Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2013.08.19 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 C I T Y C O U N C I L M E E T I N G A G E N D A Monday, August 19, 2013 CLOSED SESSION CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 p.m. – Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda (Government Code §54957.6(a)) b. Closed Session Community Forum c. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Labor negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54957.6(a) City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Lisa Goldman, Glenn Berkheimer and Stacy Cue (IEDA), Employee Organizations: Police Officers Association, Association of Police Administrators, Teamsters e. Conference with legal Counsel- Government Code §54956.9 - Existing Litigation- Harrison v. City 1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATION There are no presentations. 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA - Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. City Council Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2013 b. Adoption of a Resolution awarding a Contract to Bay Area Tree Specialists for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement c. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Burlingame, Caltrans, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for the Construction Phase of the U. S. Highway 101/Broadway Interchange Project d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for the Engineering Design Consulting Contract of the El Camino Real Water Main Replacement Project e. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Water Meters and Automatic Meter Read (AMR) Radio Devices for FY 2013-14 f. Approve Including Nextdoor on the List of Social Media Sites g. Adopt a Resolution approving the 2012-2013 Annual Report of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District; Declaring the City’s Intent to Establish and Levy Assessments on Businesses Within the District for 2013-2014 Fiscal Year and Setting Required Public Hearing for September 16, 2013 h. Authorization to Amend the Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services i. Approval of Out-of-State Travel for City Manager j. Approve an Increase in Library Assistant Budgeted Hours and Benefits k. Adopt a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to Provide Information and Promotion Services in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 l. Results of Actuarial Valuation of Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) as of January 1, 2013 and Informational Report on Process to Select a Pre-funding Mechanism 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 9. PUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing Regarding the 50/50 Sidewalk Program Costs; Resolution Authorizing Collection of Property Owners’ Costs and Resolution Accepting the Completion of the 2012 Sidewalk Maintenance Program 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. City of Burlingame Response to 2013 Civil Grand Jury Report, Entitled “South Bayside Waste Management Authority Board”– Elected Officials or Senior Management Staff” b. Call for Applications to the Beautification Commission c. Call for Applications to the Parks and Recreation Commission d. Review of City Commission Appointment Procedures e. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame f. Appointment of a Councilmember to Serve as an Alternate on the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Board of Directors 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, June 6 & June 18, 2013; Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, June 13, 2013; Library, June 18, 2013; Planning, June 24, 2013 b. Department Reports: Building, June & July, 2013; Finance, June 2013 c. Letters from Call Primrose, Community Gatepath, Parca, Women’s Recovery Association, Burlingame Historical Society, Mission Hospice, Star Vista, Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County, and Sustainable San Mateo County Gratefully Acknowledging the City’s Contribution d. Letter from Astound Concerning Channel Changes and Additions 4 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG – GO TO “CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS” Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of July 1, 2013 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. Mayor Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Two students from McKinley School led the pledge of allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, Nagel MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION CA Kane advised that the Council met in closed session and gave direction. There was no reportable action at this time. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATION a. PRESENTATION OF A CHECK FOR MUSIC IN THE PARK FROM VEOLIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Recreation Coordinator Kari Thorson requested Council recognize Bill Toci of Veolia Water for sponsoring Music in the Park every year since 2004 and their $5,000 donation to cover the cost of the four concerts in July 2013. Bill Toci spoke and presented the Council with a $5,000 check. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hillsborough resident Deborah Payne spoke about the Brown Act. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Baylock made a correction to item 8a and requested item 8d be removed for comment. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 2 Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approved items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f, 8g and 8h; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2013 Councilwoman Baylock made a correction to the June 17, 2013 minutes and requested that item 8c be amended to reflect her statement. Councilman Deal made a motion to approve item 8a; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ITEM WAS MOVED TO 10c c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HILLSIDE RESERVOIR TANK INLET RELOCATION PROJECT BY CASEY CONSTRUCTION DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 61 accepting the improvements, Hillside Reservoir Inlet Relocation project by Casey Construction. d. APPROVE LOCATION FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN P&RD Glomstad requested Council approve Bayside Fields as the location for the Burlingame Community Garden. Mayor Keighran, Councilwomen Baylock and Nagel, Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked P&RD Glomstad, her staff and the community volunteers for all their efforts in finding a location that was acceptable to all. Mayor Keighran asked about a water charge estimate and if the fee to rent a plot would be enough to cover the water. P&RD Glomstad said they will have a meter located at the site and will monitor it for a year to determine if the fees will cover it. In reply to the Mayor’s inquiry P&RD Glomstad also said there were no half plots at this time and no decision has been made on whether there will be a key or a combination lock for the gate access. P&RD Glomstad commented that it was Councilwoman Baylock who suggested Bayside Fields as a possible location for the Community Garden. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve item 8d; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AB 66, THE “ELECTRICITY: SYSTEM RELIABILITY” BILL CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 62-2013 authorizing the Mayor to send a letter of support for Assembly Bill 66 to Assemblymember Muratsuchi. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS FOR AGENDA MANAGEMENT AND VIDEO STREAMING CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 63-2013 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Service Agreement with Granicus for agenda management and video streaming. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 3 g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE-YEAR SERVICE ORDER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FROM THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution No. 64-2013 authorizing the City Manager to execute a one-year service order for Information Technology Services from the City of Redwood City. h. PTAF TOLLING AGREEMENT EXTENSION CA Kane requested Council authorize the City Manager to execute a fourth addendum to the tolling agreement between the City and the County of San Mateo regarding the existing property tax administration fee (PTAF) dispute between the parties. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL (without Prejudice) OF VANGUARD REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and advised that Vanguard Real Estate Holdings is asking for a 10 year extension of the conditional use permit for its auto rental, storage and repair facility at 778 Burlway Road. He said that since 2003 the Planning Commission and the City Council have granted several two-year extensions and one five-year extension of the conditional use permit. He further advised that following consideration of the oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission denied the 10 year extension at their May 28, 2013 meeting determining that extension could serve to deter efforts to sell the property. He advised that the Council could deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, or grant the appeal to approve the applicant’s request for an extension up to ten years or any lesser time the Council may choose. He noted the fiscal impact of denying the appeal. Councilmember Deal asked if prior to 2003 it was under a conditional use permit. CDD Meeker stated it may have been a permitted use at one point, but they then came in under conditional use, and it has been operating under a conditional use permit for some time. Councilmember Deal noted the attorney says “for decades.” CDD Meeker stated it has been nearly 30 years. Councilmember Deal asked if it was correct that since 1985 it has been under somewhat of a conditional use permit. CDD Meeker replied yes. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 4 Councilmember Baylock noted “36,500 or 1% of gross receipts” and asked if the 36,500 is ever exceeded. CDD Meeker stated that he does not have that information available at this time. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing and invited the appellant to approach the mic. Mark Hudak, the appellant, noted his letter to the Council outlining the background of the project. He spoke about the history of the project. He noted that the company that was on this property was forced to move to the San Francisco Airport and has been trying to sell since then. He noted there was a legitimate inquiry from a broker last week and indicated there are suggestions of renewed interest in the marketplace which has been suffering since 2007. He stated that if Vanguard were to receive an offer after making improvements they would be happy to accept that offer. He offered to answer questions. Mayor Keighran indicated it was time for public comment. There were no public speakers. The Mayor asked councilmembers for questions. Councilmember Baylock asked if he knew what the actual payments were each year. Mr. Hudak replied that when that threshold was set cars were still being leased there and there was a possibility that they would get over the 36,500 but that never happened. He stated that, to his knowledge, it has always been the flat fee every year. Councilmember Baylock asked that if someone is renting from Enterprise at the airport, would they be getting the car onsite at SFO or would they get the car in Burlingame. Mr. Hudak stated they get the cars onsite at SFO. Councilmember Baylock asked if the purpose of this lot for storage and repair. Mr. Hudak replied that new cars come in and are stored there until they are prepped, and cars moving out get stored there until they move off. Councilmember Baylock noted a letter dated November 29 from Mr. Hudak indicating Vanguard Real Estate holdings had sold the real property and improvements to Enterprise Rent-a-car. Mr. Hudak asked if that was accurate. Councilmember Baylock read a portion of the note. She asked for clarification if there was a different owner of the property and that Enterprise does not own the property. Mr. Hudak stated Vanguard is the parent company which has acquired Enterprise and Alamo and it succeeded the real property owned by those companies in the entire country. Councilmember Baylock asked if Vanguard was in the real estate business. Mr. Hudak stated they are in the operating car rental companies business. Peter Van Volkenburg approached the mic and clarified that Enterprise acquired Vanguard and all of its assets in 2007. Councilmember Baylock stated that Vanguard is in the business of leasing cars or operating car rental operations and has bought this piece of property as part of that business model. Mr. Volkenburg stated that Alamo National had sold most of the base yards, but this is one of the few it still owns. He stated that Enterprise is the parent company over Vanguard but Vanguard was the owner/operator of this property when the Alamo National brands were operating there prior to moving to SFO. Councilmember Baylock asked where cars would be stored if Vanguard no longer had this property. Mr. Volkenburg replied that Vanguard would find another location, but it typically leases property for this use anyways, rather than owning it. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 5 Mayor Keighran asked if the current usage requires a Conditional Use Permit because it is not a permitted use at this point. Mr. Hudak stated there is a Conditional Use Permit granted for the property before the shoreline zoning classification was based on the property. He stated that currently the use is prohibited. Mayor Keighran asked if the potential proposal for electric cars or carsharing is also not a permitted use. Mr. Hudak stated that it is currently allowed under the umbrella of the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Keighran asked how assertive Vanguard has been in marketing the property. Mr. Volkenburg stated that Vanguard has been as assertive as possible under the circumstances. He noted that many of the potential buyers for this type of property would probably already know about it. Mayor Keighran asked Mr. Hudak where there are other places in Burlingame where this use is permitted. Mr. Hudak stated that the Rollins Road area conditionally permits rental facilities as well as the auto overlay zone fronting Adrian Road. Mayor Keighran asked for other questions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that there is always a market so long as the price is right. He stated that 2008/2009 was an unusual time for the real estate market. He asked how he can feel that the seller is setting a reasonable price. Mr. Volkenburg stated that if this were a property capable of any potential use, that would be a good question. He stated that because the uses that are dictated by the new zoning are so specific that it’s not a question of the asking price. He noted that there has not been a market for building a new hotel in that area but that is changing. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that they have to make sure there is an incentive to act, which is the underlying question to struggle with. He stated that Enterprise Alamo is a billion dollar company, and this is not a big part of the asset base of the company so it needs to move on without being held back by the seller thinking it has to become a big hotel. Mr. Volkenburg stated that whatever incentives that get put in place, the right person has to come along with the right project for that property. He gave the drive-in site as an example of the right person and the right market happening at the same time. Councilmember Deal noted his agreement with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. He stated that ten years is a very long time and the investment in the green program did not seem like a very big investment. Mr. Volkenburg stated that if there were anything the Council could do to make this happen faster, then Vanguard would be on board. But if the Use Permit wasn’t renewed, it wouldn’t suddenly make the ideal buyer come any more quickly. Councilmember Deal asked if a two-year Conditional Use Permit with a sunset clause that no more Use Permits would be permitted was a good option. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 6 Mr. Volkenburg stated that the reason he got involved was because the City wanted to terminate the Conditional Use Permit and he felt if the extension could not be negotiated then they would end up in court. He stated a sunsetting provision on a Conditional Use Permit is very difficult. Councilmember Deal asked for input from the attorney. CA Kane stated that the issue here is that the term Conditional Use Permit is describing a situation that is more like a Temporary Use Permit which has a duration and would expire. She stated the general principle of not binding future councils is one that is worth adhering to in terms of tonight’s decision. Mayor Keighran closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nagel stated that she sensed disappointment in the lack of progress on this sale. She moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application for an extension of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion was not seconded. Councilmember Deal stated that 2014 is just around the corner and to ask suddenly for them to stop the use is abrupt. He stated that he could look at a two-year permit but he did not want to see it come back in two years with yet another argument for extension. Mayor Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Nagel but because there were some good points made by Mr. Hudak she wanted to agree with a two-year extension. She stated this was extended in 2003, 2005, and then 2007 for five years. She stated that was plenty of time to figure out what to do. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was certain that ten years did not make sense. He agreed with the two- year extension. Councilmember Baylock also agreed with Councilmember Deal. Councilmember Nagel asked if the appellant stated they would not accept something as low as two years and might even take legal action. Mayor Keighran stated that this is a good question so despite the Public Hearing being closed, she allowed it. Mr. Volkenburg stated that they are prepared to work with the two years as much as possible. Mayor Keighran stated the motion is still on the table. CA Kane noted that Staff prepared draft resolutions in the packet. CDD Meeker stated that based upon the motion the extension period would be for 2 years from the February 22, 2014, making the new expiration date for February 22, 2016. He noted there is a condition in the draft approval resolution speaking to requirements for improvements. He asked if it is the Council’s intention to require those improvements, and if not, they would strike that condition. Councilmember Deal stated that it was not his intention for them to go ahead with those improvements. CA Kane stated that would be striking condition #3 in the resolution. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 7 Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked to add a condition requiring no later than halfway through extension period the applicant should meet with economic subcommittee to renew what steps have been taken to look for a disposition of the property. Councilmember Deal agreed. He asked CDD Meeker if there can be a stipulation that once the conditional use runs out that they have to provide maintenance to the property. CA Kane stated the basic codes would continue to apply. Councilmember Deal asked if that can still be added for effect.CA Kane replied yes. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the approval does not require termination. He stated that he is not in favor of requiring cancellation. Mayor Keighran stated that her understanding was that this was a two-year extension with a full stop. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the question of whether it cannot be extended is not being dealt with here. Councilmember Deal replied that is correct. Mayor Keighran, as the second, agreed with the amendments to the motion. The motion was made by Councilmember Deal; seconded by Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved by a voice vote, 4-1 with Councilmember Nagel replying no. CA Kane asked if there is a motion to adopt the CEQA resolution as stated in the packet. Motion by Councilmember Deal to adopt the CEQA resolution in the packet; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Motion was approved by a voice vote, 4-1 with Councilmember Nagel replying no. b. APPEAL HEARING ON BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF FOUR PROTECTED TREES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE (HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) P&RD Glomstad reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider the appeal and conduct a public hearing. Mayor Keighran asked about Mr. Osterling’s letter. She read the letter. She asked if he met with personnel. P&RD Glomstad stated he did not. Councilmember Nagel stated the Beautification Commission was very specific about the trees that would be replacing the trees. She asked the City Arborist if he concurred with the Commission’s recommendations. City Arborist Disco stated he did not. He stated it is not normal for them to be that specific about the type of tree. He stated that the staff report suggested replacing the four oak trees with four more trees, but the Commission decided to do eight. Councilmember Nagel asked about the sudden oak death problem in that area. Mr. Disco stated he stuck with the oaks because of the surrounding trees. He noted most sudden oak deaths are in oaks near creeks, which these are not. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 8 Mayor Keighran stated that it was mentioned the trees would be replaced in the general vicinity of where the oaks are now. She asked how far backs the trees need to be so they aren’t damaged with construction. Mr. Disco noted there is an area that should have enough room for trees to grow. He noted the school district has a planting plan. Councilmember Deal noted that several arborists have looked at this, and Richard Huntington also came up with a similar solution that the trees had to be removed. He stated the retaining walls are moving very close to the trunks. Mr. Disco stated the image shows the retaining wall going through one tree and within a few feet of the other tree. Councilmember Deal stated that Mr. Osterling may not have understood the retaining wall was being moved. Mr. Disco agreed. CA Kane stated that people cannot hypothesize about what someone might have said and use that as a basis for a Council decision. Mayor Keighran stated that in the letter he states the oaks would be okay if undisturbed. Councilmember Baylock noted the drop off zone and asked if there is a curb between the drop off lane and the street. Mr. Disco replied he cannot answer that. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. Christine Fitzgerald, resident on Summit Drive, Hillsborough and Burlingame business owner stated there is a lawsuit pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court wherein a group of neighbors are seeking to enjoin the Hoover School Project until the District conducts a full environmental impact report. The trial is set for July 29, less than 30 days, and depending on that outcome the district could be forced to redesign the project and in particular the drop off/pick up location, and it could be moved to a different location. She stated that if the neighbors prevail then the trees might be moved unnecessarily. She stated delaying this decision would not delay the opening of the school. She noted that according to the District meeting minutes, the design of the modified drop off area had not been authorized as of June 11. She stated these trees are diseased, but need proper care and maintenance to live another 100 years. Diane Haggerty spoke against the removal of the trees. She stated the viability of the trees has been proven. She noted she hired Mr. Osterling to show the viability of the trees regardless of the retaining wall. She stated that she has observed that these trees are more viable than many other trees. She asked the Council to think of the trees like children that should always be accommodated for. She stated these two trees are safer than any spot a child walks on to get to that school. She asked that the drop off be moved to somewhere else. Joe Haggerty read a letter from his daughter who was raised in their home across the street from this property asking the Council to prevent the removal of the trees. Deborah Payne presented an image of the street by the oaks. She read comments from people who signed a petition to keep the trees. She spoke against the argument that the poor structure of the tree automatically means it needs to be removed or that they are weak. She noted that oaks have several leaders that support them. She noted that she asked David Babby to evaluate the trees and requests to allow him access to the trees were denied. He still supported Mr. Osterling’s letter. She brought up a series of issues raised by Mr. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 9 Disco and refuted them. She noted that oaks and acacias are helpful to prevent erosion. She stated the pick up/drop off area should be done on the school site and not on Summit. She noted Hillsborough’s recommendation to keep the trees for similar reasons. Dr. Robert Clark, assistant superintendent for Burlingame School District, spoke with the superintendent of the school district, Maggie MacIsaac, opposing the appeal of the Beautification Commission’s decision. He argued that the design was reviewed and created with the community and the Planning Commission. He stated that safety of children is paramount and both the City arborist and the arborist contracted by the District report the trees pose a danger to the students and pedestrians. He noted that the District plans to maintain the densely wooded hillside that makes up 5 acres of the property. He noted that 75% of the trees that need to be removed for construction are within the campus area, with the four that are being disputed being the only other trees to be removed. He stated that eight trees will be planted to replace the removed trees. He asked the City Council to allow flexibility for the replanted trees pending the final design of the modified drop off area. He stated that the architect and City arborist have determined the design will only allow for 5 to 6 trees. He noted that the District has a long standing agreement with the City to replace any removed tree with at least one tree. She asked the City Council to uphold the Beautification Commission’s decision to remove the trees. Ms. Payne stated a series of positive effects that oak and acacia trees can have. She stated that oaks have been around a hundred years, are drought tolerant trees, provide erosion control, etc. Acacia trees also offer drought resistance, erosion control, etc. She stated that a good solution is to move the development away from the trees so they can stay in tact. She stated that there were no landscape plans provided at the Beautification Commission. She stated there was no indication that the Beautification Commission or the City would have input on the final placement of the trees. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that part of the community asked for the City to widen the street to improve traffic, which means two parts of the community are in direct conflict. He asked Ms. Payne how to reconcile that. Ms. Payne stated that he must look at the street as a whole. She stated that this street is one of the windiest streets and has no sidewalks. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that is why they asked to widen it. Ms. Payne stated that only one part of it will be widened, not the rest of it. She stated that parents coming up and down the street in the mornings and afternoons won’t be very safe. She stated the drop off could be moved to Easton rather than be on Summit. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that circulation isn’t the topic here tonight, but his question is that there are different and contradictory community interests. Dr. Clark stated the decision to remove trees was not made likely but the District desperately needs more student space that this property would provide. Councilmember Baylock noted the landscaping plan says it is with the original drop off plan. She asked if that was with six cars stacking and then it changed to fifteen. Dr. Clark stated that the modified drop off has not been designed yet, so what is in the landscaping plan now is part of the State-approved plans. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 10 Councilmember Baylock stated the drop off area was right below the existing building originally, and there were six cars and a curb or planter strip between the roadway and the drop off area. She asked if there is the same opportunity to have that planting strip between the drop off area and the roadway. Dr. Clark replied that there will not be that opportunity in the modified drop off. He noted this original design was very cost effective after doing the traffic study. He stated that the public requested a longer drop off, so the district responded by increasing the drop off. Councilmember Baylock asked if the modified drop off is what’s driving the removal of tree one, or if that is from the original plan. Dr. Clark stated that oak tree number one would have stayed, because the roots would not have been touched. Councilmember Baylock asked if oak two and the two acacias were part of the original plan to be removed. Dr. Clark stated that they were already planned to come out. Mayor Keighran noted the Beautification Commission’s recommendation to plant eight trees total in the general vicinity and the concern that that may not be possible. She asked if the City Arborist would be in on these conversations when this happens. She stated it could be decided to remove the trees but there should not be a blank area. She asked if it’s okay to have a City Arborist in addition to the school district’s arborist to make sure that every option is considered to commit to that condition. She asked if that can be requested. CA Kane stated that this is the school district’s project so the City cannot control the landscape plan; however if the District indicated willingness to work with the City Arborist it could be something the Council could include in its conditions. Mayor Keighran stated that they don’t have to follow what the City suggests, but it can be suggested. CA Kane stated that the Council could suggest it but as to whether the Council could require it, that would require additional briefing because it enters a questionable area in terms of control over the project itself. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the appeal were denied, what the timing is of the tree removal. Dr. Clark stated that if the City Council votes to deny the appeal, the District will move forward with the trees as soon as possible. He stated the arborists were scheduled for the following day. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the design were to change due to litigation, it would be unfortunate if the trees were to come out. Dr. Clark stated that trees three and four are in the way of the new building. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if that was the two acacias. Dr. Clark replied yes. He stated that number two oak was also coming out as part of the original design anyways. He stated that oak number one is the only new tree. He stated that there is not a finalized plan of the design. He noted there is an added cost of having an arborist come out to remove three trees and then have to come back out later to remove the last one. He stated that the initial review by the architect, arborist and landscape architect is between five and six trees. He stated the District will commit to planting trees but they don’t want to commit to planting X number of trees of X size inside that area. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Deal stated that yes there are protected trees in Burlingame but protected doesn’t mean that the tree cannot be removed; rather it means the tree can only be removed with justification. He noted the concern for safety of the trees. He stated that if the retaining walls are put in that will make the trees unsafe even if they were considered safe before. He stated when the decision was made to widen the drop off space Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 11 there was no talk about the trees. He stated that the space is needed for the children so this project is extremely important. He stated that the trees need to come out and agrees with putting five to six trees in, or whatever the arborist decides, because the space cannot be overburdened with trees. The motion was made by Councilmember Deal to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems a number of people have not wanted the school to go forward. He noted that part of the effort to keep the oaks may be partly an effort to stop the school from going forward. He stated that the oaks are an inevitable collateral damage of building a safer street. He noted that he would support asking the school district to delay the removal of oak tree number one until a decision is made about the design. Councilmember Baylock noted the difficulty of this decision. She stated there is a greater good that has to be addressed. She agreed with the suggestion of preserving tree number one until the lawsuit is completed. CA Kane advised that rather than conditioning the removal of the tree on the outcome of a lawsuit to which the City is not a party, the Council could delay it for sufficient time so that if the parties to the lawsuit could seek a stay if that is what they wish to do for the removal. Councilmember Nagel asked if there should be a specific timeframe the City Attorney would suggest. CA Kane stated that she did not want to influence the Council’s ultimate decision. She advised allowing a moderate but time limited delay on whichever tree they wish, to allow the plaintiffs time to seek an injunction. She noted that the time it would take to seek an injunction would be a matter of weeks. Councilmember Nagel stated she has also been troubled by the issues in the discussion because it is the fate of the four trees that is before the Council. She stated she spoke to neighbors in the area and found there were two different camps of people who were ultimately supportive of taking the trees down and those who were not. Mayor Keighran agreed that this is a tough issue. She stated the City does have a lot of antiquated trees but there are new trees growing. She stated her preference is to follow the Beautification’s recommendation to plant eight trees. She advised saving one or two trees for Arbor Day so the kids can see the progression of the trees when they enter the school and when they graduate so that they can appreciate the trees more. Councilmember Deal stated that the court system can take a long time to make its decisions. He stated that he cannot see delaying the whole project for tree number one which would allow the drop off zone to become something completely different and safer. Mayor Keighran asked if Councilmember Deal would like to include the suggestion be upheld that eight trees be planted by the District. Councilmember Deal stated the District should decide what is appropriate because plants cannot be put too close together. Mayor Keighran stated there should still be suggestion that the District work with the City Arborist so that two parties work on it. Councilmember Deal agreed to add that to the motion. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 12 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Councilman Deal raises a practical observation and he wanted to hear how others felt about delaying the removal of tree one. He stated it is probably not a wise discretion to include in the motion. He withdrew the proposal. Councilmember Nagel asked if there is a legal action in play already that won’t be heard before July 26, could the District go ahead with plans to design the drop off area, or is the drop off area on hold until the legal case is resolved. CA Kane advised she is not in a position to advise the District. She stated the only thing before the Council tonight is the question of the permits themselves. Councilmember Nagel stated that if that one tree does not need to be removed the next day, give the tree two weeks to give neighbors opportunity to follow up with an injunction. Mayor Keighran asked Councilmember Deal if he wanted to include that in his motion before the vote. Councilmember Deal replied no. CA Kane asked for clarification on the motion. She asked if it was to deny the appeal and to suggest that the District coordinate with the City Arborist in the replanting relocation for the replacement trees. Councilmember Deal stated there is nothing else except that the District follow the recommendation of the Beautification Commission. The motion was approved 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REVIEW OF, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (ENA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND GROSVENOR USA LTD. RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING LOT E AND THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME POST OFFICE PROPERTY CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested that the City Council review and comment upon the draft Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the City and Grosvenor USA Ltd. regarding the development of Parking Lot E. CDD Meeker stressed that the City has no influence over the sale of the Downtown Burlingame Post Office property adjacent to Parking Lot E. He further requested that Council provide direction to staff for any substantive changes, and consider authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame. CDD Meeker introduced Steve O’Connell, Development Manager for Grosvenor Americas and Matt Gray, Legal Counsel and said they were available to answer questions. Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comments. Jennifer Pfaff and Russ Cohen spoke on the item. Steve O’Connell and Matt Gray spoke and thanked the Council for their time and consideration and thanked the City staff for all their efforts over the past several months drafting the proposed negotiation agreement. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 13 Councilmember Deal spoke about in-lieu fees. He stated this is too limiting. He asked for it to read in-lieu fees and other contributions. Mr. O’Connell noted the in-lieu fees are for replacement parking but there is also land sale and value. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that there is a fair amount of risk in this project on Grosvenor’s part. Mr. O’Connell agreed. Mr. O’Connell replied no. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there is any guarantee that the designs drawn so far will be the designs that get built. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there is any guarantee that any plans they propose will be accepted by the Council. Mr. O’Connell replied that he can almost guarantee the designs drawn so far will not be what is built, because there have only been a few community meetings that have raised some very good point. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Mr. O’Connell to briefly detail Grosvenor’s corporate history. Mr. O’Connell stated that Grosvenor has been around for almost three hundred years operating in London. He stated in the 1950s it spread international and focus on high barrier to entry cities and preferably urban locations. He stated they are not a big commodity builder and focuses on design rather than trying to crank out the highest number of residential units out. Councilmember Nagel asked about the automatic extension clause. She asked about preferment milestones. Mr. O’Connell stated he has an estimate for how much the entitlement process will cost, and it is very significant. Councilmember Nagel asked if it was in the millions. Mr. O’Connell replied they are hoping it is less than one million. Councilmember Nagel asked why there is an automatic extension clause. Mr. O’Connell noted the market one, and gave the example of spending a long period of time working with the community to develop a project that everyone wants to move forward with, but if something like 2008 were to happen and they could no longer get financing then that should not prevent Grosvenor from building the project eventually. Councilmember Nagel stated that assuming the Post Office does sell this property, what can Grosvenor say to assure the City that the project will not stall out. Mr. O’Connell stated that in that scenario he cannot guarantee it will move forward but then Grosvenor would own the Post Office property as well which would be a significant investment. Councilmember Nagel asked if there is any news on the Post Office. CDD Meeker stated there are ongoing discussions regarding the historic significance and who would hold any covenance preserving the property. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Community Director could state who was on the Citizen Advisory Committee when the Downtown Plan was crafted. CDD Meeker stated that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee met for a little over three years to draft the Downtown Plan, and the group was chosen based upon interest groups within the downtown. It included business owners, representatives of property owners, residents, all from very different perspectives. He stated Ms. Pfaff was there representing the historic community to ensure the Downtown Plan represented a preservation of the character of the downtown. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 14 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated it was a very broad, hardworking committee. CDD Meeker stated they met about 18 times over that period. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated the plan specifically discussed the notion of redeveloping at -grade parking lots, and that there were higher and better uses. He stated one of the key elements was a significant public open space which he takes very seriously. He stated that a significant gathering space is missing from the downtown. He asked CDD Meeker if when properties don’t get developed, why it is they don’t move forward. CDD Meeker stated it is typically lack of funding for the project. He noted the funding for mixed use project in particular is difficult to come by. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City constrains itself as to what design is ultimately approved if this agreement is signed tonight. CDD Meeker replied no. He stated this is not dealing with the actual project at all so it places no design constraints on the actual project. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated there is no guarantee that Grosvenor will buy the Post Office, and there’s no guarantee that someone will outbid them. He stated it’s very clear the City will deal with whoever it is that ends up buying the property. He asked if the Council has any way of knowing that any buyer would do any of the things that Grosvenor has talked about. CDD Meeker stated it is a challenge, because if someone else purchases the property there is no way to compel them to develop it. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated they could sit on it for years. CDD Meeker agreed. He stated they could repurpose it for other uses permitted under the code. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thinks the fact that there is a developer who has experience, who is willing to take the risk, who can demonstrably build projects much bigger than this is a benefit and security to the people of Burlingame. Councilmember Baylock stated that she has ongoing concerns dating back to February 8, 2012, when this was first discussed. She stated they are considering a development agreement with a developer to use a valuable public asset. She asked if the public knows about and/or supports the concept of using public property to build affordable housing. She noted some questions she asked in that February. She read a statement which will be attached as an addendum. Mayor Keighran noted that Councilmember Baylock mentioned that the Council is precluded from talking to developers to come up with concepts for the Post Office, but the Council does not have control over designs of the Post Office, so if other developers want to propose something then they can do so. CDD Meeker stated that is correct. He stated the staff is required to meet with any party interested in pursuing it and the development potential of the property. Councilmember Baylock stated it precludes the Council from talking to potential developers of the site who may want to have the same sort of agreement to use Lot E. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 15 CDD Meeker replied that is correct. Because of this agreement there would be no discussions with other parties relative to Parking Lot E but it does not preclude discussions relative to the Post Office. Mayor Keighran stated the process was open to everyone for Lot E. CDD Meeker noted the RFQ did make a reference to the Post Office potentially becoming available at some point and the policy statements in the Downtown Plan that spoke to incorporate that conceivably into a development in the future. Mayor Keighran stated that none of the developers knew that was going to go up for sale, including Grosvenor. Councilmember Nagel stated that she has a different perspective, recalling that the process began when the Council looked at previous Specific Plans that sat on the shelf. She stated they did not want this plan to sit on the shelf, so they sent out requests for proposals, and talked to two companies because they were the best options. She stated this does not tie the City’s hands but rather gives them the freedom to move forward with their vision for the downtown. She noted the importance of affordable housing. She noted her support of authorizing the ENA. Councilmember Deal agreed. Mayor Keighran agreed with Councilmember Nagel. She stated that this was the only developer looking beyond Lot E and noticing the Post Office was mentioned in the RFQ. She noted that this is only a preliminary concept. She noted that there are people that want to downsize and move to downtown so they can walk everywhere and take public transportation. She stated that the design is to be discussed later in community meetings and will go in front of the Planning Commission—this is not the decision for the Council tonight. She noted her support for the ENA with more discussion. She noted her concern about parking. She stated this will increase pedestrians in the downtown so parking is an issue that needs to be looked at very seriously to effect in the near future. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he worries about is someone buying the property and not doing anything with it. He stated the public process is not very good at the moment. He stated the combined lot can be used to create housing, create retail, better pedestrian access, create parking, a boutique hotel, etc. He stated that they cannot do all of that in one property. He stated the community needs to figure out which thing they want to accomplish. He agreed that working with a partner with a good track record is actually liberating the City to improve the downtown. Vice Mayor Brownrigg motioned to approve the ENA. He noted there are some line edits. CA Kane stated that if the line edits affect the terms of the proposed agreement which is Grosvenor’s last draft taking into account discussions that they had with staff, then there should be direction on that tonight so terms can be finalized with Grosvenor. Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested specific line edits under recitals, paragraph C, changing the final sentence to, “Moreover the City has no jurisdiction over the Post Office disposition and must therefore be prepared to work with whoever wins the Post Office bid.” He questioned why, in Paragraph D, it is prejudged what kind of transaction it is. He noted the recitals of City objectives, section 6, and stated that open space is the most important and should be lead with. He added other economic and commercial priorities, such as a hotel or retail. He noted 6.5, the Post Office parcel acquisition, and asked to strike all the language and simply say that if the developer could not acquire the Post Office parcel, the developer and the City would meet and confer about whether to restructure this agreement. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 16 Councilmember Deal warned against grouping with people that think similarly and realize that there are various needs and there are people that want to live downtown. Councilmember Nagel asked if the language is changed, is it necessary to run new language by the consultants. Mayor Keighran stated that the Council can give direction and see if there is any particular problem. Councilmember Baylock noted 6.5b, the language that says it’s unknown whether any elements may be considered historic resources under CEQA. She noted that the Post Office presented information that it qualifies as a historic resource. She stated that it is known that it’s subject to CEQA. CA Kane stated that if the first sentence of part B were struck, that would be effective. She noted that this draft was started prior to final reports so there is more information now. Councilmember Baylock stated the purpose of it was to ensure the developer would fund the study, and not the City. Mayor Keighran asked if Councilmember Baylock had anything else to add. Councilmember Baylock noted the paragraph allowing market rate extensions. CA Kane clarified that the total time lapse for market delay is limited to 24 months no matter what happens. Councilmember Baylock asked if the total elapsed time on the agreement could add an additional 18 months to the 24 months. CA Kane replied that the suspension for market delay is limited to 24 months but it doesn’t affect the rest of the elapsed performance milestones. Councilmember Baylock asked if then the maximum would be 18 plus 24. She stated the manager can make any changes to the timeline without coming back to the Council. She noted she would be voting against the agreement. CM Goldman stated that it would not behoove the City Manager to put a project in the downtown that didn’t have some input from the Council, so while the provision gives the discretion to the City Manager, my intention is to check in as needed when there are big decisions to be made. Mayor Keighran stated that the Council has followed the recommendations for tonight. Motion to approve the ENA, incorporating changes discussed, made by Vice Mayor Brownrigg; seconded by Councilmember Deal. The motion was approved, 4-1, with Councilmember Baylock replying no. b. REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING TEMPORARY FREE PUBLIC PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and requested direction from Council. Mayor Keighran stated that her concern was the merchants utilizing the parking spaces, so she agreed with the chalking. She noted that people do wipe chalk off sometimes. She asked if there are scanners that can scan license plates. DPW Murtuza replied that it would cost about 25 thousand dollars. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 17 Councilmember Nagel noted that people have complained about confusing signage during construction. She asked what the City plans to do to improve signage of parking. DPW Murtuza stated that there was standard signage which said no parking with a time, so they drive past. He stated that changeable message signboards have been installed so that has helped. He stated that there have also been suggestions from merchants to include special signs that say parking allowed, because people do not read the whole no parking signs. He noted that generally people utilize the spaces except the 1400 block. Councilmember Nagel expressed concern about the loss of revenue since this was money that was counted when the streetscape plan was developed. He stated a loss of revenue would impact the budgets. He noted that there was around $250,000.00 of fund balance in the parking fund which could be available, but that was not preferable. Mayor Keighran noted that the staff report is assuming that 7 days a week there will be free parking. She stated she would like a good faith effort because it is difficult to find parking. She noted an idea like Free Fridays. Councilmember Baylock stated she does not hear a lot of complaints from merchants. Mayor Keighran stated she has heard quite a few complaints from residents about how hard it is to find parking, and that it’s difficult to read the signs. Councilmember Deal stated that he attended a Council meeting in South San Francisco, and some people said that they love what is going on with the Burlingame downtown even though parking is a difficult issue. Councilmember Nagel stated that the cities are very glad that it’s bad in downtown Burlingame because they are competing with each other. She stated that she hears complaints wherever she goes of how difficult it is. She stated that people avoid the Avenue because of these different problems. Councilmember Baylock stated that if people were avoiding it then there wouldn’t be a parking problem. Councilmember Nagel stated people are confused about whether they can park there, and they don’t want to drive over the plates. Mayor Keighran stated it would help merchants because of the avoidance of that area, so if there was something to draw people there it would help the businesses. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that his impression was that you can’t please everyone, so even if there was free parking then people will complain that spots never turn over. He asked how to determine what merchants want. DPW Murtuza stated that is very difficult. He stated that those spaces are definitely impacting the merchants on that block. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that everyone understands it’s difficult on people. He asked whether merchants really want free parking. Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 18 DPW Murtuza stated that in the feedback door to door a few merchants asked for that. The majority of them wanted the job done quickly. Councilmember Baylock stated that it might be a good idea to put the parking lot map in the newsletter as often as possible. Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comment and John Root, Jennifer Pfaff and Mike Nagler spoke on the item. There were no further comments from the floor, and public comment was closed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg motioned to propose two hours of free parking on Burlingame Avenue; Mayor Keighran seconded the motion with the condition that there is code enforcement that consists of at least chalking the tires. Vice Mayor Brownrigg clarified that he was thinking of Free Fridays. CM Goldman asked if this was for the duration of the project or if there would be a different plan during holidays, etc. Councilmember Deal suggested waiting to see how it goes at first. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that they should decide to leave it going unless they decide it’s not working. Mayor Keighran agreed and the motion was approved 5-0. Mayor Keighran asked when that could begin. DPW Murtuza stated that he could work with the Police Department, etc., to work out the details and hopefully begin implementing it within a week. DPW Murtuza stated that he could work with the Police Department, etc., to work out the details and hopefully begin implementing it within a week. Mayor Keighran clarified it was free two hour parking on Burlingame Avenue, Free Fridays, with police enforcement. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT OF GUS GUINAN FOR THE PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS ACTING CITY ATTORNEY CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 65-2013 approving the employment of Gus Guinan for the provision of professional services as Acting City Attorney for the City of Burlingame for the period of August 5 – 16, 2013. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Unapproved Minutes 19 a. Commission Minutes: Traffic Safety & Parking, May 9 2013; Library, May 14, 2013; Planning, June 10, 2013 b. Department Reports: Finance, May 2013 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk