Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.09.17 Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 17, 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 Fire Chief Kammeyer. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION a. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER A study session was held at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A regarding the schematic design for the new Community Center. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Doug Silverstein asked for the Council’s support of Measure W, the San Mateo County Transit District Sales Tax Measure. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 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 8g, Councilmember Keighran pulled 8b, Councilmember Beach pulled 8a, 8c, and 8i, and Mayor Brownrigg pulled 8f. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8d, 8e, 8h, 8j, 8k, 8l, and 8m; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2018. Councilmember Beach stated that on page 12, paragraph 6 of the minutes, Councilmember Keighran’s question was about whether research and development would be allowed in Burlingame if the Zoning Code is silent, and not if delivery would be allowed. Councilmember Keighran agreed. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt the amended City Council meeting minutes of September 4, 2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, 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) 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 requested Council adopt Ordinance 1954 and Resolution Number 117-2018. Councilmember Keighran stated that she had heard from members of the public who were concerned about removing the owner occupancy requirement. She discussed retaining the owner occupancy requirement but allowing the owner to live in either the primary or secondary dwelling. She added that if both the primary and secondary dwelling are rented, then the R-1 zone could be filled with duplexes, which is not the intent of that zone. She explained that Half Moon Bay’s ADU ordinance requires owner occupancy in either the primary or secondary unit. Additionally, in Half Moon Bay, the Community Development Director may grant an owner a waiver that allows them to not live in either unit for two years in a ten-year period. She asked if the City could amend the requirement so that it could be a family member in one of the units. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Belmont also has an owner occupancy requirement. He stated that he liked the idea of having an owner occupancy requirement with waivers. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City had any jurisdiction over defining family. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that to set up an ordinance that requires a family member in one of the units would be almost impossible to enforce. She discussed talking with community members who felt that they have a right to rent out their primary home and their ADU. Vice Mayor Colson suggested removed the ownership language from the proposed ordinance and having further discussions on that topic at a later date. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he couldn’t picture how the City would enforce the owner occupancy requirement in a humane, decent manner. Therefore, he stated that he believed the City shouldn’t have this requirement. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Council could reinstate the requirement at a later date. Acting City Attorney Schaffner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that she had difficulty understanding how the City would enforce the owner occupancy requirement. CDD Gardiner stated it would be a code enforcement issue and would be investigated by the code enforcement officer under the City Attorney. He explained that the City can’t evict a tenant and could instead require the ADU to be decommissioned. Councilmember Keighran asked if Costa Hawkins gets repealed and an individual is renting their ADU, but wants to sell their house, could they evict the tenant. CDD Gardiner stated that just-cause eviction and other rent control regulations could apply. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reason he sides with starting more conservatively and requiring an owner on the premises is because it is easier to deregulate than to re-regulate. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Ortiz moved to adopt Ordinance 1954 and Resolution Number 117-2018; second by Councilmember Beach. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was going to vote in favor of the motion. However, had there been a majority he would have favored requiring owners be occupants of one of the units. Mayor Brownrigg called for a roll call vote. The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against). Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, when an ordinance is brought back for a second reading, and there has been a split vote, that it should be a staff report and not on the consent calendar. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City should collect data on the owner occupancy requirement over the next year for the Council to review. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA Assistant Attorney Vakharia requested Council adopt Ordinance 1955. Councilmember Beach voiced concern that because the proposed ordinance doesn’t address research and development, this use may be allowed in the city. She stated that while she didn’t have a strong opinion on allowing marijuana research and development in Burlingame, she didn’t know if the Council should further consider this aspect of the ordinance. She asked if there was any interest from her colleagues in drafting an amendment that would place a moratorium on research and development. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Council placed a moratorium on research and development, would it supersede any future State regulations. Acting City Attorney Schaffner explained that it depends on timing and the text of the State regulations. Councilmember Beach asked if a moratorium on research and development would require the approval of the Planning Commission. Acting Attorney Schaffner replied in the affirmative because it is a land use that isn’t currently regulated. She added that it might also trigger a CEQA analysis. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City doesn’t ban companies from conducting research and development on other substances that he feels are more noxious than marijuana. Therefore, he explained that it didn’t make sense to ban research and development of marijuana. Mayor Brownrigg and Vice Mayor Colson stated that they concurred with Councilmember Ortiz. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach moved to adopt Ordinance 1955; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HILLSIDE AND SKYVIEW RESERVOIR EXTERIOR COATING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 82780 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 118-2018. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 3, CITY PROJECT NO. 84191 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 119-2018. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84740 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 120-2018. Mayor Brownrigg asked DPW Murtuza to explain the project. DPW Murtuza stated that the City’s storm drain system has to deal with the Bay. During high tides, the Bay water tries to move into the City’s storm channels and creeks. Therefore, during rainy season, it’s hard for storm water to get into the Bay. To assist with this problem, the City is installing flap gates that will prevent the Bay water from getting into the storm drain system but allow storm water into the Bay. Mayor Brownrigg stated his appreciation for this project as it would prevent flooding and assist during storms. Mayor Brownrigg opened up for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 120-2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT: “SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS – TIME FOR HARD CHOICES” Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 121-2018. Vice Mayor Colson discussed staff’s proposed responses to the Grand Jury Report. She explained that she appreciated that staff corrected the report’s conclusions regarding Burlingame and the work that the City has undertaken. She reviewed the work the City has done including the establishment of the Pension 115 Fund. She stated that she didn’t want the public to read the report and not grasp the nuances that are germane to Burlingame. She added that the City could add footnotes to the CAFR about the work that they doing. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 121-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT: “COOPERATIVE PURCHASING – A ROADMAP TO MORE EFFECTIVE CITY PROCUREMENT” Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 122-2018. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 6, THE NOVEMBER 2018 STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 123-2018. Councilmember Beach explained that Proposition 6 on the November ballot is a measure to repeal Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. She stated that SB 1 funds are used for road safety improvements, to fix pot holes, and repair streets. Councilmember Beach stated that she hoped the public would read this staff report so that they would understand the implications of repealing SB 1. She explained that 33% of the infrastructure projects in the County are funded by SB 1. Additionally SB 1 allots approximately $15 million annually to Caltrain and SamTrans and has given $164 million to the Caltrain Electrification Project. She discussed the usage of SB 1 funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects and stated that in this current fiscal year, the City has received approximately $550,000 in SB 1 funds for infrastructure projects. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Doug Silverstein thanked the Council for opposing Proposition 6. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 123-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH & PLANNING, INC. AND APPROVING AN INITIAL APPROPRIATION OF $3,726,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND WASHINGTON PARK RENOVATION PROJECT Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 124-2018. k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND APPROVING AN APPROPRIATION OF $1,100,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND WASHINGTON PARK RENOVATION PROJECT Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 125-2018. l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (TOPGOLF) AT 250 ANZA BOULEVARD Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 126-2018. m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY RANGE FOR THE PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR POSITION, AND APPROVING THE AMENDED CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 127-2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 Finance Director Augustine stated that on August 20, 2018, the Council accepted DBID’s annual report and asked the Council to hold a public hearing on DBID’s annual assessments. Finance Director Augustine asked if the City Clerk received any protests. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied that there had been one. Finance Director Augustine stated that approximately $90,000 in assessments is collected each year for DBID. She stated that if the protests don’t constitute a majority, the resolution should be adopted. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 128-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25, CHAPTER 25.70.034 TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS CDD Gardiner stated that last year, City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a review of parking requirements for hotels. He explained that the current zoning code requires hotels and motels to provide one parking space per room. He stated that this requirement is inclusive of all uses in the hotel including restaurants and facilities. He explained that hotels have experienced a significant reduction in the demand for parking as a result of ride sharing services like Uber and hotel shuttles. CDD Gardiner stated that staff prepared a survey to evaluate the parking utilization of each hotel and motel in Burlingame. He explained that of the 12 hotels in Burlingame, eight general managers replied to the survey. The survey reflects an underutilization of parking facilities, with 50-75% of parking spaces not being used. CDD Gardiner stated that the staff report includes a table of comparable city requirements near airports. He stated that the one to one ratio is an industry standard. However, he noted that San Mateo requires two spaces for every five rooms, and South San Francisco allows hotels and motels to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) to reduce the number of parking spaces. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 CDD Gardiner reviewed the potential alternatives that were brought to the Planning Commission including: 1. Reduced parking ratio, 2. Conditional Use Permit for parking reductions, 3. No parking requirement – operators determine supply based on anticipated demand, or 4. Maintain existing requirements CDD Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission supported using CUPs to reduce parking requirements. He explained that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach and puts the burden on the applicant. He added that the proposed ordinance lays out the criteria for CUP approval. Vice Mayor Colson asked if a current hotel obtains a CUP, if they could use the excess land to build an additional wing to their hotel. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that her concern would be that once the City approves a CUP to reduce parking requirements, it would not be easy to reverse that decision. CDD Gardiner stated that the hotel’s CUP application would need to show how they would handle the parking needs of their facility and the determined usage of the removed parking spots. Vice Mayor Colson asked why a CUP would be more amenable to the City versus reducing the parking ratio. CDD Gardiner stated that the hardest part with the parking ratio is trying to determine what the right ratio is. He stated that the CUP approach is less prescriptive and puts the burden on the operator. Councilmember Keighran voiced concern about reducing the parking requirement. She explained that in the future, if the City utilizes the Bayfront for larger entertainment and recreation activities, then there could be a need for a public-private partnership to use hotel parking lots. CDD Gardiner stated that the CUP would provide information about the operator’s plan for surplus space. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the data shows that the parking lots on average are 50% or more empty. He explained that his only concern would be when the hotels host events that would require larger parking lots. He suggested that the City have two different ratios that the hotels/motels have to comply with: one for hotel rooms and one for event space. CDD Gardiner stated the event space factored into the study but did add a wrinkle to the averages. Councilmember Beach stated that under the ordinance’s criteria for a CUP it states: “Special conditions – including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program – exist that will reduce parking demand at the site.” She proposed making transportation demand management program (“TDM”) required for all CUPs. She explained that TDMs force hoteliers to think about how they are going to handle transporting people to and from their property. CDD Gardiner stated that staff could make it part of the fixed requirements. Councilmember Beach stated that she fully supported the proposal to reduce parking requirements based on the data that shows how underutilized the space is. She voiced concern that the underutilized lots would be used for “park and fly” programs. She stated that this would be an attractive option for the hotels because it Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 could be lucrative. However, she stated that as a community there is an interest in seeing that the land is used for a higher purpose. She asked if the proposed language gives the Planning Commission the ability to look at each case and prevent hotels from utilizing their parking lots for “park and fly” programs. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he feels comfortable with the Planning Commission reviewing a CUP and determining whether the applicant has laid out a good plan. He noted that he was okay with “park and fly”. Councilmember Ortiz asked if a hotel offers “park and fly” would the parking ratio change for them. CDD Gardiner stated that it would be part of the equation. Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently if a hotel offers “park and fly” they still have the same parking requirements. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the survey the Council received included the hotels that were allowing “park and fly”, and their lots were not filled. He stated that therefore it is unlikely that “park and fly” would become an issue. Mayor Brownrigg stated that hotels can only offer “park and fly” to customers that stay at least one night at the hotel. He explained that when he was on the Planning Commission, the Commission approved “park and fly” programs in order to drive business to the hotels. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach asked if there was anything in the ordinance that would prevent hotels from opening up their lots for general parking. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it is a non- conforming use. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the data shows that the City has over-parked the Bayfront. She explained that she believed the proposed ordinance was a reasonable approach. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance as written; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. Councilmember Beach asked if imposing a TDM requirement would be burdensome. CDD Gardiner stated that it would depend on the nature of the request and how it related to the operation. He explained that if the hotel’s CUP is for large parking lot reduction, then a TDM could be helpful. However, if the hotel’s plans are less ambitious, then the TDM needs could be met by other provisions in the amendment. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 Councilmember Beach asked if the proposed ordinance gives staff the discretion to request a TDM. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that staff would look for a complete application that lays out the details and determine whether a TDM is necessary. Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a legal definition of TDM. CDD Gardiner stated that the current code has provisions for TDM, however under the zoning code update, there would be a more robust TDM chapter. Councilmember Beach suggested an amendment to the motion to incorporate TDMs in a thoughtful manner. Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t want to make TDMs a requirement as the Planning Commission could strongly encourage a hotel that applies for a CUP to include it. Councilmember Ortiz stated at some point the City should look at a permanent reduction of the ratio. Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be beneficial to have the hoteliers here to see what they have in mind. The motion stood as first stated. Mayor Brownrigg asked for a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously by roll call, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE RATE OPTIONS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 Finance Director Augustine explained that the City has not raised the solid waste rate since 2012. She stated that the staff report reviews the costs associated with solid waste and makes recommendations on how to increase the solid waste rates to cover these costs. She explained that the City spends $11.27 million on solid waste a year. Collection services for the City cost $5.7 million and are comprised of labor, routes, containers in service, and number of customers. The disposal costs for the City are $3.7 million and are based on tonnage of recycling, compostable materials, and trash. She noted that these costs are partially offset by recyclable revenues. Lastly, she reviewed the City expenses totaling $1.8 million which includes: landfill post-closure expenses, street sweeping, public containers steam cleaning, rate stabilization reserve, and franchise fee to reimburse for wear and tear on streets. Finance Director Augustine explained that SBWMA has negotiated a new contract with Recology that will take effect on January 1, 2021. She stated that staff expects an increase of 13% in Recology compensation by 2021. Additionally, she discussed the tighter restrictions in China concerning the quality of recyclable goods that they will accept. Finance Director Augustine stated that residents’ monthly cost is $23.85 for all three containers, collection, and disposal. She noted that in Palo Alto, residents pay $50.07; Belmont residents pay $35.38; and Foster City residents pay $22.77. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 Finance Director Augustine explained that the City isn’t covering the costs under existing rates. She stated that the City Council needs to determine when to reset the rates and by how much. Additionally, the City Council should consider whether or not to set aside funds for the Rate Stabilization Reserve. Finance Director Augustine stated that staff recommends a 6% increase in the solid waste rates beginning in 2019, for each of the following three years. She noted that rate changes will follow the Prop 218 process. Councilmember Beach discussed the future of green waste and State mandates that are getting increasingly restrictive. She explained that from meetings she has attended, she has learned that there is going to be extraordinary investment that needs to happen in terms of green waste. She asked if these types of changes will hit after 2021 or during the proposed rate increases. Additionally, she asked if because of these changes the City should be a little more aggressive on funding the Rate Stabilization Reserve. SBWMA Executive Director Joe La Mariana stated that major legislation was passed two years ago. He explained that the intent of the legislation is to eliminate greenhouse gas, and landfills have been identified as a large pollution source of greenhouse gas. Therefore, the priority over the next 5-10 years is getting organic materials out of the landfill. He noted that in order to make this happen there will be significant capital investment costs. Finance Director Augustine added that the impact to the Rate Stabilization Reserve is key because while it is adequate now, it can be quickly diminished for these mandates. She stated that if the Reserve runs in deficit, the City will have to increase costs to cover subsequent years. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Proposition 218 limits how much the City can fund the Rate Stabilization Reserve. Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative. She explained that Proposition 218 states that the City cannot charge more than the service, but if the City anticipates increases in the future, they are allowed to increase rates. Councilmember Beach asked if staff’s 6% rate increase for three years recommendation would provide a break even or is there potential for adding to the Rate Stabilization Reserve. Finance Director Augustine stated that the City would end 2021 by breaking even. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the recycling revenue and how it has taken a huge hit. Additionally, he stated that the County has the opportunity to experiment with different ways of processing waste. Councilmember Keighran stated that considering that the City hasn’t had an increase in several years she would rather do a little bit each year. She explained that at least now the community would be able to budget for the increase over the next three years. She noted that 6% was reasonable. Councilmember Beach stated that she trusted staff and asked that the public notices about the rate increase include not only the percentage but also the dollar amount. Vice Mayor Colson thanked Recology for their great work in the community. Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Mayor Brownrigg stated that he has always found Recology to be quick on handling customer complaints. He discussed the rising concerns about bulk items like mattresses being left on the streets. He asked for ideas on how to handle this matter. Mr. La Mariana stated that SBWMA is discussing this issue and will be bring recommendations to the board soon. 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 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk