Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.02.20 Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 20, 2018 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 Emerson Burri. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION a. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES City Manager Goldman stated that the study session was a continuation of the discussion started at the January 27, 2018 City Council Annual Goal Setting Session. CDD Meeker stated that affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower- income residents. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects, and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing. Jurisdictions may tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide variety of reasons, as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious, and the fees for all projects remain below the legal maximum permitted by a nexus study. CDD Meeker stated that as part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City, together with a Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices, and commercial space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low, low, and moderate-income residents. The maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by estimating the number of new worker Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 households associated with new developments. A final analysis was then completed that considered factors like local conditions and the fees of neighboring jurisdictions to determine a potential range of impact fees. CDD Meeker stated that on June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Commercial Linkage Fee for new commercial development in Burlingame. CDD Meeker stated that tonight, staff is asking Council for direction on whether an ordinance should be created to implement a residential impact fee. Councilmember Keighran noted that Millbrae wasn’t included in the staff report and asked if Millbrae had linkage fees. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the negative. Councilmember Keighran asked if it was correct that the residential impact fee does not pertain to single family homes but does pertain to single family homes attached (townhouses). Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that the staff report notes that the City doesn’t have park dedication fees or a bedroom tax. However, the City does have a parks and recreation fee. CDD Meeker stated that the City’s parks and recreation fee is for park maintenance and improvements. Park dedication fees are a result of the Quimby Act and are collected from new residential subdivisions. Councilmember Keighran asked what a bedroom tax is. CDD Meeker replied that he was unsure and would research it for the Council. Councilmember Keighran asked if the utility connection under potential fees for a 10- unit residential project is water and sewer. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if staff discussed the potential range of residential impact fees with developers. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that staff has not yet discussed the fees with developers. Councilmember Keighran asked if staff was looking for Council to determine what the residential impact fee should be tonight. She explained that she didn’t want Council to make a decision and then have staff discuss whether the fees were feasible with the developers. Planning Manager Gardiner explained that staff was looking for the Council to determine a few things at the study session: 1) if they would like to enact residential impact fees; 2) if the City enacts fees, a possible range for the fees; 3) if they want tiered fees; 4) if the City will offer a prevailing wage discount; and 5) feedback on the in-lieu option. Councilmember Beach stated that the City had not undertaken a nexus study on other impact fees since 2007/2008 and asked if the City anticipated updating these fees in the near future. City Manager Goldman stated that staff started reviewing development impact fees when the City undertook the study to update the Master Fee Schedule. However, at the time, staff was in the early days of updating the General Plan, and wanted to wait until the project was further along before finalizing the development impact fee study. City Attorney Kane stated that some of the fees were recently recalibrated including the entitlement fees, cost of design review, and engineering plan review. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Councilmember Beach asked if staff had any insight on school fees and what the school districts are seeing as far as a potential need to increase their fees in the future. City Manager Goldman stated that the school fees are split between SMUSHD and BSD, with BSD getting a larger share of the fees. She noted that she reached out to BSD Superintendent MacIsaac who informed her that BSD had reached its cap for what it can charge for school fees. However, Superintendent MacIsaac stated that the schools are overcrowded and that they are feeling the pressure to open a new school. Councilmember Beach stated that the cap would have to be increased by the State. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson discussed why single family homes weren’t included in the residential impact fee study. She explained that there wasn’t a great potential for new single family homes to be built in the City. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked about the nexus fee study in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City Manager Goldman stated that there will be a fee study, but it isn’t clear how it will interact with the parks and recreation fee in the staff report. Vice Mayor Colson discussed Table 1 in the staff report which is a summary of housing impact fees in San Mateo County jurisdictions. She stated that although there is a lot of construction in Belmont and South San Francisco, neither city has implemented residential impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that both South San Francisco and Belmont have inclusionary housing. Additionally, Belmont charges a fee of $20 per square foot for apartments. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City Council established a double tiered structure for commercial linkage fees. The two tiers accounted for the prevailing wage discount. She asked if other cities were using this structure for residential impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked how attached or separated accessory dwelling units fit into residential impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that it is a policy choice. He added that some cities do charge an impact fee for ADUs, but staff isn’t recommending that. Mayor Brownrigg discussed Table 2 in the staff report, which is a summary of the estimated potential near- term housing impact fees. He explained that in this table if 900 units are built, then the range of housing impact fees is $7.65 million to $19.125 million. He asked how many units of affordable housing could be built with $19 million. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that the conversation on how the City will utilize these fees is similar to the conversation the City Council had with commercial linkage fees. The City Council would need to decide whether the funds should be utilized to build units or leveraged with an organization like HEART. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County representative Leora Tanjuatco expressed the organization’s support for passing residential impact fees. She discussed the importance of housing fee funds as most county, state and federal grants require matching funds. Burlingame resident Mark Burri voiced his support for promoting prevailing wage and for building affordable housing. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. Councilmember Ortiz voiced his support for moving forward with the impact fees. He stated that he believed the City should go with the double-tiered system for residential impact fees. Additionally, he stated that the ranges for the tier without prevailing wage discount should be: 1. Less than 10 units - $15 per square foot 2. 11-25 units - $17 per square foot 3. 26-50 units - $20 per square foot 4. 51-100 units - $22 per square foot 5. More than 100 units - $25 per square foot Lastly, he voiced his concern about an in-lieu option. He stated that he needed more information on this matter so that when the Council created an in-lieu option, they knew the cost of a below market rate unit in comparison to the proposed residential impact fee. Councilmember Beach stated that residential impact fees are something worth exploring. She discussed the Council’s vision/goal of creating a wider array of affordable housing in the city and that these fees are one tool the Council can use. However, she cautioned her colleagues that it might be a little premature to set a number before talking to all the stakeholders. She explained that during the summer she had discussed residential impact fees with some developers. She stated that the developers were supportive of the idea but cautioned her that if the price tag was too high on these fees, Council may end up not encouraging the type of housing that the City wants. She noted that one of the developers informed her that even $20 per square foot can deplete a contingency on a project. Therefore she stated that the Council needed to be very thoughtful when approaching this topic. Councilmember Beach explained that as the General Plan is reviewed; the City Council should discuss other incentives that could be used such as reducing the parking requirements in exchange for affordable housing. She stated that in theory she was in support of residential impact fees but wanted to make sure that the Council came to the right number. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in speaking with a number of developers, the way these fees are formulated into the pro forma is that it is a direct offset of the value of the land. Therefore, if it’s a $10 million piece of land, and there is $1 million in fees, then the land is worth $9 million not $10 million. She stated that the proposed amendments to the General Plan are creating a substantial amount of up-zoning throughout the city’s residential areas. By doing this, the City is increasing the value of property by rezoning areas to allow Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 for three stories where only two stories were allowed before. Accordingly, she stated there is room in the up- zoning areas for the fees to be accommodated. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supports residential impact fees but wanted to make sure that the City’s fees are comparable to neighboring cities. Councilmember Keighran stated that the City needed to ensure that fees are set so as to encourage affordable housing units in larger projects. She asked staff to get feedback from developers on residential impact fees. She noted that she wanted a tiered system, prevailing wage discount, and an in-lieu option. Mayor Brownrigg concurred with the Vice Mayor that with the potential up-zonings in the General Plan amendments, there will be a significant increase in land value. He explained that he believed the City should look at a dual program of inclusionary housing and/or fees. He stated that he was increasingly leaning towards inclusionary housing. He discussed how both Foster City and Los Gatos have inclusionary housing and how it benefited their communities. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the increasing issue of hiring/maintaining police officers, teachers, and other professions in the city. He stated that creating affordable housing isn’t just the right thing to do morally but also a strategic plan for Burlingame. Therefore, the question for him was what produces the most affordable units. He stated that the City created impact fee programs in the past for issues like parking, and the funds have not been used. He discussed the study in the staff report that explained that the average cost to construct a unit is $350,000 not including the cost of land. However, he stated that he believed this cost to be higher, citing examples of Oakland’s recently approved affordable housing project and the City’s own project on Lots F and N. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City has been told it needs 400 units for low and very low income levels. This is a cost of $200 million. He stated that he doesn’t see how the residential impact fees will get the City close to this number. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City undertakes inclusionary housing, managed by the City or a nonprofit, the City could target the moderate income levels like teachers that may be priced out of other affordable housing developments. Mayor Brownrigg stated that as staff discusses residential impact fees with stakeholders, they should also discuss inclusionary housing. He listed cities that have inclusionary housing requirements including San Bruno, Menlo Park, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he supported staff hiring a consultant to review the different options and determine which option is most likely to have an effect, what the timeframe would be, and what type of units could be produced. Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t want to mandate inclusionary housing. Instead, she wanted to give the developers the choice of inclusionary housing or residential impact fees. She stated that funding could be used to renovate existing housing stock in exchange for the landowner keeping the units affordable. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 Mayor Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Keighran’s idea because the City had a significant stock of relatively affordable units. He stated that the City needs to both build units and preserve affordable units. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the Council should move forward with establishing tiers for residential impact fees and then create the in-lieu of fees program. He explained that the in-lieu program would take longer to research and create. However, he didn’t want the City to delay implementing fees. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood Councilmember Ortiz’s position but that he believed that much of the housing would be created after the amendments to the General Plan were finalized. However, he acknowledged that the City should signal to the market that fees and the in-lieu program are coming. Mayor Brownrigg stated that establishing the residential impact fees is about incentives: whether the City wants developers to choose inclusionary housing or pay the fees. Therefore, he didn’t think it was appropriate to decide what the fees are prior to creating the in-lieu program. Vice Mayor Colson stated that Home for All conducted research on these types of fees and what had been shown to instigate new affordable housing. She suggested that staff reach out to Home for All to obtain their findings. Councilmember Keighran stated that the City needed to take a holistic approach where the fees and the in- lieu program are reviewed, researched, and established together. Councilmember Beach stated that she falls into the camp of being thoughtful and not rushing a decision. She stated that she recognizes Councilmember Ortiz’s point about urgency but thought the Council needed to meet with stakeholders and further research their options. Vice Mayor Colson discussed that on page three of the staff report it states that “fees can be set per square foot, per unit, or by some other measure, and can only be applied to new development projects.” She stated that another measure that could be applied is rent per square foot. Therefore, the City could incentivize developers to maintain an affordable rental rate for a certain time period. Councilmember Beach asked if the City could structure fees differently for different areas of the City. City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to do further research. Mayor Brownrigg asked if staff had direction. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative and stated that staff would further research inclusionary housing. City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s former inclusionary housing program required moderate rent for ten years, and it required that the unit mix be identical to the market mix. She explained that this had an interesting effect—because the below market rate period was so short, the developers built regular market units and designated a few as below market rate. She stated that you are building a very different type of housing in that example then if you said the BMR unit could be a workforce housing unit. However, the workforce housing unit will be more naturally affordable beyond the required time because it is less luxurious than other units. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 City Attorney Kane asked if the City Council wanted to give flexibility to the developers in regards to the type of housing under the in-lieu option. She stated that this would help staff with focusing their discussion with the different stakeholders. Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of providing developers flexibility because the goal is to build more affordable housing units. She asked that staff obtain input from the developers on other incentives that could assist in creating affordable housing. Additionally, she noted that she wanted the affordable units to stay affordable for a longer period of time than the City’s former program. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe the last BMR program worked well. He added that the previous program kept units affordable for 10 years, which was not long enough to justify an incentive. He stated that he leaned into mandating inclusionary housing because of the success that both Palo Alto and Los Gatos had with their programs. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he wanted to give the developers the choice of paying the fee or building inclusionary housing. Vice Mayor Colson discussed her concern that inclusionary housing isn’t a permanent solution. She stated that projects like the one on the City’s Lots F and N are more sustainable. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Manager to work with staff on a proposed timetable for bringing this matter back to Council. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION OF THE PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDATION AND LIONS CLUB DONATION Parks & Recreation Foundation representative Randy Schwartz and Burlingame Lions President Kwang Park presented the City Council with a check for over $18,000. Mr. Schwartz explained that the donation was for the Paloma Park improvements. The money was raised through a bocce tournament and brick selling campaign. They presented the City Council with a replica of the brick that the five Councilmembers purchased for the park. Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmembers thanked the Parks and Recreation Foundation and the Lions Club for their hardwork and donation. b. CAROLAN AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT UPDATE Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 DPW Murtuza gave an update on the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project. He stated that it was one of the first of its kind on the Peninsula. The project was a team effort with TSPC, BPAC, residents, staff, and Council. DPW Murtuza stated that the project consisted of converting a four-lane roadway to two lanes. He stated that the reconfiguration added a single left-turn lane, new asphalt, and new Class II bike lanes and lane striping. The New Class II bike lanes are from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue in both directions. The lanes are five to seven feet wide, with a three-foot buffer. These lanes were created to increase cyclist usage. Additionally the project assisted with pedestrian safety in a number of ways including: bulb-out curbs, traffic calming elements, updated ADA access ramps, and crosswalk improvements to the Caltrain pedestrian crossing. DPW Murtuza noted that staff is currently working on sustainable “green” landscaping. DPW Murtuza stated that the total cost of the project was $1.7 million. The project was funded by a $1 million federal grant and then a combination of Measure A, Measure M, and gas tax funds. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the project is terrific! He explained that he traveled the new roadway as both a motorist and a cyclist and believed it was better for both. Mayor Brownrigg asked when a similar project could be done to California Drive. DPW Murtuza stated that staff is working on it. He explained that staff will be asking the Council for funding next fiscal year to undertake a feasibility study to better compete for grants. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Castillo from the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center talked about two projects they are currently undertaking. The first is the Central County Prevention Partnership, which focuses on furthering prevention messages around alcohol and drugs. Mr. Castillo stated that the presentations are offered at no cost, and PCRC is looking to connect with schools, community organizations, and others to make these presentations. For more information go to: www.pcrcweb.org. Secondly, PCRC is conducting their Every Day Heroes Event to recognize community leaders. To request a nomination form contact Juliet at: jvimahi@pcrcweb.org. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No item was removed. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of the City Council meeting minutes from February 5, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDED MEASURE I EXPENDITURE PLAN City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 26-2018. c. ADOPTIION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOTT MACDONALD FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES RELATED TO THE EASTON ADDITION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT AND CITYWIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 4 AND 5, CITY PROJECT NO. 84193, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 27-2018. d. APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER OF CITY PARK RENTAL FEES FOR THE BURLINGAME LIONS CLUB’S CARS-IN-THE-PARK 2018 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council’s approval of the waiver of City park rental fees for the Burlingame Lions Club’s Cars-in-the-Park 2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE CHAPTER 12.12 “SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY MAINTENANCE” DPW Murtuza reviewed his staff report requesting a public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to update Chapter 12.12 “Sidewalk and Parkway Maintenance”. He explained that at the December 4, 2017 meeting, the City Council received an update from staff regarding the 50/50 Sidewalk Repair Program and staff’s concerns about this program. He stated that the major challenges to the program were: • High administrative costs due to the significant staff time involved with implementing the program • Provision in the program that ensures that affected property owners will not be required to pay for sidewalks repairs within 12 years DPW Murtuza stated that at the December 4, 2017 meeting, staff provided options to the Council regarding how to revise the program. After deliberating, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a sidewalk Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 repair program that is fully City funded, to be implemented annually through the Capital Improvement Program. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach explained that the proposed amendment removed the 50/50 program where the City pays 50% and the property owner pays 50% for repairs to the adjoining sidewalk. If the proposed amendment is approved, the City would pay 100%. She stated that she is not in support of this ordinance. She explained that the 50/50 program was generous because state law holds the property owner 100% responsible for the sidewalk in front of their property. Councilmember Beach stated that the 50/50 program provides the City with more funds to do what the community requested: repair sidewalks and potholes. She expressed concern about the fairness of changing the program when some residents already paid for repairs. She noted that in the list of things a property owner pays, having to pay a few hundred dollars every 12 years for sidewalk repairs is not a huge ask. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed that her colleagues approved of the City paying 100% of the sidewalk repairs because of Measure I passing. However, she stated that she had some concerns about that because she believed that the City told the community that Measure I funds would be used to repair more sidewalks and streets. She explained that she felt the City was subsidizing the sidewalk repair program with Measure I funds. Therefore, the City would have fewer Measure I funds to repair sidewalks and streets. City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed amendment retained the state law provision concerning the concurrent responsibility of the property owner to maintain their sidewalk. She explained that staff is just removing the 50/50 mechanism. She stated that the ordinance retains the City’s ability to give notice to the property owner to repair their sidewalk. This would be used when the property owner has done something to degrade the sidewalk ahead of its scheduled repair. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Measure I specifically said what it was going to be used for. City Manager Goldman explained that because Measure I was a general tax, the City was prohibited from saying what the funds would be spent on. She noted that the campaign literature included discussion about street and sidewalk repair. DPW Murtuza stated that the change in the program allows staff to spend the funds that are used for administrative work to fix sidewalks. He also stated that it would expedite repairs to sidewalks. Mayor Brownrigg asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to publish notice of the proposed ordinance at least five days prior to the proposed adoption. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION PRIORITIES Commissioner Martos stated that TSPC was requesting input from the City Council on TSPC’s proposed priorities for the year. He stated that at the first meeting of the year, the Commission brainstorms on topics that they would like to discuss that year. The priority list of 15 items was included in the staff report along with the list of TSPC subcommittees and traffic engineering reports. Commissioner Martos discussed the community led Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (“BPAC”) and stated that TSPC holds open an agenda item for them once a month. Councilmember Ortiz thanked TSPC for their hardwork. He explained that downtown parking remains the number one complaint he hears from the community. Additionally, he noted that after riding LimeBike, he has become more aware of street safety issues. He stated that the City and TSPC need to continue to build bike infrastructure for the community. Councilmember Keighran asked for a clarification on TSPC’s priority of “downtown modal access”. Commissioner Martos stated that this was related to promoting other modes of transportation to get to the downtown areas like Uber, LimeBike, shuttles, and walking. Councilmember Keighran discussed the tenth priority: “public shuttles/transit”. She voiced her support for this item and stated that she wanted to see an east-west shuttle created. Councilmember Keighran asked about TSPC’s 13th priority “intro to paving.” Commissioner Martos stated this priority was an educational item for the Commission. Councilmember Beach voiced her appreciation for TSPC having this conversation as it helps to assist in outlining priorities and ensuring that all are on the same page. She explained that what she wanted to hear from the Commission is what they believe are the three top things that the City needs to fix. Councilmember Beach discussed downtown parking and stated that until Council and staff set aside funds to study the issue and hire a consultant to better understand solutions, it won’t get resolved. Councilmember Beach reviewed TSPC’s priority of updating the bike/pedestrian plan. She stated that this is a top priority for her, as the City needs to become more accessible using alternative methods of transportation. She explained that updating the bike/pedestrian plan will help to aid congestion and the downtown parking issues. Councilmember Beach thanked TSPC for prioritizing safe routes to schools and shuttles. Councilmember Beach discussed TSPC’s priority of grant opportunities. She stated that the professional staff and consultants can help dial TSPC in on grant opportunities and the more technical aspects. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Commissioner Martos stated that the TSPC priority list is a rank order, therefore they likely won’t get to those at the bottom of the list. He added that they regularly attend the farmers market to obtain public feedback. Commissioner Martos stated that grant opportunities was on the priority list so that TSPC has advanced notice and can plan for these opportunities. He stated that it is a regular quarterly item. Councilmember Beach stated that the grants cycle through and that she agreed that TSPC should weigh in. She explained that unless the City has a vision for what it wants to do, they won’t get the grant. Therefore, TSPC should work on their vision and then the City should apply for grants as they come up. Vice Mayor Colson asked how the filming of the meetings is going. Commissioner Martos stated it was good and it was important that their meetings be on the record. Vice Mayor Colson asked if TSPC was looping in with Sustainability Coordinator Michael about the EV charging stations and other issues. Commissioner Martos replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the priority list is long. He explained that it would help him if there was another line under each item, where the Commission’s goal was outlined. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like TSPC’s help on two issues. The first is parking at the new Community Center, which the Council will need to figure out in the near future. Secondly, he discussed the possibility that the City may put a parking structure on Lot N and stated that it might be three, four, or five stories. He asked for TSPC’s input on the value of each additional level. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the Lyon Hoag community concerns about traffic and parking. He stated that he is committed to organizing a session where Council can talk with the community about options like the residential parking permit program or traffic calming. Councilmember Beach stated that she concurred with the Mayor’s comments and that she wanted to thank TSPC for providing feedback on LimeBike. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE MEASURE I CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Mayor Brownrigg explained that Council interviewed the nine applicants: Neal Kaufman, Stephanie Lee, Thomas McKay, John Pivirotto, Matt Feemster, Sandeep Shroff, Mary Hockridge, Joe Galligan, and Jim Baliex for appointment to the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for five candidates and explained that the City Manager would then draw names for who would serve two-year terms. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballot of each Councilmember. Neal Kaufman, Mary Hockridge, Joe Galligan, Stephanie Lee, and Sandeep Shroff were selected. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer put these five names into a mug, gently agitated the mug, and then City Manager Goldman pulled two names to determine who would be assigned for two-year terms. At the end of this process it was determined that Neal Kaufman, Mary Hockridge, and Joe Galligan would serve three-year terms, and Stephanie Lee and Sandeep Shroff would serve two-year terms. Thank you to all who applied, and congratulations to those who were appointed. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Ortiz requested Council discuss the amount of staff time allocated to Councilmembers and whether they needed to establish limits. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the importance of wisely using the staff’s time and suggested that the City Manager and City Attorney go to the Mayor if this concern arises. City Manager Goldman stated that she would work with the Mayor on this concern. Councilmember Keighran discussed the letter that Council received from Mrs. Flannigan voicing the concern of residents about the relocation of Mills Hospital’s rehabilitation program and the decision to close the non- clinical fitness center. She stated that she wanted to make sure that Mrs. Flannigan, and the residents that signed the petition, knew it was outside of the City’s jurisdiction. She asked that because Mayor Brownrigg had met with the residents that he respond to the letter. Mayor Brownrigg agreed that this was a good idea. Vice Mayor Colson talked about the inquiry the City Council received concerning smoking in commercial areas and on sidewalks. She stated that this was an issue that the staff and Council needed to keep in mind as the state marijuana legislation is implemented. She asked that this be kept on the Council’s radar. Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. in memory of Brian May. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk