HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.03.19
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on March 19, 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 Rino Betti.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
a. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY
CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND NEXT STEPS
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the background of the project. She explained that in
2012, staff in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (“CAC”), and
community members began working on plans for a new community center in Washington Park. In 2014, the
City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan. Thereafter, the architects and CAC began
working on the conceptual plan which outlined the specifics of what the residents wanted in a new
community center. She introduced the Group 4 Architecture representatives, Dawn Merkes and Teresa Rom.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad showed the proposed community center site plan. She stated that
the building was shifted a little to the left to allow for parking next to the building. By doing this, the
playground and basketball court are also shifted. She stated that surfacing parking by the Lions Club gets
reduced a bit to accommodate the basketball court. She noted that the CAC and community members
stressed the importance of maintaining the trees and passive spaces of Washington Park.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the playground would be the same size. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad
replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
2
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that there are two parking options to meet the required
143 spaces for the community center. The first option is a combination of parking under the community
center and surface parking. The second option is a combination of surface parking and a half-level below
grade parking under the tennis courts.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the four conceptual design options: 1) traditionally
influenced “Mission,” 2) traditionally influenced “Arts and Crafts,” 3) warm and inviting “Gables,” and 4)
warm and inviting “Pavilions in the Park”. She stated that from these options, the two that rose to the top
were the “Mission” and the “Pavilions in the Park” designs. In 2015, Council reviewed these options and
chose the “Mission” design. She noted that the design has changed since then based on input from Council,
CAC, Planning Commission, and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad showed different views of the Mission design including the entry
view from Burlingame Avenue and the entry from the park. All of these views and layouts of the proposed
project can be found in staff report exhibits. Next she reviewed the proposed first and second floor plans.
She explained that while the square footage of the building is only fractionally larger, staff is able to increase
programmable space by adding a second floor. She discussed the different spaces within the building
including a community hall, interior/exterior restrooms, maker’s space, senior lounge, and many others.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the design would allow for more programming hours.
She noted that in the fall, staff would be able to increase programming from 180 hours per week to 420
hours. In the summer, staff would be able to increase programming from 420 hours a week to 600 hours.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the community hall could be partitioned into two rooms. Parks and
Recreation Director replied in the affirmative. She explained that the community hall could hold 300 people
and if partitioned, one side would hold 100, while the other would hold 200.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that under the current design, the community center
would be LEED gold certified. She stated that Council could decide whether they wanted the building to be
certified above or below this level. Additionally, she asked the Council to consider whether the building
should be zero net energy (“ZNE”). A ZNE building is a building that produces as much energy as it
consumes by being extremely energy-efficient and generating onsite renewable energy.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the budget. She explained that if the Council requested
both parking options (surface parking next to the building plus parking a half grade under the tennis courts
and parking under the building), it is estimated that the project would cost between $51.6 million and $56.9
million. She stated that if the Council chose only Option 1 for parking (under the building and surface
parking), the cost would be between $45.4 million and $49.6 million. Or if Council chose only Option 2 for
parking (under the tennis courts and surface parking), the cost would be between $43.3 million and $47.5
million.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the underground parking was the traditional style and whether staff had
considered car stackers. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied that it was traditional underground
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
3
parking and that they hadn’t looked into car stackers. Group 4 architect Dawn Merkes stated that while car
stackers are great and efficient, it requires you to dig deeper underground.
Parks and Recreation Glomstad reviewed options to reduce the price of the new community center. She
explained that there were three factors to consider in reducing the cost of the project: costs in the Bay Area,
quality, and quantity. She noted that the City is in an area where building costs are expensive. She stated
that construction costs are expected to escalate on average 5% a year until 2020. Therefore, under the first
option they would not be able to reduce costs.
The second opportunity for cost reduction is quality. She stated that the current project is budgeted for civic
construction, with the building’s life expectancy being 40 to 50 years. She explained that some value
engineering could be done which would result in 10% savings. Additionally, she stated that staff explored
the options of pre-engineered, prefabricated, and concrete tilt-up type buildings.
The third opportunity for cost reduction is quantity. She stated that staff created two cost reduction
proposals for Council to consider. The first is to limit the scope of work to the community center,
underground parking, and associated site work. She noted that this meant that the City would be limiting the
project to the east-side of the Lions Club. Under this option, the building and playground will stay the same
size, but the basketball court may need to be reduced to half court. The projected cost of this option is
between $38 million and $42 million. The second option is to reduce the building size from 35,700 GSF to
32,000 GSF. Under this option, the City could do surface only parking, the playground remains the same
size, and the basketball court may need to be reduced to half court. Additionally, under this option, the
community center would lose the drop-off area inside the parking lot. The projected cost of this option is
between $30 million and $33 million.
Councilmember Beach asked if there were any concerns about the water table and underground parking. Ms.
Merkes replied that they anticipate the water table being higher and therefore the budget includes full
waterproofing of the underground parking lot.
Councilmember Keighran asked how often the current basketball court is utilized. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad replied that it is often utilized.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the next steps in the project. She explained that Council
has three options:
1. The City could proceed directly into schematic design based on Council’s direction and input after
this discussion. Under this option no additional commission or community input is necessary. She
explained that staff didn’t choose to do CEQA upfront because at that time the City didn’t have
funding and didn’t know when funding would be made available. However, she noted that CEQA
can be done concurrently with the schematic design. It is anticipated that this will be a mitigated
negative declaration but that it wouldn’t delay the project.
2. Staff can update the current conceptual design plan based on Council’s input. She stated that if
Council decides to reduce the building size, Ms. Merkes will need to revise the plans. She noted that
this would take 3-4 months and cost approximately $50,000 in design and engagement fees.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
4
3. Staff can revise the current conceptual design based on Council direction. She explained that this
option would take 6 months and cost approximately $100,000
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the five questions staff is looking for City Council
direction on:
1. Does the Council wish to keep the current Conceptual Design or revise it?
2. What are the preferred cost reduction strategies?
- Limit project scope?
- Reduce building size?
3. What is the preferred parking option for the proposed Community Center?
- Underground?
- Surface?
- Under-court?
4. What is the estimated maximum funding for this project?
5. What are Council’s thoughts on LEED or Zero Net Energy (“ZNE”) goals for the project?
Mayor Brownrigg stated he was disappointed to learn that staff expects the process to take 18-20 months
without any of the additional studies required in the above options. He asked how conservative this estimate
was. Ms. Merkes replied that it is a conservative estimate of how long before the City breaks ground on the
project. She explained that typically construction documents take 12 months, and adding in plan check and
the bid process makes it 16-18 months.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if during the 12 months that construction documents are being finalized, CEQA is
also underway. Ms. Merkes replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that about a quarter of the costs are soft costs. He asked if staff had looked at
reducing these costs as opposed to other cost reduction measures. Ms. Merkes stated that the soft costs were
conservatively estimated. She added that design engineering fees for a building of this size are running 11-
12%. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad added that the soft cost includes temporary facilities during
construction of the community center.
Councilmember Beach stated that under the second option for cost reduction, the size of the building would
be reduced by 10%, which would decrease required parking spaces and therefore allow for surface parking
only. She asked if there was any scenario where you can reduce the footprint of the building and still have
underground parking. Ms. Merkes stated that they ran this option and the cost comes in at $34.9 million to
$38.9 million.
Councilmember Keighran asked how much money the City would save by going ZNE. Ms. Merkes stated
that she would need to get back to Council with this information.
Vice Mayor Colson and Ms. Merkes discussed the photovoltaic panels that would be used to obtain ZNE.
Ms. Merkes stated that the photovoltaics panels would go on the roof of the building.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
5
Councilmember Keighran stated in regards to future code updates, ZNE is most likely going to be required.
Ms. Merkes stated that this could happen and added that the current building code requirements is the
equivalent of LEED certified
Councilmember Ortiz asked what the photovoltaic panels look like. Ms. Merkes stated that they are concrete
tiles.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Charles Voltz discussed future parking needs as a result of technological advancements
and stressed the importance of a drop-off area.
Burlingame resident Linda Field asked where staff would be parking at the new site. She voiced her concern
for adequate parking and a drop-off area.
Burlingame resident Elana Lieberman voiced her concern about the increased cost of the project. She
discussed decreasing the size of the project and adding affordable housing on top of the community center.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed the community hall aspect of the project. She explained that
she felt strongly that if the City was going to rent out the hall that the community center needed to have
adequate parking.
Burlingame resident Laura Hesselgren voiced her support for a drop-off area, underground parking and a full
sized basketball court.
Burlingame resident Jeff Londer voiced his support for the project and stated that the community center
should be unique and special.
Burlingame resident Lesley Beatty stated that when designing the community center, the City should
encourage individuals to arrive there by walking, biking or taking shuttles.
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh stated that the plan was great and asked for additional handicap spots
and a large drop-off area.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that in regards to Linda Field’s question it would depend on
Council’s direction for parking. If underground parking was established, staff would park there.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment period.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that Council first focus on question 5: “What are Council’s thoughts on LEED or
Zero Net Energy (“ZNE”) goals for the project?”
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was more interested in ZNE because he believed it was the most important
element of a green building.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
6
Vice Mayor Colson agreed with the Mayor. She explained that if the City can build a building that will last
80 years and is ZNE, then the value of that is millions of dollars to the residents.
Councilmember Keighran, Councilmember Beach and Councilmember Ortiz all agreed to focus on ZNE.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council for their thoughts on question 1: “Does the Council wish to keep the
current Conceptual Design or revise it?”
Councilmember Ortiz stated that CAC had many conversations about the conceptual design of the
community center. He explained that he liked the “Mission” design but he wasn’t married to it. He stated
that what he liked about the “Pavilions in the Park” design was the open windows to the park. He noted that
he believed that the solar panels would fit more with the “Pavilions in the Park” design. He asked that the
Council revisit the “Pavilions in the Park” design.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that prior to joining the City Council, she was a member of the CAC. She
explained that CAC did a great job siting the project and outlining programing options. She stated that she
had always had a good connection with the “Pavilions in the Park” design. She discussed how this design
opens up to the park and the windows make you feel like you are in the park. She stated that one of the most
iconic features in Burlingame are the trees. Therefore, whatever design the City chooses, openness to the
park should be the focus.
Councilmember Beach stated that she didn’t feel particularly strongly about any of the designs. She noted
that she sat with Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad to review the process and had read through the
reports and CAC notes. She explained that based on the extensive process that was undertaken to select the
“Mission” design, she was inclined to respect that decision.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she and Councilmember Ortiz were on CAC together and CAC had a
healthy debate with regards to design choices. She stated that the tendency was to go towards traditional.
Therefore, because of the extensive public outreach and input from the community and commissions, her
preference was to stay with the “Mission” design”. She asked if some tweaking could be done on the park-
side of the “Mission” design to make it more open to the park.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City is looking at spending approximately $50 million on a new community
center. He explained that when he looked at the “Mission” design it looked like everyone’s high school built
in the 1990s. He explained that it is important that the community center welcome everyone and among that
group is teenagers. He stated that he didn’t believe the average teenager wanted to go into a building that
looked like a school.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that if Council was amenable he would like to request a review of the “Pavilions in
the Park” design. He asked how much time the City would lose if they asked the architect to work on the
“Pavilions in the Park” design. Ms. Merkes stated that it depends on how much community engagement
would be involved. She explained that if Council became the design client, it would take 8 weeks.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
7
Vice Mayor Colson stated that at her last CAC meeting, the youth’s top choice was the “Pavilions in the
Park.” She stated that some of her daughters’ friends looked at the designs and asked if the City was
building a school in the park. She discussed the need to build the community center for future generations.
Additionally, she asked to see samples of what the photovoltaic panels would look like on the roof.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed there was a Council majority to revisit the “Pavilions in the Park”
design. He explained that once Group 4 worked on the design, the Council and community could compare,
contrast and consider the “Mission” and “Pavilions in the Park” designs.
Councilmember Beach stated that in consideration of the process and outreach that was conducted to reach
the decision to go with the “Mission” design, she wanted to ensure that the City conducted public outreach
on the “Pavilions in the Park” design prior to making a decision.
Mayor Brownrigg asked Council to review the third question: “What is the preferred parking option for the
proposed Community Center?”
Councilmember Ortiz explained that Council needed to focus on the present parking/traffic issues when
designing the community center. He added that he believed the City needed to be sensitive to the
neighborhood by providing parking for individuals who are attending events at the community hall.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that because the community center will be serving senior citizens, parking
should not be located under the tennis courts. Instead, he voiced support for parking under the building. He
added that if the City needed more parking in the future, the Council could consider parking under the tennis
courts, but that would be a separate project.
Councilmember Keighran concurred with Councilmember Ortiz and added that parking under the building
was essential.
Councilmember Beach agreed that the community center should have underground parking. She discussed
her hope that eventually people don’t utilize their cars as much and the underground lot could be repurposed.
She asked that the architects take another look to ensure that the drop-off area is adequate.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she concurred with her colleagues.
Mayor Brownrigg agreed with his colleagues.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that he emphatically believes the City needs to keep a full-sized basketball
court. He stated that he was disappointed that the plan didn’t include a gymnasium. He noted that the report
stated that the City has great cooperation with the schools in terms of residents’ access to the gymnasiums.
However, he explained that this was not true as the elementary gyms are inadequate for adults and BHS
doesn’t have open time slots at their gym. He asked that staff re-engage with BHS about using their gym.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested making the full-sized basketball court a multi-sport court, so that sports like
futsal could utilize the space.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
8
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was in favor of the full-sized basketball court.
At this point it was 7:00 p.m.; the City Council agreed to reconvene the study session after the end of the
regular session.
The study session was resumed at 8:22 p.m.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that Council’s decision to forgo parking under the tennis courts helped answer
question 2: “What are the preferred cost reduction strategies?” He noted that Council was asking for the
“Pavilions in the Park” design to be developed, and therefore he was unsure of its effects on the project cost.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct in assuming that his colleagues didn’t think the building size
should be decreased. Council agreed.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City has committed to the project and has a good handle on the sources of
funding. She noted that it would be important to have a cost management strategy.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the notion of putting housing on top of the community center. She explained
that Council was open to creative solutions to help address the City’s housing needs, but she felt strongly that
this project was not the place.
Councilmember Beach agreed with Vice Mayor Colson. She discussed the possibility of using the
community center in the future to address other affordable housing issues such as daycare and children’s
programming.
Mayor Brownrigg directed the Council to question 4: “What is the estimated maximum funding for this
project?” He asked City Manager Goldman to give Council some parameters on the budget.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City was fortunate to have the voters support Measure I. She
explained that using Measure I funds and taking on additional debt service, the City will be able to obtain a
$30 million lease revenue bond.
Mayor Brownrigg asked given Council’s direction at the meeting what is the estimated project cost. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it is between $38-41 million.
City Manager Goldman stated that therefore the City obtains a large chunk of the project’s funding through
the lease revenue bond. She explained that there is $25.8 million in the Capital Investment Reserve and that
these funds could be used for the community center. She stated that the City is adding about $2 million into
that reserve and realizing budget savings every year. Therefore, if the Council chose to use funds from the
Capital Investment Reserve, the City would still be able to maintain an adequate level of funds in reserve.
Mayor Brownrigg suggested setting a nominal budget of $40 million.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
9
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the City would go over that number and that the budget should
be set above the projected cost.
Councilmember Beach asked whether the Council would be open to naming rights on rooms in the
community center in order to raise money for the project.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Library had used naming rights to raise money for their renovation.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City could use the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation to
fundraise. She added that staff should hire consultants to help in the pricing of naming rights. She talked
about public organizations that had successfully used naming rights in fundraising such as UC Berkeley.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that there was Council consensus to buy down the public commitment but he didn’t
want the project to be reliant on fundraising. Council agreed.
Ms. Merkes stated that the projected costs were based on 2018 prices and therefore the escalation factor (5%
construction cost increase per year) should be considered when determining maximum budget.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested setting the budget at $40 million. She explained that by giving staff direction
to target $40 million in today’s dollars, staff can value engineer the project and Council can revisit the cost
as the project moves forward.
Councilmember Keighran agreed.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the timing of the bonds. Finance Director Augustine stated that you don’t
want to sit on the bonds and therefore they wouldn’t be obtained until closer to the start date.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed drawing on the bonds first so that the City would have a better idea of what
was needed from the Capital Investment Reserve.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that if the City didn’t obtain the bonds for 2 years they would have $4 million
identified in debt service that could be added to the project. Finance Director Augustine responded in the
affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that coincidentally when you factor in the construction cost
escalation in two years the $40 million project would be $44.8 million.
Council agreed to a $40 million budget.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad summarized the Council’s discussion:
• Community Center would be ZNE
• Re-visit the “Pavilions in the Park” design
• Parking under the building
• Review the curb management to ensure that it is adequate
• Limit the scope of the project but not building size
• Approximately $40 million budget
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
10
• Full-sized basketball court
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad asked about the process the Council would like to go through to get
to the final design. She explained that the quickest process would be to treat the Council as the design client.
However, staff will still need to conduct public outreach. She explained that this could be done through
commission meetings, CAC meetings, or with Council study sessions.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council as the design client would be his preference. He explained that he
envisioned the process working in a similar fashion to when public art was installed at the hospital. This
included putting up the potential designs in the library for the public to review and then holding a public
hearing at Council. He stated that this way the public has a chance to provide their input.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she believed that it was important at this point in the project to incorporate the
whole Council in the conversation instead of returning to the CAC.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Mayor was requesting a preliminary sketch of the “Pavilions in the Park”
design be completed. Then the “Mission” and “Pavilions in the Park” design could be reviewed together by
the public and Council. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the affirmative.
Council discussed the timeline for making a decision on the conceptual design.
City Manager Goldman reminded the Council that they go on recess after July 2. She recommended that this
conversation happen on June 18 or July 2. Council agreed.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION TO FORMER FIRE BOARD
MEMBER ANN KEIGHRAN
Fire Chief Kammeyer recognized Councilmember Keighran for her service on the CCFD Fire Board. He
then presented her with a plaque to honor her time.
Councilmember Keighran thanked Fire Chief Kammeyer and welcomed Councilmember Ortiz to the Fire
Board.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
11
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Colson pulled item 8d.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Keighran.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 5, 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2018.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH RINO BETTI, DBA SAM’S
SANDWICH SHOP, FOR THE PREMISES AT 1080 HOWARD AVENUE, BURLINGAME,
CALIFORNIA
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 35-2018.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
VALENTINE CORPORATION FOR THE SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT –
CITY PROJECT NO. 84740
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 36-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City hadn’t gone with the lowest bidder on this project because it was
inadequate and deficient in several respects.
d. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
REDGWICK CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE ROUNDABOUT
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 83920, AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HANNA GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 37-2018 and Resolution Number 38-2018.
DPW Murtuza explained that the California Drive intersection with Lorton and Bellevue Avenue is a
convoluted and complex intersection. He stated that the intersection has more than 13 traffic movements.
Additionally there are long crosswalks across 4 lanes of traffic on California Drive. He explained that in the
mid-2000s, an initial feasibility study was conducted, and a roundabout was identified as the City’s best
option. Subsequently, staff worked on preliminary designs and applied for grants.
DPW Murtuza explained that the key purpose of the project is to construct a roundabout to slow down traffic
on California Drive and provide shorter pedestrian crossings. He stated that the proposed project is a traffic
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
12
calming measure with safety elements. He explained that because the project is in close proximity to
downtown businesses, residential areas, parking lots, and the train station, staff is planning on constructing
this project in four stages. However, he assured the Council that traffic on California Drive will be
maintained at all times during construction. He stated that the idea is to begin construction during the
summer, so that the most disruptive phase is done prior to schools reopening.
DPW Murtuza explained that staff has been meeting with property owners and businesses to address their
concerns. He discussed the public outreach that staff is proposing to undertake prior to the start of
construction including: installing signage to inform the public of the project; sending mailers to all
businesses in the area, e-newsletter updates, and coordinating with DBID.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the goal is to start the project in May and be done by January 2019. DPW
Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked that BHS be notified of the project so that the school can inform parents.
DPW Murtuza thanked Councilmember Keighran for her suggestion.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was originally opposed to the project. However, because of the changes
that were made, he now believed it would improve mobility and safety.
Mayor Brownrigg asked how the City is able to use $500,000 from storm drain measure funds for the
project. DPW Murtuza explained that the project contained storm drain improvements on California Drive.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 37-2018 and Resolution Number 38-
2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
e. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE LIBRARY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Library
Board of Trustees.
f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.52 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATION OF BICYCLES
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
13
City Attorney Kane stated that the amendments to the ordinance were being brought to Council to update
regulations concerning bicycles that were written in the 1940s and last amended meaningfully in the 1970s.
She explained that the primary purpose is to remove the local licensing requirement and various provisions
that are inconsistent with state law and best practices.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council discussed an earlier version of the ordinance at its previous
meeting and requested a few changes that are included in the current draft.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the
title of the ordinance.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that the item be brought back at the next Council meeting to consider adoption.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. UPDATE ON PROPOSED PARK ON STATE LANDS PARCEL
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the State Lands Commission (“SLC”) owns two
parcels of land on the Bayfront. She stated that the parcels are available for long-term lease and a public
meeting would be held on March 22, 2018 to discuss potential uses for the land.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the City previously worked on a plan for the parcel.
The City’s proposal was to utilize the parcel as open space with a big grassy field, restrooms, picnic tables, a
continuation of the Bay Trail, and parking on each side. The plan was conditionally pulled from SLC
consideration to allow another opportunity to evolve on the site.
City Attorney Kane noted that the parcel has wetlands that are considered seasonal wetlands and are not an
endangered species’ habitat.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the open grassy park was the City’s initial proposal. He asked the Parks and
Recreation Director to review SLC’s reaction and what their guidance was to the City. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad stated that it was a long process and every time the City submitted an application, SLC
required more information. She explained that after 4 years, the City submitted their final application.
Around that time SLC received a competing application from a hotel developer. She stated that it was her
understanding that the hotel developer was interested in building a park on part of the parcel and turning it
over to the City.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the SLC preference was to see a revenue generating function on the site. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
14
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame residents Molly Gomez and Cynthia Gomez asked the City to endorse a labor peace policy if a
hotel is ultimately built on the site.
Sphere Institute representative Greg Boro stated that his organization was proposing to turn the parcel into
open space with tidal wetlands. He explained that Sphere envisioned the space being used to educate
residents and visitors on the benefits of transition zone habitat and the impacts of climate change and sea
level rise. He asked for the City Council’s support when Sphere makes their presentation to SLC at the
March 22 public meeting.
Mayor B rownrigg asked what tidal wetlands are. Mr. Boro stated that instead of rebuilding the sea wall,
Sphere would eliminate it to allow for water to flow onto the land during high tide. He explained that about
one-third of the land would be under water during high tide.
Mayor Brownrigg asked what would happen to the Bay Trail. Mr. Boro stated that the Bay Trail would go
through the middle of the land.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this wouldn’t be the only tidal wetlands on the Peninsula because the lagoon
and the north end of the landfill are tidal wetlands.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she met with Sphere about their proposal. She discussed Sphere’s idea of
creating an eco-system to mitigate sea level rise and combat climate change. Mr. Boro stated that the main
goal is to preserve open space, but the current plan includes improving tidal wetland.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in Sphere’s design there was an ingress and egress for small crafts like
paddleboards and kayaks. She explained that she asked Sphere about the pricing of the project and that she
was told it would be $10 million. She asked if Mr. Boro could clarify what the City’s responsibility would
be for the project. Mr. Boro stated it is their goal to put together partnerships to assist in funding the project.
Councilmember Keighran asked how likely it would be for Sphere to get those partnerships. Mr. Boro stated
that Sphere had been very encouraged by conversations with different organizations. He explained that until
Sphere learns more from SLC, they won’t contact engineers to assess the project’s true cost. However, he
didn’t expect it to be a financial burden to the City.
Councilmember Beach asked Mr. Boro to talk about Sphere’s experience obtaining grants. Mr. Boro stated
that Sphere is quiet successful in obtaining grants and has worked with government agencies and
organizations since its inception.
Committee for Green Foothills representative Helen Walter voiced her support for the City entering into a
public/private partnership with Sphere.
Burlingame resident Todd Keliher voiced his support for keeping the site as open space. He suggested
including a track for runners and organizations.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
15
Burlingame resident Matt Feemster voiced his support for tidal wetlands on the parcel.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment period.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she wanted the public to understand that while the Council can give input,
SLC will have final say. She stated that it is a great opportunity for the City to re-capture open space on the
Bay. She stated that some residents wanted the space to be utilized for additional field space for soccer and
other sports because of the high demand on current fields. However, she noted that with Murray Field being
turfed and SMUHSD adding lights to their fields, this need wasn’t as prevalent. Therefore, she explained
that she leaned into a more ecologically sensitive use for the parcel.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he remained convinced that open space is the ideal use for the parcel. He
explained that when putting a hotel on the land became an option the City was assured that the property
would include open land. However, he stated he would prefer the parcel being fully used as open space. He
explained that his concern if the parcel was turned into tidal lands was that it might not be useable.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. He explained that if the City wanted to
educate people about tidal wetlands, Sherman Lagoon exists. He stated that the notion of giving away good
land and destroying the sea wall was not the correct option.
Councilmember Beach asked if Sphere’s initial schematic plan included grassy fields. Mr. Boro replied in
the affirmative. He explained that the Sphere proposal included tidal wetlands, open space, a boardwalk to
continue the Bay Trail and a pavilion.
Councilmember Keighran asked if this was the first time Sphere was taking on a project of this nature. Mr.
Boro replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if a hotel was chosen and the hotel determined it couldn’t build underground,
could the hotel potentially pave the whole parcel and therefore remove any open space. City Attorney Kane
stated that this depends on the SLC and under what circumstances they grant approval.
City Attorney Kane noted that Sphere’s proposal wasn’t restoration of wetlands. Instead it was creating
wetlands.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the City was being asked to decide.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that only one Councilmember was able to attend the March 22 meeting. Therefore
he requested that this item be agendized so that the Councilmember could hear their colleagues’ opinions.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she had mixed feelings as she wanted usable open space. She noted
that the hotel application included below grade parking, and she didn’t see how this was feasible. Therefore,
she was concerned that the hotel wouldn’t be able to create open grassy fields for the City. She added that
she was also concerned about Sphere’s proposal as they have never tackled a project of this nature.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
16
Councilmember Beach stated that she values connecting the Bay Trail and having some sort of open space.
She stated that she was open to wetlands as long as it has useable pathways and pavilions. However, she
explained she was also open to the parcel being turned into grassy fields. She was interested to know what
role the City would have as a community stakeholder if Sphere was awarded the land. She explained that
without seeing a presentation from Sphere, it would be pre-mature to take a firm stand. However, she is
open to the wetlands option, especially if the organization didn’t ask the City for funds.
Mayor Brownrigg noted that the Council is on record supporting the hotel/park proposal.
Vice Mayor Colson noted that the Council did not move forward with the City’s open land proposal because
SLC only wanted to lease the land for a short period of time with a high price tag.
Councilmember Beach stated that one of the clear messages that Council can give to SLC is that something
has to be done and the status quo is not acceptable. She stated that as the sole representative at the SLC
meeting, she wanted to work with the City Manager to understand the City’s position. City Manager
Goldman stated that the staff report contains the City’s last letter to SLC and it states that the City is
conditionally withdrawing their park proposal in favor of working with H&Q on their hotel/park combo. She
stated that she didn’t hear consensus from the Council on which proposal they now favored.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed that there was consensus that the ideal position was for open
space. He stated that he wanted to ensure that SLC knew that the Council was united on wanting open space.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City could say that the City wants significant open space. Council
agreed.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER ORTIZ’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda requests.
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.
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Approved Minutes
17
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. in memory of Joanne McCardle.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk