Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.09.04 Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 4, 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 Joe Baylock. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PUBLIC ART PROJECT TO HONOR ANSON BURLINGAME A study session was held at 6:15 p.m. in Conference Room A regarding the Public Art Project to honor Anson Burlingame. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Lynn Israelit, Joe Baylock, and five other residents voiced their concern about the increased noise at SFO. They stated that air traffic from both SFO and Oakland Airport (which reportedly flies over Burlingame) had increased and was leading to noise, air quality, and odor issues. They explained that these issues resulted in Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 the public not being able to have their windows open or spend time in their yards, thereby diminishing their quality of life. They asked that the City commission a study of both SFO and Oakland Airport in order to better understand the issue and what could be done. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Airport Round Table Committee has requested that SFO conduct a noise study to determine what has increased the noise and what can be done to mitigate it. 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 8b, 8d and 8g. Mayor Brownrigg pulled 8c. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to approve 8a, 8e, 8f, and 8h; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 111-2018. Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the five vehicles staff wished to purchase are a model that will be discontinued. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative and stated that the deadline for accepting orders for the model staff wanted was the second week of September. Councilmember Keighran asked if there were any maintenance concerns with the model staff chose. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative stating that vehicles are maintained in house. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 111-2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND THE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 112-2018. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item dealt with the way the City negotiates water contracts with the City and County of San Francisco. He explained that BAWSCA represents all of the water users and that San Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Francisco regulates the Hetch-Hetchy water system. He stated that San Francisco also regulates access to the Crystal Springs Watershed. He asked that the City request additional public access to the watershed as it could be a recreational asset for the community. He stated that there is plenty of evidence that you can have walking trails near reservoirs without creating any danger. Councilmember Beach stated that the City needs more access to open space and it would be worth exploring. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. A Burlingame resident stated that she was concerned that if the Crystal Springs Watershed was opened up to the general public, that the land could be damaged. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 112-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE RELOCATION OF A WATER MAIN ON AIRPORT BOUELVARD DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 113-2018. Councilmember Keighran stated that the City is switching from a 6-inch main to a 12-inch main. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked if with future development and an increase in population, this would be sufficient. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be the County doing the work on this project. She asked if anyone from Public Works would be involved. DPW Murtuza stated that staff would be inspecting the line, approving the design, and overseeing the project. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 113-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 114-2018. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 1, THE VETERANS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018 BALLOT City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 115-2018. g. UPDATE ON SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY RESILIENCE GRANT Councilmember Keighran stated that the County’s grant is for up to $90,000, and the County is encouraging cities to obtain matching funds. She asked if the City would be willing to match funds. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that the grant would look at the City’s resiliency on the Bayfront in connection with environmental changes such as sea level rise. She asked that if the City is awarded grant funds, that staff engage with community members and Bayfront hotels on this matter. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City needs to begin discussing how to pay for the infrastructure to combat sea level rise. She stated that with the addition of several new hotels on the Bayfront, and the City’s TOT, the City should discuss setting aside funds. Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the grant proposal wasn’t part of this report. CDD Gardiner stated that staff is still writing the proposal but wanted to ask Council for their input. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City is way beyond the point of producing simulations of sea level rise. He suggested that the City focus on what SFO and Foster City are doing, as both are in similar situations. Additionally, he stated that the City should start researching funding mechanisms and how much the City needs to raise. Councilmember Beach talked about the work being done at the County level led by Supervisor Dave Pine. She stated that she believed this problem is a countywide issue and something that the cities will need to work together on to solve. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to accept the update on the San Mateo County Resilience Grant; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. h. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE (EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues to begin by disclosing any ex-parte communications they had on the topic. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran stated that they visited both sites. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she visited both sites and talked with several residents and interested parties. Councilmember Beach stated that she visited both sites and spoke with Kerbey Altmann. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he visited both sites and spoke with a few citizens. Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the City’s Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted in February 2012. He stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the placement of wireless communications facilities in Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Planning Manager Hurin noted that federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency emissions as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities, if as in the case here, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility complies with the SEC’s RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager Hurin explained that AT&T is proposing to install new wireless facilities on existing wood utility poles. He stated that the utility poles are located adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. He noted that there are existing street trees on either side of the utility poles at both locations that would not need to be removed. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna on top of the utility pole and associated equipment on the side of the utility pole. The equipment will be painted to match the utility pole. Planning Manager Hurin stated that at the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 meeting, the Commission denied without prejudice AT&T’s request for a conditional use permit to install the wireless facilities at both locations. He noted that the Commission expressed concern with the aesthetics of the facilities. He stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, AT&T has made a few changes in response to the feedback they received. He explained that AT&T worked with PG&E to install Smart Pole Meters. Additionally, Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 while AT&T’s original proposal consisted of the electric load center box and fiber distribution panel being attached side-by-side on the pole, the revised proposal has the equipment streamlined on the pole. Vice Mayor Colson stated that a preponderance of the correspondence that the Council received from the citizens concerned the RF emissions. She asked if she was correct that the devices that AT&T was proposing to install complied with both State and Federal RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked that since the proposed equipment complies with RF emission regulations, the City couldn’t deny AT&T’s application on that basis. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she received feedback from the community that the public wanted to see the City create a master plan that would outline the procedures, design, and location for the installation of these wireless facilities. She asked how long this would take to develop and if the City could pause future applications until the master plan is completed. CDD Gardiner stated that staff could look at developing a master plan and that staff is considering revising the ordinance. Councilmember Keighran agreed with Councilmember Beach that the City should create a master plan concerning wireless facilities. She asked if the City could handle these applications in the same fashion that they do Environmental Impact Reports, where a neutral third party with expertise is asked to look at the impacts. Councilmember Ortiz asked how much leeway the City has to determine where the proper sites are for these wireless facilities or do the carriers have 100% control over choosing the location for their wireless facilities. Special Counsel Gail Karish stated that as a general matter, cities have police power to regulate zoning. However, in telecommunications there has been an extraordinary amount of preemption of that authority both at the Federal and State level. She added that at the State level, telephone companies have a statutory right to use public rights of way to place their facilities, and through case law this has been extended to include wireless facilities and wireless providers. Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff reviewed AT&T’s alternative locations and agreed with their assertion that these locations were not feasible. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the negative. AT&T’s Regional Vice President of External Affairs Tedi Vrheas stated that in March 2018, AT&T participated in a small cell study session with the City Council. She explained that the purpose of the study session was to introduce small cell technology and explain what it is, how it works, what it looks like, and why the technology is being deployed across the United States. Ms. Vrheas explained that small cells are flexible network solutions that can be readily deployed to specific locations where customers are prone to experience connectivity problems, need more network capacity, and areas that cannot effectively be served by a traditional macro cell. She stated that AT&T’s small cell design is intended to maximize facility concealment. She explained that a small cell consists of a set of small boxes that are no wider than the pole’s diameter and a pole top antenna that are all painted to match the pole. Additionally, she stated that there can only be one small cell per pole. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s existing macro cells that serve Burlingame around the two locations are under duress due to increased traffic on the network. The resulting capacity restraints reduce mobile data speeds to the point that AT&T cannot meet its service objective. The small cells will help to offload the network traffic from those macro cells, which will improve signal quality and data speeds. Ms. Vrheas discussed the community’s concern about having the small cells by their homes. She explained that AT&T evaluated many locations in order to ensure that they were proposing the best available and least intrusive means to address the coverage gap. She stated that the proposed locations are chosen based on: AT&T’s ability to gain attachment rights; feasibility in terms of constructability; and viability from a radio frequency perspective. She noted that AT&T also considered the location preferences and design standards articulated in the City’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. She explained that the proposed facilities are located within the residential zoning districts, which are a third level preference. The primary preference in the code is for sites farther away from residential districts, which is not feasible because AT&T needs to place small cell facilities near the macro that is under duress. She noted that they investigated other sites but didn’t find any viable options. Ms. Vrheas stated that at the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked AT&T to go back and consider other sites. She noted that AT&T reviewed alternative sites and reached out to Our Lady of Angels as an alternative site for1800 Hillside Drive. She explained that OLA would only allow AT&T to attach the small cell on their property if it wouldn’t affect the architectural character of its structure. Therefore this wouldn’t work. Ms. Vrheas stated that the Planning Commission also asked if they could place the small cells on street signs. She explained that due to the weight of the boxes and the height of the street signs, this wouldn’t work. Ms. Vrheas stated that after AT&T completed its review of potential sites, it was determined that 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive were the least intrusive sites. Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, applicants bring in samples of the small cell for the Council and public to see. Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T’s definition of coverage gap relates to both capacity and speed. Ms. Vrheas stated that it is mostly capacity. Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T has set criteria that they look at when they pick locations. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative and stated that it is defined in the radio frequency statement in the staff report. Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the small cell only has a radius of five hundred feet. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked why AT&T didn’t set up more macro cells, which have a great capacity. She stated that she would rather see macro cells placed on the Bayfront, outside the residential district, instead of numerous small cell sites in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Vrheas stated that macro cells cover between 4 to 8 blocks. Therefore, if the residential area is in need of capacity, AT&T has to put something Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 in that area to address capacity. She explained that previously, AT&T had focused their efforts on business districts, but with changing technology, individuals are currently using more wireless data at home to play video games, watch movies, and communicate. Accordingly, AT&T needs to place small cell sites in neighborhoods. Councilmember Keighran asked about boosters that people put in their homes and if this would solve the problem. Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s capacity needs are far greater than what a booster could provide. Councilmember Beach stated that at the study session in March 2018, the antennas looked smaller. Ms. Vrheas stated that she believed it was the photo angle. She added that AT&T also places small cells on street lights where they run the conduit thru the inside of the poles and it looks a little sleeker. However, AT&T currently does not have a contract with the City to use the City’s street lights. Councilmember Beach stated that in some pictures from other communities, the small cells seem to be two small boxes as opposed to AT&T’s current proposal. Ms. Vrheas explained that the more streamlined approach of two boxes is on a street light. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City had been asked about using its light poles or if there was a reason this wasn’t an option. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has 1900 street lights of which half are located on PG&E poles. He noted that there are City owned street lights, but they aren’t in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Beach asked if what AT&T was proposing is the smallest possible technology as far as the boxes on the utility pole go. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to streamline these boxes. Ms. Vrheas stated that if they put a cover over all the boxes it would add to the bulk of the pole, which people seem to notice more. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to underground the boxes. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson asked how many more applications AT&T would be submitting to the City in the next two years. Ms. Vrheas replied that AT&T has seven applications for wood poles. She noted that if they come to agreement with the City to use the steel poles, they would have seven applications for that. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fact that AT&T is not the only wireless provider and that the City would be receiving more and more applications from the different providers to install small cells. He stated that this should drive both AT&T and the City to have more of a reliance on macro cells. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Nene Argeris spoke against installing these small cell sites because of health concerns. Burlingame resident Brian Chen stated that he believed AT&T should reapply to the Planning Commission because of the Commissioners’ expertise. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Burlingame resident Patricia Fraiser talked about how the small cells could diminish surrounding homes’ property value and create an eye sore in the community. Burlingame resident Clydie Rizzo asked that the Council deny the application as the small cells would be viewed from all windows in her home. Burlingame residents David and Raven Sarnoff stated that one of the future sites will be located near their home. They voiced their concern about the number of small cell sites that could pop up in Burlingame and asked that the Council deny the applications. Burlingame residents Doug Luftman and Steve Lamont worked on the City’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. They voiced concern that AT&T wasn’t following the preference order in the ordinance and asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application on this basis. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht stated that he believed AT&T’s application wasn’t in compliance with the ordinance and asked that the Council reject the application. Burlingame resident Chris Kelly stated that he supported hiring a third party to review applications and asked that Council deny this application. Burlingame resident Tatyana Shmygol asked about the safety of the poles and if the boxes would fall off during an earthquake. Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid stated that she knew there were better looking small cells in other towns and wanted to see AT&T put in a more aesthetically appealing cell. Burlingame residents Tia Razon and Tom Payne asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application. Burlingame resident Horacio Pleno voiced concern about the number of small cells that could be coming into the City. He asked that the City do a better job of informing the public about these small cell applications. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked that the old boxes, vaults, and wires be removed when no longer needed. Burlingame resident Kerbey Altmann asked AT&T to utilize other technology to increase the capacity and voiced concern about AT&T making updates to the small cells if the application was approved. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment Councilmember Ortiz asked Ms. Vrheas to comment on the coverage of the macro cells. Ms. Vrheas stated that it varies depending on how many people are on the network and the geography. However, she explained that on average it covers four to six blocks. Ms. Vrheas stated that what she has heard from the community tonight is that AT&T didn’t apply the ordinance in the way AT&T should have. She explained that AT&T believes with the assistance of outside Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 counsel that they have. However, she stated that if the Council feels that AT&T hasn’t followed the ordinance correctly, they are happy to take three months and work with the City Attorney to make sure they have done it to the satisfaction of the City. She stated that AT&T is also willing to work with the City to review alternate sites. Mayor Brownrigg thanked AT&T for the offer. He asked that during the next three months AT&T also explore whether they can put another macro cell on the perimeter of the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that she appreciated AT&T’s offer to extend the decision for three months while they work with staff. She asked if it was possible to bring in a third party during this period to look at the options. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and sharing their opinions on the topic. She explained that this conversation wasn’t going away and she didn’t want to kick the can down the road. She stated that she wanted to see the City work for the next three months with AT&T and the community to come up with a solution. Councilmember Beach thanked AT&T for their offer to extend. She asked if the small cell sites emit any flashing light or noise. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Vrheas if she had any comments on co-location. Ms. Vrheas stated that co-location isn’t an option. Councilmember Beach stated that the poles aren’t owned by the City. Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City could mandate that they only want smart poles and ask AT&T to create something different. DPW Murtuza stated that it isn’t within the City’s rights. Councilmember Beach stated that some residents are concerned that future locations aren’t around trees and that maybe this is a way to mitigate the view of the poles. She noted that the ordinance contains language that the small cells must be camouflaged and hidden from view in the residential districts. Councilmember Keighran and Mayor Brownrigg talked about the creation of an ad hoc group to assist staff with reviewing locations over the next three months. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in the future the City should work with developers who are building multifamily dwellings on incorporating spaces for the macro cells that will be more aesthetically pleasing to the community. Councilmember Ortiz asked AT&T to provide the Council with addresses for existing small cell sites. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to: 1) continue the hearing for three months to allow for AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing this matter back to the Council for a decision, 2) the City can assemble a Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 subcommittee including community members, and 3) the City can hire a third party expert to opine on the work; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (PCN) PURSUANT TO SECTION 23958.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, RELATED TO A REQUEST FOR A TYPE 42 (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE – PUBLIC PREMISES) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES PERMIT ISSUED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC VERAGE CONTROL BOARD (ABC), AS REQUESTED BY WINE REVELRY, LLC TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WINE BAR AT 310 LORTON AVENUE CDD Gardiner stated that the City received a request from Wine Revelry, LLC for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity (“PCN”) for a wine bar at 310 Lorton Avenue. He explained that the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the wine bar on July 10, 2018. He noted that the request for a PCN has been reviewed by the Police Department and attached to the staff report is a memorandum from the Police Department with suggested conditions. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 116-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA Mayor Brownrigg opened this item up by stating that there are time limits that require the City to act expeditiously to have a marijuana ordinance in place. He added that if colleagues have questions and concerns about the ordinance as written, it can be brought back for review. Assistant City Attorney Mazarin Vakharia stated that currently the City’s zoning code doesn’t explicitly address marijuana-related establishments. She explained that previously the City adopted interim ordinances, and there is currently an imminent deadline to adopt regulations. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that the proposed ordinance doesn’t allow any commercial activity related to marijuana. She explained that the proposed ordinance allows up to six plants in an enclosed residence. Councilmember Keighran asked if there is a timeframe after the State adopts regulations for cities to adopt their own regulations. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that whatever the City puts on the books now, stays in place after the State’s regulations are adopted. City Manager Goldman stated that if the City doesn’t have regulations in place at the time that the State’s regulations are adopted, then the State’s regulations would cover the City. She added that the League of California Cities released a statement that they are unhappy with what the Bureau of Cannabis Regulations is coming up with related to delivery of marijuana. She stated that it is important to get something in place now prior to the State’s regulations being adopted. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Councilmember Beach stated that in the absence of language that addresses delivery what would the rule be. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that in the absence of language concerning delivery of marijuana, the State’s regulations would apply. Councilmember Keighran asked if research and development of marijuana would be allowed in Burlingame if the zoning code is silent on it. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that pursuant to the zoning code, if something is not expressly permitted, then it is not allowed. However, she explained that marijuana regulations are a new area of law, and therefore it is unclear whether State regulations could preempt the silence of the zoning code. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduced the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beach. This motion was passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Tom Payne encouraged the Council to adopt a restrictive ordinance. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. Mayo r Brownrigg voiced concern about personal growth in people’s homes and the amount of water and energy required. Vice Mayor Colson asked staff to provide information to the Council on how neighboring cities were handling personal cultivation. Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City Clerk publish notice of this item and stated that it would be brought back for consideration of adoption at the September 17, 2018 meeting. d. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.59 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS), CHAPTER 25.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 25.26 (R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 25.60 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS) AND CHAPTER 25.70 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS CDD Gardiner explained that the State has adopted a series of mandates to further promote development of Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”). CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance would bring the City into compliance with the State regulations. This includes: Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 1. No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces, including allowing parking in setbacks; 2. Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family dwelling or accessory structure; 3. No lot size limitation for ADUs created within existing structures; and 4. Change to the current definition of tandem parking. CDD Gardiner stated that there are three other provisions that were recommended by the Planning Commission that are not part of State legislation. However, they are items that have come up again and again when looking at applications. These additional recommended changes are: 1. Eliminate provisions about ceiling heights for basements to allow them to be turned into ADUs; 2. Elimination of a Special Permit to reduce number of parking spaces on site for ADUs.; and 3. Elimination of Restrictive Covenant that requires owner occupancy of one of the units. Councilmember Keighran stated that the law allows ADU parking to be provided in required setbacks. She asked if this means that there could be cars parked in the front yard. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and added that it could only be the parking for the ADU. Mayor Brownrigg asked if by parking in the front yard, CDD Gardiner meant the landscaped portion or the driveway apron. CDD Gardiner replied that someone with an ADU could park in the landscaped portion. Councilmember Keighran asked if the ADU is in the basement does that count towards RHNA numbers. CDD Gardiner stated that if it is a legally defined ADU with a kitchen and bathroom, then yes it would count towards RHNA numbers. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if the City has to allow parking in the front setback, she would like to see the City adopt requirements about what the front yard parking should look like. Councilmember Keighran stated that if someone builds a house with five bedrooms they have to meet the requirements for two covered parking spots and one uncovered. She asked if she was correct that if a person has a four bedroom house and adds 1 or 2 bedrooms to the basement, they wouldn’t have to comply with the parking requirements. CDD Gardiner stated that this was his understanding of the State’s mandate. Mayor Brownrigg stated that when it comes to the design impact of the ADU ordinance, the City Council can ask Planning Commission to review design standards. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title of the ordinance. Councilmember Ortiz moved to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Tom Payne voiced his concern about the ordinance and asked the Council to keep the owner-occupancy requirement. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced her concern about losing landscaping in front of people’s yards and asked that the City maintain the owner-occupancy requirement. Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid asked if the City could encourage ADUs to have their own garage. Mayor Brownrigg stated that because the State wants communities to build ADUs, they have eliminated parking requirements. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned with removing the owner-occupancy requirement. She stated that she thought the City should continue to require owner-occupancy. Vice Mayor Colson and Councilmember Ortiz voiced support for removing the owner-occupancy requirement. They cited examples of how this requirement negatively impacts landowners. Councilmember Beach stated that she is optimistic that the City won’t see parking in front yards. She stated that millennials don’t want to own cars and are instead using public transportation. She added that the majority of law changes in the City are from the State’s mandates. And while she wasn’t happy that the State was mandating regulations, she believes that ADUs could help alleviate housing issues in the City. Councilmember Keighran asked if someone has an ADU and later on decides to sell their house, what would happen to the individual living in the ADU. CDD Gardiner stated that the new buyer wouldn’t necessarily need to keep the individual in the ADU. He stated that either the seller or the buyer could displace the renter. Councilmember Keighran asked about the potential repeal of Costa Hawkins and if this would affect the ability to terminate ADU leases. CDD Gardiner stated that repealing Costa Hawkins would permit municipalities to apply rent control should they choose to do so to properties built after 1979. Mayor Brownrigg asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to publish notice of the proposed ordinance in the newspaper. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (PARKING LOT F – 150 PARK ROAD) AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE (PARKING LOT N – 160 LORTON AVENUE) – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS CDD Gardiner stated that the Village at Burlingame consists of 132 affordable work force and senior units on Lot F and a parking structure on Lot N. He explained that The Pacific Companies submitted applications to the Planning Division for entitlements related to the development of the affordable housing units and parking structures. Thereafter, the Planning Commission reviewed the applications as Design Review Study items on February 28, 2018. CDD Gardiner stated that in response to the Planning Commission’s feedback, The Pacific Companies has made changes to the housing portion of the project. Some of the changes include the addition of studio Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 15 apartments to the workforce units and decreases in the square footage of units for both workforce and senior units. CDD Gardiner added that it is his understanding that the project will be brought back to the Planning Commission in November and that the Environment Impact Review is also proceeding in that timeframe. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Caleb Roope, CEO Of Pacific Companies, explained that based on community feedback,they have increased the rear yard setback. He explained that while there is no required rear setback, they propose 8.5 feet. However, as a result of this setback, the unit sizes had to be decreased. 1. Workforce One Bedroom Units were decreased by 27 square feet 2. Workforce Two Bedroom Units were decreased by 38 square feet 3. Senior One Bedroom Units were decreased by 21 square feet 4. Senior Two Bedroom Units did not lose any square footage. Mr. Roope stated that they are still delivering the same number of units, but in slightly different configurations. Councilmember Beach stated that with the new unit mix, the City would lose two 50% AMI units. She asked Mr. Roope to talk about why they had to redistribute the AMI. Mr. Roope explained that if the City wished, they could re-mark two units as 50% AMI. He added that recent law changes will allow them to do income averaging if so desired. He stated that previously they were restricted to renting only to individuals up to 60% AMI. With income averaging, they can average to 60% and aren’t capped at 60%. Therefore, if they introduce an 80% AMI unit, then it would need to be offset by a 40% AMI unit. Councilmember Keighran stated that increasing the rear setback led to a narrowing of the side setbacks. She asked if there were any concerns about this. Mr. Roope stated that they hadn’t heard any concerns from the community about the narrowing of the side setbacks. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was a little concerned about the decreased size of the two bedroom units but liked the addition of the studios. Councilmember Beach stated that she was leaning towards switching the AMI levels back so that there were the 50% AMI units. Councilmember Ortiz thanked Caleb Roope for the presentation and stated that he wanted to see shovels in the ground. Vice Mayor Colson stated that they had explored doing an additional story but it’s not feasible. Mr. Roope replied in the affirmative, stating that the sixth floor requires them to move to a steel structure. Councilmember Beach asked if it was correct that the senior units preserve more of the square footage than the workforce units. Mr. Roope replied in the affirmative and added that it was the result of accessibility provisions and the configuration of units. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 16 Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced her support for the rear setback. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Roope for engaging with the community. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT c. 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 11:15 p.m. in memory of Paul de Senna and Alexander Wolf. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk