Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.06.18 Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on June 18, 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 Ray Marshall. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran MEMBERS ABSENT: Ortiz 4. CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION BY ROBERT SILVERSTEIN OF THE BEEKEEPERS’ GUILD OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Robert Silverstein, head of Burlingame Bee Legal, explained that the purpose of the presentation was to request a change in the City’s beekeeping regulations. He discussed San Mateo’s recent passage of a bee ordinance and asked that Burlingame adopt the same ordinance. He noted that Supervisor Don Horsley supported the ordinance and set a goal for the entire County to use a uniform policy. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 Mr. Silverstein discussed the importance of bees. He explained that bees are the key to growing abundant crops, nutritious vegetables, and fruit. He stated that it is estimated that every third bite of food we eat was made possible by bee pollination. Mr. Silverstein explained that pollinators have been in deep decline for years. He stated that national and local surveys have documented annual hive losses in the range of 34% to 45% over the past five years. He noted that the causes for this loss include: loss of habitat, pests and diseases, and pesticides. Mr. Silverstein reviewed a map of San Mateo County that highlighted local bee regulations. He explained that 71% of municipalities in San Mateo County use nuisance-based regulations and have received only a few complaints. He noted that Burlingame has one of the most restrictive ordinances in the county. Mayor Brownrigg noted that nuisance regulations are a complaint-driven approach. Mr. Silverstein explained that the City’s current regulations on beekeeping were established in 1941, with minor updates in 1976. He stated that the regulations are based on hive numbers and setbacks. The Burlingame Municipal Code allows for one hive per lot, with any subsequent hives required to be at least 200 feet away from any structure. Nickie Irvine, from the Bee Legal Task Force, stated that they were proposing that Burlingame adopt the San Mateo ordinance. She explained that the San Mateo ordinance establishes a two-step, mitigation-nuisance approach to beekeeping. She noted that this approach provides clear guidance that protects neighbors’ rights, while supporting beekeeping. Ms. Irvine asked that the City also adopt the mitigation process that the Bee Legal Task Force created. Under their mitigation process, the code enforcement officer would request a Beekeeping Site Evaluator to investigate and recommend mitigation or adjustment. She noted that this reduces the burden on the code enforcement officer by creating private resolution channels and expertise. Mr. Silverstein noted that Burlingame provides a great habitat for bees because of the diversity of plants and flowers year round in the city. He explained that amending the beekeeping ordinance will make it less burdensome for Burlingame residents to properly site and raise healthy, long-living bee colonies. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the proposed ordinance was adopted in Burlingame, how many people would take advantage of it. Mr. Silverstein stated that that there are 29 registered beekeepers in Burlingame. However, he noted that there are several un-registered beekeepers in Burlingame, and therefore he was unsure of how many people would take advantage of the proposed law. Councilmember Beach asked about the Beekeeping Site Evaluator and if the City could just adopt the same ordinance as San Mateo. City Attorney Kane stated that staff would need to perform their own analysis and determine what works best here in Burlingame. She voiced concern about the San Mateo ordinance’s definition of nuisance. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Councilmember Keighran asked staff to supply Council with data on the number of complaints in neighboring cities and how they were handled. Councilmember Beach asked if the Bee Legal Task Force had gotten any traction on getting other San Mateo County jurisdictions to pass legislation. Ms. Irvine stated that they had talked to several cities. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City adopted the proposed ordinance, would there be a proliferation of rogue hives. Ms. Irvine replied in the negative and explained that there wouldn’t be more feral hives as a result of increased beekeeping. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Mike McCord stated that on behalf of CEC, they supported the beekeeping legislation. Burlingame residents James Castro and Mason Harris, both beekeepers, discussed the importance of beekeeping legislation and its benefits. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Beach discussed the need to update the bee ordinance. She explained that she liked some of the points that the presentation brought out and that she didn’t believe that what the City currently had was functional. She stated that currently if someone does have a complaint, there is really no recourse. Therefore, she believed that having a complaint-driven/nuisance-based process makes sense. She noted that the City has several projects going on and asked staff to determine where updating the bee ordinance is on the priority queue. Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed and added that the San Mateo ordinance could be used as a template. However, her underlying issue is staff’s time, as there are already a lot of priorities in the queue. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the unincorporated portions of Burlingame are under the updated San Mateo County ordinance. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with his colleagues and that staff had previously been asked to begin work on this matter. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Ray Marshall discussed concerns about 1456 Vancouver and requested the City’s assistance. Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to follow up with Mr. Marshall. Burlingame resident Janet Weinberg voiced her concern about the newspaper kiosks on the streets and their general upkeep. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled 8g and 8k. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8h, 8i, 8j and 8l; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 4, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REAUTHORIZING PEG CHANNEL FEES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT OF 2006 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1951. c. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO STOLOSKI AND GONZALES, INC., FOR THE SHORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 83521, AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 80-2018 and Resolution Number 81-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PMK CONTRACTORS, LLC FOR THE PARKING LOT RESURFACING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 82-2018. e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 PERSONNEL CHANGES HR Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 83-2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW CITY-WIDE RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 84-2018. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO REVISE THE LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 85-2018. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Measure I Oversight Committee was not listed as a result of the FPPC opinion on the matter. City Attorney Kane stated that the FPPC informed the City that the oversight committee doesn’t have to file a Form 700 at this point. However, if there is a track record in the future of the Oversight Committee making substantive recommendations that are being adopted by the Council, then this might change. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 85-2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1. (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PALOMA PLAYGROUND RENOVATION, CITY PROJECT NO. 84940 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 86-2018. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TWO-YEAR SERVICE ORDER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FROM THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 87-2018. j. APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve revisions to the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2018-19. k. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S MAY 29, 2018 ACTION DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIVE-STORY, 21- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH BELOW-GRADE PARKING AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL CDD Meeker requested Council set September 17, 2018 as the date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 29, 2018 action denying applications for condominium permit, design review, conditional use permit for building height, and tentative condominium map for construction of a new five- story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking at 556 El Camino Real. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 Councilmember Keighran asked why the hearing wasn’t scheduled until the September 17, 2018 Council meeting. She explained that she wanted to make sure that the late hearing date didn’t interfere with any type of permitting process or necessary timeline. City Attorney Kane explained that the appellants asked for this to be the hearing date in order to organize the record of the matter and all necessary materials. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to set September 17, 2018 as the date of the appeal hearing; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). l. RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 92-2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS (1) ADOPTING THE FY 2018-19 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ASSIGN USES OF FUND BALANCE AMOUNTS; AND (2) APPROVING THE GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT Finance Director Augustine discussed the proposed FY 2018-19 Budget. She explained that since the May Budget Study Session, there had been no changes to revenues at $74.9 million and no changes to expenditures at $58.3 million within the General Fund. Additionally, Council agreed with staff’s recommendation at the Budget Study Session to reinstate the full $3 million transfer to the Capital Investment Reserve. She noted that now instead of an anticipated surplus of $4.5 million, there would be a surplus of $3.5 million for the General Fund. Out of the $3.5 million surplus, $2.8 million would be restricted for the Pension Trust Fund. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund revenues. She stated that assessed values are up 6.25% this fiscal year. An increase in assessed values creates higher property tax revenues. Additionally, the full amount of ERAF refunds has been included in the property tax line. Although in past years, staff was conservative about ERAF refunds because of economic indicators, staff feels comfortable with putting the full amount in the property tax line. Finance Director Augustine stated that sales and use tax includes $1.75 million of Measure I tax revenue. She stated that without that inclusion, the City’s sales tax revenue increase would be 3.3%. She noted that the hotels are doing well, and therefore there is an anticipated 2% increase in TOT. Finance Director Augustine stated that General Fund revenues are predicted to come in at around $74.9 million. This is a 6.3% increase, which is about a 3.9% increase without Measure I funds. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Finance Director Augustine discussed the General Fund expenditure budgets. She noted that the operating costs are unchanged by any amounts contributed to the Pension Trust Fund. Debt service and contributions to the Capital Investment Reserve are also not included, as these are shown in transfers in and out. Finance Director Augustine stated that personnel costs are over half of the departmental costs and are up 4.9%. She stated that this increase is due to wages being increased 2.5%, while benefits are up over 7%. She noted that of the $30.4 million in personnel costs, $19.1 million is for salaries and wages, and $11.4 million is for benefits. Of the $11.4 million for benefits, $5.5 million is for pension contributions, and $2.9 million is for healthcare. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the Capital Improvement Program for the coming fiscal year. She stated that the General Fund contribution is nearly a third of the total CIP funding at approximately $7.2 million. Finance Director Augustine discussed the Gann Appropriation limit. She explained that the limit is a required exercise as a result of a November 1979 initiative. She stated that it places a limit on growth of expenditures for public programs and is adjusted annually for changes in cost of living and population. Finance Director Augustine discussed the retiree medical benefit funding. She explained that it has been part of the operating budget since FY 2013-14, when liability was estimated to be over $70 million. She noted that as of last year, liability decreased to $58.4 million, largely because of the City’s decision to begin pre- funding. She stated that the City is currently undergoing an actuarial evaluation, which is required every two years, and it will re-establish what the City’s liability is for retiree medical benefits. She noted that the actuarial assets at the end of this fiscal year should be about $17 million, or 28% funded. Full funding for retiree medical benefits is anticipated by 2035. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City is putting aside $1 million for debt service on the community center for the coming year. Finance Director Augustine replied that the City is putting aside $2 million for the community center. She noted that $1 million would come from the General Fund, and the other $1 million would be Measure I funds. Vice Mayor Colson asked if staff anticipates selling bonds in the coming year for the community center. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. She noted that the City probably wouldn’t be incurring the entire $2 million set aside. Vice Mayor Colson asked what would happen to the money that isn’t used. Finance Director Augustine stated it remains in the General Fund and in the Measure I fund. She stated that it would be discussed at the Mid-Year Budget Study Session. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City had put aside funds for the planning and entitlement work that needs to be done for the community center. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City was making good on promises that were made a long time ago and that weren’t adequately funded. He stated that the City has set these as the right priorities, as the City continues to set aside money continues to be put against prior debts. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 88-2018 and Resolution Number 89- 2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Manager Goldman explained that there was a vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees due to the expired term of Board member Randi Murray. The vacancy was publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received five applications: Randi Murray, Sarah Simson, Christine Shaw, Gloria McKay, and Robin Montoya. The five applicants were interviewed on June 11, 2018. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. Randi Murray was reappointed for a three-year term ending June 30, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman explained that the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission is due to the resignation of Commissioner Baum. The vacancy was publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received three applications: Christine Ardito, Shaeda Urbani, and Stephanie Lee. The three applicants were interviewed on June 11, 2018. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. There was no majority, and therefore the matter was opened for discussion. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 The Council discussed the candidates. There was no majority on the second ballot, and therefore the Council went to a third ballot. Christine Ardito was appointed to serve the remainder of Commissioner Baum’s term, which ends in October 2019. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE, AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) City Manager Goldman explained that City Attorney Kane began her service in the City of Burlingame on April 1, 2013. On June 4, 2018, the City Council met with her in closed session to review her performance. She explained that in recognition of the City Attorney’s positive performance evaluation and existing market rates for comparable positions, the City Council decided during the closed session to increase the City Attorney’s salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and Unrepresented employees received. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 90-2018; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH BURLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL BURLINGAME, BURLINGAME AYSO, AND BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED FIELDS FOR RECREATIONAL SPORTS USE, CONCESSION SALES, AND/OR STORAGE Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that in January 2018, staff began discussing new user group agreements with the City Council. She stated that many of the user groups utilize City-owned facilities and have built structures on City property. She explained that the City didn’t have agreements with all of the groups, and the agreements that the City did have were outdated. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff began by updating the City’s agreement with BYBA. She noted that when the proposed agreement was brought to the City Council, the Council offered a number of suggestions. She explained that after the meeting, staff worked with the various user groups on drafting amended agreements. She stated that the proposed agreements have been signed by each of the user groups and are attached to the staff report. She explained that the agreements are clear on who is responsible for repairs and makes policies consistent across the user groups. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 Vice Mayor Colson noted that the term sublease was used throughout the agreements and asked if the City had defined sublease. She explained that subletting to her means that another group that doesn’t have a user agreement with the City can take a user group’s field time for a price. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the proposed user agreements do not pertain to the fields. She explained that they only apply to things like the snack shack. She stated that the field policy controls field usage and that there is no subletting of field time. Vice Mayor Colson stated that on page 4 of the BGS agreement, it states that “no alcoholic beverages shall be sold”. She asked if the City allows the serving of alcoholic beverages. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson asked what happens if there is an emergency repair that the group needs to take care of; for example, if the door breaks off the snack shack. She asked if they can do that without consulting the City. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative and stated that if the City has to make the repair, there would be an overhead fee. Vice Mayor Colson stated that SMUHSD has very specific language that is included in their indemnification with Bolinger. She asked if the City had put similar language in their agreements. City Attorney Kane explained that the City requires original endorsements in favor of the City. She stated staff was satisfied that these were adequate. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the BGS user group agreement specified that “BGS shall have control over the management and use of one of the batting cages.” She asked if there was a timeframe for a new batting cage. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson asked if in the interim BGS has access to some time in one of the other cages. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 91-2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the handshake nature of a lot of the relationships between the user groups and the City. He discussed the amount of time and money that the user groups put into the public assets. He explained that he believed there was a risk by formalizing these relationships in that volunteers may choose to reduce the amount of effort they put into these activities. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember Ortiz was absent). e. STATUS REPORT ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN OPTIONS FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 Mayor Brownrigg introduced the item by explaining that at the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, Council would be making key decisions concerning the design of the proposed community center. Therefore, because it was likely that not all of the Councilmembers would be at the July 2, 2018 meeting, he had asked for an update so that everyone could voice their concerns and opinions. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that based on previous direction from the Council, the project scope had been reduced to encompass: full-sized basketball court, playground, and the community center, with above and below ground parking. She noted that with either the Pavilions or the Mission design, staff would be able to offer the same programs inside the building. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that an independent arborist was hired to survey and rate the trees in the project area, and two trees were removed. Dawn Merkes, the architect for the project, explained that per Council’s request, she updated the Pavilions theme to be at the same level of conceptual development as the Mission theme. She reviewed images of the two designs. Ms. Merkes reviewed the sustainable design strategies of the two design options. She showed what the photovoltaics would look like on both options. On the Mission design, the panels could only be put on half of the roof, while 75-80% of the roof would be covered in the Pavilions design. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the photovoltaics in the Mission design would sit on a traditional tile or a tile- colored flat roof. Ms. Merkes explained that concrete tiles would be used and that the panels are mounted using stanchions. She noted that in the Pavilions design, the panels could be clipped on if the roof is metal. Councilmember Beach asked if the public saw the aerial depiction of the photovoltaics on both designs. Ms. Merkes replied in the negative and explained that the depictions were not ready when they conducted outreach. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that extensive outreach was conducted including: kiosks at the Library and Recreation Center, e-mails to all commissioners, and designs on Facebook and City websites, in the e-newsletter, and at the farmers market. She stated that as of Friday, June 15, 2018, approximately 1200 people had responded, and there was only a 15 vote difference, with the Mission design edging out the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the need to hear from the youth. He asked about putting the kiosk at the pergola in front of the Gap. Ms. Merkes stated that they had received about 300-400 votes from students. Councilmember Keighran asked if Ms. Merkes knew off-hand which option the youth favored. Ms. Merkes stated that it was the Pavilions design. Councilmember Keighran asked to see the public’s responses. She stated that because it was so close, she wanted to see their comments and what common themes arose. Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. A D-Tech high school student discussed how he and his friends preferred the Pavilions design. Burlingame resident Chad Partridge discussed the additional parking that the project was offering. He voiced concern about the increased traffic that a new community center would cause. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment period. Councilmember Beach asked about how light plays in the two designs. Ms. Merkes stated that the public quickly differentiated that the Pavilions option had more opportunity for indoor-outdoor connections. She stated that inside the Pavilions design, the City will want to be careful about the lighting to ensure that they don’t cause light pollution. She explained that the City should choose lights that don’t project light 360 degrees but instead have focused lighting. She also noted that the City can double tint the glass to prevent light pollution from coming in and going out. She discussed other options that the City has to prevent light pollution in the Pavilions design. She noted that the areas with large expanses of glass open on the park side, not into the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was torn between the two options. She explained that her tendency is to go to the traditional style. However, she liked that the Pavilions designed brought the park in and creates the indoor-outdoor connection. She explained that her concern with the Pavilions design is that she doesn’t want the neighborhood to be affected by light in the evening and wondered how the amount of glass would affect heating and glare. She stated that in terms of energy conservation, the Pavilions design was better. Councilmember Keighran talked about the entry views of the two designs and her concern about the elevation level in the Pavilions design on Burlingame Avenue. Ms. Merkes stated that they have continued to refine the elevations of the two designs. Councilmember Beach stated that this would be a difficult decision. She discussed how the Mission design draws inspiration from the City’s civic buildings and classic California architecture. The Pavilions design draws inspiration from the environment in which it sits. She stated that she liked that the program space is similar in both buildings. She noted that after seeing the aerial view of the two designs with photovoltaic panels, it was clear that they were more attractive on the Pavilions design. She stated that although she puts a lot of stake in the community process, it was still so close, and that the aerial shots might change people’s opinions. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the decision is to go with the Pavilions, the City needs to go with bird-safe glass. He discussed the recent library architecture awards from the American Institute of Architects and how they stressed natural light and indoor-outdoor connections. He stated that he viewed this decision similarly and was in favor of the Pavilions design. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she loves the vaulted roofs in the interior of the Mission design. However she stated that they are needed because the windows are so small. She stated that the connection to the park in Burlingame City Council June 18, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 the Pavilions design is so special and unique. She expressed her belief that the Pavilions design would blend in well with its setting. She noted that the photovoltaics were unattractive on the Mission design and hidden in the Pavilions design. Additionally, she stated that the Pavilions design gets the City closer to net zero. Lastly, she noted that future generations were in favor of the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg thanked the Council for the discussion. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 9:52 p.m. in memory of Dorothy Cusick. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk