated that while she knew the tree well, it is not a tree that she would want to manage and wondered whether others would want that responsibility. Councilmember Beach went on to discuss the tree’s cost from repairs to liabilities. Accordingly, because there was due process, Councilmember Beach stated she would vote to uphold the Beautification Commission’s decision. She also noted that she would like to explore with staff the value of tracking tree removal statistics to monitor past and future trends. Mayor Keighran stated that she was in attendance at the Beautification Commission hearing and that there was thoughtful discussion on the matter. She stated that when she reviewed the matter she looked at the criteria for removal: (1) condition of the tree; (2) danger of the tree falling; (3) proximity of the neighbors to the tree; and (4) whether the tree was limiting/preventing the homeowner’s economic enjoyment of the property. Mayor Keighran compared the matter to the Drake Avenue construction. She stated that because Drake Avenue concerned new buildings, the Council was able to require the contractors to work around the trees. However, in this matter, where the lot is small, and the homeowner is not undertaking a major renovation, there was no room to work around the tree. Mayor Keighran stated that because the tree was causing damage and raised safety concerns the Beautification Commission’s decision should be upheld. Mayor Keighran asked about the size of the trees the City Arborist proposed planting in the applicant’s yard and whether or not the City should require the applicant to plant large trees. The City Arborist stated that larger trees were an option but that he recommended the two 24 inch box landscape trees because they grow quicker and adapt better to their surroundings. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the City Arborist was requiring two trees and if he was concerned that by planting two trees the applicant might face the same issue. Mr. Disco replied that the applicant may face the same issue but that he was recommending two Scarlett Oak trees to replace the large canopy of the Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 redwood tree. The City Arborist stated that until the tree is 48 inches in circumference, an individual does not need a permit to cut down the tree. Therefore, if the applicant were to sell their house before the new oak trees reached this measurement the trees could be cut down. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could make it a condition of the removal, that the homeowner obtains a permit prior to cutting down the replacement trees. Councilmember Colson asked if both trees had to be planted in the backyard. The City Arborist stated that the ordinance doesn’t require the homeowner to plant both in the backyard. Vice Mayor Ortiz and Councilmember Beach voiced their concern that more information was needed on how and what should replace the redwood tree. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City shouldn’t require the applicant to put a tree in the front yard if the issue arose from the backyard. Mayor Keighran stated she had concerns about how small the backyard is for two trees. City Attorney Kane explained that given the complexity of the issue it may be good to give the staff direction on what the Council is looking for and then staff can make factual determinations and present their findings to the Council at a later date. She stated that if Council wished to make a motion tonight they could focus on the central question of whether or not the tree should be removed but state that the applicant cannot remove the tree until Council authorizes a resolution that memorializes the requirements of the tree’s removal. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to uphold the Beautification Commission decision but have the applicant wait to remove the tree until Council determined the conditions; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Brownrigg voted against). b. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2016 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Finance Director Augustine reviewed the staff report concerning the levying of the 2016 San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessments on hotel businesses within the District. She explained the background of TBID and asked the Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed assessments. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk if the City received any protests. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the negative. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing for comment. San Mateo County Tourism Bureau CEO Ann LeClair thanked the City for their support. As well, she thanked Police Chief Wollman for the police’s efforts to ensure the safety of those staying at the hotels. Mayor Keighran closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve Resolution Number 4-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 c. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD Community Development Director Bill Meeker presented the staff report regarding Vanguard Real Estate Holdings, LLC request for an extension of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) for an auto rental, storage and repair facility at 778 Burlway Road. (Note: Alamo Rent-A-Car and National Car Rental are owned by Vanguard. Vanguard also owns Enterprise and Enterprise’s Vice President Will Withington is the applicant pursuing the CUP extension for the property. To avoid any confusion, Alamo Rent-A-Car, Enterprise and Vanguard will all be referred to as either the applicant or Vanguard in the meeting minutes.) He stated that for 30 years, Vanguard used this piece of property as an auto rental, storage and repair facility. The Community Development Director reviewed the history of Vanguard’s requests for CUPs: (1) City Council’s decision to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a 2003 amendment to the CUP; (2) the Planning Commission approving two additional, two-year CUP extensions; and (3) Vanguard’s 2013 appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a 10 year extension which resulted in Council granting them a 2 year extension. The Planning Commission denied the 10 year extension stating that it could deter efforts of the applicant in selling the property and having the property developed for a use consistent with the policy direction of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Community Development Director Meeker stated that now Vanguard is asking for a 7 year extension of the CUP to allow San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) to complete an expanded and consolidated car rental facility. Furthermore, Meeker explained that originally the applicant made annual payments of $36,500 to the City. The City required the annual payment to guarantee a minimum revenue stream for the car rental business as long as that activity occurred on the property. Now Vanguard proposes a 7 year extension of the CUP with a one-time payment of $2.1 million to mitigate the continued operation of the facility. The $2.1 million would be earmarked for improvements within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area. Community Development Director Meeker asked the Council to review and provide direction on whether the City should move forward with the proposed extension and offset payment structure. Mr. Meeker advised the Council to consider the ongoing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates. Completion of these work tasks by the end of 2017 could change the land-use direction for the property at 778 Burlway Road and should be considered a factor in determining whether or not an extension of the CUP should be granted. He further noted that any development proposals for the property that would follow adoption of the updated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would take anywhere from 3 to 5 years to complete the local and state permitting processes. Mayor Keighran asked how Vanguard and the City originally settled on $36,500 for annual payments under the CUP. Community Development Director Meeker stated that he was not there at the time but believed it was based on gross receipts from the auto rental business on the property. Mayor Keighran asked what uses are permitted at 778 Burlway Road. Mr. Meeker responded that it is zoned for offices, hotels, destination restaurants or retail shops to service the area. Mayor Keighran asked if a hotel was built on the property how many rooms could the hotel have. Mr. Meeker stated that a hotel is allowed to build 65 rooms per acre, accordingly because the property is 8.4 acres they could have over 500 rooms. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if there was evidence that the applicant had tried to market the property. Mr. Meeker replied that a few years ago they had submitted documents indicating their efforts. Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 Will Withington, General Manager/Vice President of Enterprise, discussed why Vanguard requested an extension. He stated that in 2013, after the Council’s decision to only grant them a 2 year extension on the CUP, Vanguard started looking for other sites. Vanguard entered into two leases, one located at the Cow Palace property and the other located on Edwards Court in Burlingame. He further explained that he had worked with an architecture firm to develop plans for a 5 story parking garage on the Edwards Court property, with an estimated cost of $25 million. Mr. Withington continued by stating that in January, 2015, SFO announced a plan for a new consolidated rental car facility. SFO met with Vanguard and other agencies about the facility and it became clear that once the facility was built Vanguard would no longer need to use the Edwards Court nor the Cow Palace properties. Accordingly, the applicant argued that while they do not want to continue operations at 778 Burlway Road, it does not make financial sense to build a $25 million parking facility that will only be used for a few years. As a result, Mr. Withington explained that he met with City staff and the Council’s Economic Subcommittee to explain the situation and gather input. Accordingly, from these meetings, Vanguard created their proposal of a one-time payment of $2.1 million to mitigate the extension of the CUP. As well, Vanguard stated that during the proposed 7 year CUP extension, they would work with potential buyers. He explained that the 7 year extension would allow a buyer to obtain all necessary permits to build on the property prior to paying Vanguard for the property at the end of the 7 years. Mayor Keighran asked Mr. Withington how aggressive Vanguard was with their marketing of the property. Mr. Withington stated they had inquiries from many people and were open to all solicitations. However, he stated that in 2012 they had an offer of about half the value of the property that they rejected. After which they have not received any other substantial proposals. Councilmember Colson asked if the CUP was not renewed would Vanguard plan to build a parking garage at Edwards Court for $25 million and use the Cow Palace property. Mr. Withington stated that originally this was the plan. However, he explained that financially with SFO building a facility it would not make sense for them to spend $25 million on a parking garage. Accordingly, if the CUP was not extended they would be looking at leasing 1-2 acre properties elsewhere for the next 5-7 years. Councilmember Colson asked about the real estate analysis that created the $2.1 million proposal and whether or not he had worked with the City to come up with assumptions about the optimal use for the property. Mr. Withington responded that he worked with his local team to develop this number. Doug Sullivan, Counsel for Vanguard spoke regarding the $2.1 million payment, stating that it would be used for Bayfront improvements and that it is mitigating the delayed redevelopment of the property. Councilmember Beach asked about the proposed $2.1 million stating that her understanding is that the fee has to be directly related to the harm. Accordingly, she wanted to know that since there hasn’t been $2.1 million worth of change in circumstances to the City, if the City needed to review the number. And as a follow up question, Councilmember Beach asked if the City had higher standards than private corporations concerning the correlation between mitigation and a monetary amount. City Attorney Kane responded by stating that yes the City did need to ensure transparency and that there is more identifiable criteria. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing for comments, no one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 Councilmember Brownrigg asked if because this is a real estate negotiation if it can be done in closed session. City Attorney Kane replied that it cannot, because closed session for real estate pertains to when the City is selling property. Mayor Keighran asked if the Council could develop an ad hoc committee to discuss this matter. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran stated that this would give the staff the time and ability to do an economic analysis to understand the $2.1 million mitigation payment. Councilmember Brownrigg stated his concern that the extension of the CUP could set a precedent with other companies operating long-term parking lots. However, he stated that he understands that this situation is unique because of the short-term need. But he wanted to make sure the City is careful to not set a precedent to use empty lots as parking lots. Councilmember Colson asked if the SFO facility was built in 5 years under a 7 year CUP if the CUP would continue with the property. Mr. Meeker responded it would unless it was called back to the Council for revocation prior to expiration of the 7 year extension. Councilmember Colson then asked if there was a way to tie the CUP to the user and not the land. Mr. Meeker said no because it was a land issue and could not be tied to a specific operator. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could structure the CUP for 5 year extension with the option to extend for another 2 years if the SFO facility is not completed. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that his fear is that after 7 years when Vanguard leaves that the property might stay vacant for another 5 years. Accordingly, he wanted to ensure that the property is advertised and sold during the extension. Mayor Keighran agreed with Vice Mayor Ortiz. As well, she stated that the City is working on a General Plan update that is looking at other uses for this property and others in the Bayfront that may be more beneficial to the community. Accordingly, she thought it would be advantageous to have the ad hoc committee to ensure that they are looking at all options. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the deadline was for the City to make a determination on the CUP extension. City Attorney Kane said that there isn’t a deadline to make a determination in so much as since the applicant had applied for the extension in a timely manner (prior to the expiration of the CUP) any code enforcement action related to the use of the property would be delayed until the Council makes a determination. Mayor Keighran stated that she wanted to assemble an ad hoc committee and bring this matter back within 6 months with recommendations from the staff and the committee regarding the Council’s options. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to form an ad hoc committee to investigate this matter and come back to the Council with a recommendation within six months, and that during the 6 month period the applicant would be allowed to continue with its use of the property; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no staff reports. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Burlingame City Council January 4, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the Council review the transit projects of San Mateo and Millbrae to better understand their effects on Burlingame. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. NOVEMBER PERMIT ACTIVITY b. COMMISSION MINUTES: TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING, NOVEMBER 12, 2015 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk