Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.11.05 Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on November 5, 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 Kent Putnam. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, MEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran 4. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOV. CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, SONYA M. MORRISON, KATHLEEN KANE, CAROL AUGUSTINE, AND LISA K. GOLDMAN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, AND ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 6. PRESENTATIONS a. FIRE PREVENTION MONTH PRESENTATION BY CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CCFD Deputy Fire Marshal Christine Reed stated that October was Fire Prevention Month. She explained that each year, CCFD visits elementary schools to discuss fire prevention. This year, CCFD also discussed the message: “Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fire can happen anywhere” with the students. CCFD asked students to inspect their homes using a home fire safety inspection checklist. After completing the checklist, the students were entered in a drawing to win the grand prize, a private tour of Fire Station 34. CCFD Deputy Fire Marshal Reed announced that kindergartner Emma Lee was this year’s grand prize winner. Congratulations Emma! b. VIOLINS OF HOPE PRESENTATION Pam Lampkin, Development Manager at Music at Kohl Mansion, stated that the organization’s mission is community building through music and demonstrating that art can act as a vehicle for common understanding. Ms. Lampkin discussed Music at Kohl Mansion’s upcoming Violins of Hope program, running January 2020 through March 2020. She explained that through a series of concerts, lectures, exhibitions, and educational programs, Music at Kohl Mansion will work with 20 Bay Area organizations to showcase a collection of 60 string instruments played by Jewish people during World War II. She stated that for eight weeks in the winter of 2020, the Bay Area will resonate with the sound of violins and the voices of artists, scholars, activists, humanists, students, and individuals whose lives have been profoundly touched by injustice. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the event would open at Kohl Mansion. Ms. Lampkin replied in the affirmative and stated that the violins would then be traveling around the Bay Area. Vice Mayor Colson asked how people could find out more about the event. Ms. Lampkin stated that people could visit their website: www.musicatkohl.org. c. BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER PRESENTATION BAC Executive Director Sylvia Lam gave the Council an update on the Burlingame Aquatic Center (“BAC”). She explained that BAC’s mission is to serve the community by providing excellent aquatic opportunities. Ms. Lam stated that her presentation would focus on what BAC has done to maintain programs and staff during the pool renovations. She explained that prior to the start of construction, BAC worked with the City and San Mateo Union High School District (“District”) to put together a plan to operate satellite locations that would allow BAC to continue to offer as many of their programs as possible. Ms. Lam explained that on May 27, 2018, BAC packed up their equipment and moved it to the satellite pools. Beginning June 1, community programs such as lap swim and water aerobics were run at the San Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Mateo High School pool. Competitive programs such as swim team and water polo were run at Capuchino High School. Ms. Lam explained that BAC had to vacate the District pools on August 2, because high school water polo was beginning on August 3. Therefore, on August 13, BAC began running their community programs at King Pool and was able to offer programming at Joinville Pool beginning September 4. Ms. Lam explained that by using satellite locations, BAC was able to offer 80% of their regular summer programming. Ms. Lam discussed the financial and participation challenges that occurred as a result of the renovations. When summer programming registrations opened on February 1, BAC communicated with the public that because of the renovations, their programming would be done at satellite pools. She noted that many people thought BAC was closed or were hesitant to go to the new locations, and therefore registration dramatically decreased. She compared BAC’s gross revenues from last summer to this summer: Month 2017 2018 May Approximately $64,000 Approximately $52,000 June Approximately $105,000 Approximately $64,000 July Approximately $126,000 Approximately $49,000 August Approximately $91,000 Approximately $24,000 Ms. Lam noted that BAC’s expenses increased as a result of utilizing multiple satellite locations. Ms. Lam explained that when BAC was notified that the pool renovations would take longer than originally predicted, it was determined that BAC couldn’t continue to operate multiple satellite locations. BAC’s Board of Directors made the difficult decision to consolidate programs and lay off staff. She stated that the two programs that remain are age group swim team at Joinville Pool and water polo at Mercy High School. She added that as a result of the consolidations, BAC now has 3 full-time staff members, 10 part-time staffers, and a part-time club administrator Ms. Lam explained that without additional discounts or outside funding, BAC will have to undertake further consolidations in 12 months. She noted that when the Burlingame High School pool reopens, it will be important for BAC to rebuild their programs, hire quality staffers, and regain the community’s trust. City Manager Goldman thanked Sylvia Lam for her hard work and efforts to keep BAC open. She noted that she will be meeting with the District to understand the status and timeline of reopening the pool. Mayor Brownrigg thanked Sylvia Lam for her work. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Burlingame City Council November 5, 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 Beach pulled 8f. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8g, 8h, 8i, and 8j; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed by voice vote 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE INSTALLATION OF SYNTHETIC TURF AND THE PURCHASE OF A GROOMER, SWEEPER, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR MURRAY FIELD, CITY PROJECT NO. 84130 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 138-2018. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE VEHICLES FOR THE CITY’S FLEET SYSTEM DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 139-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CUSTOMER WORK ORDER AGREEMENTS WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY ENERGY WATCH FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS AND AN AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR ON-BILLING FINANCING DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 140-2018. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 18-06), MERGER OF LOTS 1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, AND A PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 20, MAP OF LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVSION AT 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 141 -2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED AS OF JUNE 30, 2018 PURSUANT TO THE MITIGATION FEE ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ.) AND MAKING REQUIRED FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Councilmember Beach explained that the purpose of the staff report was to update the Council and community on the different fees that the City can require on development projects. She stated that previously Council and staff had discussed undertaking a study to update the impact fees. She asked if this Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 would be occurring once the draft General Plan is approved. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative and added that it would be a part of next fiscal year’s budget. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 142-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROCUREMENT OF A PREFABRICATED RESTROOM FROM CXT, INC. AND THE SITE PREPARATION WORK BY TIMBERLINE ENGINEERING FOR THE WASHINGTON PARK RESTROOM, CITY PROJECT NO. 85050 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 143-2018. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 2018 TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT AND TO GIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR 2019 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 144-2018. i. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR CITY STAFF Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad and Public Works Director Syed Murtuza requested Council approve of out-of-state travel for Parks and Recreation and Public Works staff members. j. ACCEPTANCE OF A PROCLAMATION HONORING ANSON BURLINGAME AND THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BURLINGAME TREATY ON US-CHINA RELATIONS City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council accept a Proclamation honoring Anson Burlingame and the 150th anniversary of the Burlingame Treaty on US-China Relations. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were two vacancies on the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received two applications: Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan. The two applicants were interviewed on October 22, 2018. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 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. Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan were reappointed for three-year terms ending November 6, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were three vacancies on the Beautification Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, and Richard Kirchner. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received five applicants but one applicant was unavailable for the interview. Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, Richard Kirchner, and Shaeda Urbani were interviewed on October 22, 2018. Mary 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. Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, and Richard Kirchner were appointed for three-year terms ending October 7, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. He noted that it is his intention to propose an expansion of the Beautification Commission to seven seats because of the additional task of reviewing public art projects. c. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION The staff report for this item noted that there were two vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission due to the expired terms of Commissioners Claire Schissler and Karen Malekos-Smith. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received four applications but one applicant was unavailable for the interview. Stephanie Lee, Leslie Holzman, and Shaeda Urbani were interviewed on October 22, 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. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Leslie Holzman and Stephanie Lee were appointed for three-year terms ending October 7, 2021. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. d. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND PHASING PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff was pleased to bring the final schematic plan to the Council for their approval. She thanked the advisory committee and Group 4 Architects for their hard work on this project. Group 4 Architect Dawn Merkes explained that the Community Center was broken down into different packages. She explained that staff and the advisory committee are currently working on the first package, which is the design of the playground. She reviewed the timeline and cost for the first package: Phase Time Period Design of Playground November 2018 Construction Documents February 2019 Procurement Package March 2019 Bidding and Award of Project April to May 2019 Construction June to December 2019 Total Cost with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation $2.4 million She stated that the impetus for this early site package is to minimize impact and take advantage of the cost savings. Package1 with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation will cost $2.4 million. Ms. Merkes then discussed the second package, which is the Community Center, associated site work, and parking. She reviewed the timeline and cost for the second package: Phase Time Period Schematic Design Package November 2018 Design Development November 2018 to March 2019 Construction Documents Completed September 2019 Bidding and Award of Project December 2019 Construction January 2020 to January 2022 Total Cost with hard and soft costs, contingency fees, and escalation $49.9 million Ms. Merkes discussed the third package, which included: furniture, equipment, technology, and signage. She stated that this package would cost $2.02 million. She then reviewed the alternate packages such as photovoltaic panels for the roof, which would cost $1.8 million. . Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 Mayor Brownrigg discussed the increase in cost for the project from what was originally reported. He asked if there were a couple of big items that explained the increase. Ms. Merkes stated that based on the Council discussion in June, the cost was $44 million without escalation. She explained that the original budget was not as extensive as what is needed for the scope of work for the Community Center. Accordingly, factoring in escalation and adding more detail to the budget triggered an increase in the cost. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the costs discussed at tonight’s meeting were close to final. Ms. Merkes replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked why the second package (Community Center, associated site work, and parking) would not go to bid until late next year. Ms. Merkes discussed the amount of structural drawings and documents that are necessary to obtain accurate bids. Next, Ms. Merkes showed different views of the interior and exterior of the Community Center. Councilmember Beach reviewed the Council’s June discussion on adding nine parking spaces to the project. She noted that the cost of these nine parking spaces was $674,251. She asked if Council could decide to cancel the nine parking spaces to eliminate that cost. Ms. Merke’s replied in the affirmative and explained that the additional parking was an a la carte item. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the photovoltaic panels are slated to cost $1.8 million. She explained that the City should seek out grants and green programs to assist in the financing of the panels. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative and explained that the Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow Andrea Pappajohn is looking into these opportunities. Vice Mayor Colson discussed opportunities for community engagement and fundraising for some of the alternates like sprung wood floor in the Community Room. Vice Mayor Colson asked if staff had addressed residents’ concerns about flipping the playground and basketball court. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. She explained that originally, the City had chosen the locations for the playground and basketball court to save the Redwood tree. However, she learned that the Redwood tree could be replanted but it would cost $15,000 to $20,000. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the advisory committee benefited from the expertise of Planning Commissioners Terrones and Loftis. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the design looks great. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the schematic design and phasing plan for the new Community Center; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Brownrigg stated that although it is called an add-on, the photovoltaic panels are not optional if the City wants net zero energy. He added that the Council needs to meet to discuss the capital plan for this project. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran was absent). e. CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) CDD Gardiner stated that in March 2015, the City initiated a multi-year community led process known as Envision Burlingame, which consisted of the update of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance regulate all land use, environmental, and transportation decisions in the City. He stated that the update is the culmination of engagement with the community over several years and is a milestone for the City. MIG Project Manager Dan Amsden began by explaining that Envision Burlingame looked to answer the question: “How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from now?” He explained that the General Plan will be the blueprint for the City when it comes to land use, environmental, and transportation issues. Mr. Amsden discussed the public outreach that MIG and staff undertook over the past three years. He stated that the City held18 community advisory meetings, conducted 15 stakeholder interviews, held three rounds of community workshops, held study sessions with the Council and Planning Commission, conducted surveys, and created a website to obtain feedback. Additionally, staff worked with Burlingame High School, San Francisco State, and UC Berkeley on design projects. Mr. Amsden explained that Envision Burlingame was awarded Prop 84 funding from the State and that the State now uses Envision Burlingame as a model for future funding. Next, Mr. Amsden explained that there are eight phases in the Envision Burlingame process. Currently, the City is in the sixth phase, which is where the draft General Plan is brought to Council for consideration and adoption. He noted that as part of the process, the City would also need to update Burlingame’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Amsden explained that the General Plan is implemented in a variety of ways. He stated that specific plans and zoning are the most typical means of implementation. However, the General Plan is also implemented through subdivision maps, conditional permits, and building permits. Mr. Amsden explained that that the General Plan is a long-term plan to guide decisions for stability and change, with a 15 to 20-year planning horizon. The General Plan addresses topics required by law, plus those unique to Burlingame. The General Plan is a living document that may change over time, is legally enforceable, and provides for accountability. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key focuses of the draft General Plan is areas of stability versus change areas. He explained that the change areas are Broadway, Bayfront, North Burlingame, and Rollins Road. He then reviewed each change area. Bayfront Mr. Amsden stated that the Bayfront is envisioned to remain a regional business and hotel destination. He noted that the draft General Plan proposes enhancing the community’s access to recreation on the Bayfront and protecting the community from sea level rise. Additionally, the draft General Plan proposes allowing flexible industrial and commercial development standards for this area. Rollins Road Mr. Amsden explained that Rollins Road is envisioned to stay as a light industrial zone. But under the draft General Plan, the northern portion of Rollins would be a residential/industrial zone. This would create live- work space for up to 70 units per acre. He explained that because of the proximity of northern Rollins Road to the BART station, it was an ideal location for increased housing. North Burlingame Mr. Amsden stated that the north end of Burlingame is like Rollins Road because it is close to the BART station. Therefore, the draft General Plan proposes increasing residential densities and creating a mixed use hub. He noted that density is increased to 20 to 120 units per acre. Broadway Corridor Mr. Amsden stated that under the draft General Plan, the Broadway Corridor would continue to be used for local business and act as a commercial center. However, the draft General Plan offers more flexibility on second floor uses. Next, Mr. Amsden reviewed the focused areas of housing growth for the city. He stated that the Downtown Specific Plan was approved a few years ago and has around 1200 residential units planned. Under the draft General Plan: Broadway and California Drive have 526-600 units, Rollins Road has 480 units, and North Burlingame has 615-700 units. Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key elements in any General Plan process is generating an estimate for what the future housing, employment, and population growth will be in the city. He explained that MIG presented Council with initial figures in 2016 that stated there would be an increase of 3000 housing units, 7000 people, and 9700 jobs by 2040. He stated that these numbers were used in the environmental analysis to predict the impacts on transportation and infrastructure. Mr. Amsden stated that the draft General Plan includes a multimodal circulation network and a bicycle network. Additionally, under the draft General Plan there is a transportation demand management program (“TDM”) that establishes specific guidelines and requirements within the Zoning Ordinance. The TDM utilizes different strategies in different parts of the community in order to provide sustainability and economic development. Mr. Amsden stated that another theme of the draft General Plan is sustainability. He explained that sustainability and community resiliency policies, programs, and actions are integrated throughout the Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 document. Additionally, a new and unique Sustainable Development goal section is included in the Community Character Element. He noted that the City is updating the Climate Action Plan and incorporating those changes into the General Plan. Mr. Amsden stated that another key policy area is historic preservation. He explained that within the Community Character Element, there is a goal section that focuses on historic preservation. He stated that within that chapter there are two policies that explain how to identify historic resources. The first policy is comprehensive historic surveys. This requires applicants for any discretionary permit that involves remodeling, removing, or substantially altering any structure older than 50 years to prepare a Historic Resources Analysis consistent with State CEQA requirements. The second policy is Historic Districts, which identify opportunities to establish National Park Service Certified Historic Districts to encourage the preservation of Burlingame’s historical neighborhoods and districts. Mr. Amsden stated that there are a few approaches that can be taken in regards to historic preservation. 1. Citywide/District Survey: Conduct a full survey of either all or part of Burlingame to identify all potential resources 2. Case-by-Case Evaluations: Require any new project on a building 50 years or older to have an evaluation done (current approach in the Draft General Plan). 3. Certify Commission/Staff to be Historic Resources Specialist: To augment bullet #2, there is a process to certify the City to make historic resources determinations. Mr. Amsden stated that another new and unique area of the draft General Plan is the Sea Level Rise goal section in the Community Safety Element. He stated that the draft General Plan includes a vulnerability assessment policy. Under this policy the City will coordinate with San Mateo County on the county-wide Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment that identifies regional sea level rise risk factors and areas, as well as emerging options for response. Additionally, the draft General Plan includes policies concerning new developments in vulnerable areas. Mr. Amsden discussed the importance of coordinating with the school districts during this process. He explained that staff and the consultant team have been coordinating with the school districts to ensure that they are aware of potential land use considerations and can provide feedback. Mr. Amsden reviewed policies and standards that could be added to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: 1. City and District Collaboration – assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment 2. School Partnerships – support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Next, Mr. Amsden stated that there have been discussions concerning variable massing in the Burlingame Downtown Area. Variable massing allows for portions of buildings to be higher than the maximum height of 55 feet as long as the average height is 55 feet. Mr. Amsden discussed the Burlingame Hills sphere of influence. He stated that sphere of influence refers to adjacent unincorporated areas that receive or may in the future receive services from the City and become part of the City. He explained that the draft General Plan includes the following statement: “As a matter of Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 City policy, these areas will not be annexed by the City of Burlingame unless annexation is initiated by property owners.” Mr. Amsden explained that under California LAFCO law, annexations generally follow a five-step process: 1. Pre-application initiated by the City or by a majority of residents 2. Application filed with the San Mateo County LAFCO 3. Review and consideration by San Mateo County LAFCO 4. Protest proceedings that will determine either the majority of property owners accept annexation and/or LAFCO will hold an election 5. Final certification of the annexation. Next, MIG Principal in Charge Laura Stetson discussed the City’s Environmental Impact Report. She explained that the EIR was done at a program level and therefore is not as specific as if it was done for a project. She noted that the EIR looks at about 18 topics including land use and impacts on public services. She stated that the EIR found that for most of these topics, there would be no impact or that the impacts didn’t rise to the level of significance. However, she stated that there were four areas where there could potentially be impacts: Paleontological Resources, Short-term Construction Noise Impacts, Increased Traffic Noise, and Increased Traffic at Select Intersections. She noted that there are ways to avoid these impacts, largely through practices that are in place today. Ms. Stetson stated that there will be traffic impacts not just as a result of the draft General Plan but because of background growth. She explained that the existing conditions show that just about all intersections in the City operate at good levels of service. The only intersections that have strain are at Millbrae/El Camino Real and at Broadway/California. However, she noted that there will be an increase in traffic at the Broadway/California intersection in the future. She added that the EIR assumed that grade separation would not occur because it wasn’t a fully funded project. Ms. Stetson stated that there are two impacts that are termed significant and unavoidable: 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: increases in greenhouse gas emissions will occur until the Climate Action Plan update is adopted with specific programs that the City will undertake to reduce emissions. 2. Plan Bay Area Consistency: The 2040 General Plan is not consistent with PDA transit corridor policies. Ms. Stetson stated that an EIR is required to look at alternatives. She noted that alternatives generally are to focus on those that have the ability to reduce or avoid impacts associated with the project. Ms. Stetson stated that in May 2018, the City Council and Planning Commission asked a few more detailed questions about the EIR: 1. Why are there different impacts at the different railroad crossings? Answer: largely due to the different configurations of the intersections. 2. Will new development projects recently approved in Millbrae and San Mateo be included in the EIR? Answer: Yes, as they are part of the background information. 3. Will the traffic model consider the pending Peninsula Drive Interchange project? Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 Answer: No, because the project has not been approved. 4. Does the traffic model consider the electrification of the Caltrain Corridor and the anticipated increase it will have in ridership and the number of trains? Answer: Yes, it is included in the regional ABAG model. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the letters and emails included in the agenda packet. He asked if these were new comments or comments that staff had already received. CDD Gardiner stated that the letters that were included in the agenda packet had been collected since the draft General Plan was published in August 2017. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Kamran Ehsanipour discussed the vacant lot he owns on the corner of El Camino Real and Adeline Drive. Burlingame resident Kent Putnam asked for higher density for auto row and discussed the need for workforce housing. Burlingame resident Justin Moresco spoke in support of Chapter 8, Section 7.2, which calls for an ad hoc committee to be formed to create an inventory of soft story buildings and recommend actions that could be taken by the City Council. Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel stated that she had been informed that the community’s comments had been incorporated into a new version of the General Plan and asked where she could find it. CDD Gardiner stated that the draft itself has not changed since it was published in August 2017. He explained that after the draft General Plan is reviewed by Council, staff will take all the comments they have received and will show track changes in the next document. Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel asked about the implementation plan and whether she was correct that if an item is not on the implementation plan, it doesn’t have an implementation timeline. CDD Gardiner stated that the City isn’t limited to what is listed in the implementation chapter. He stated that the purpose of this chapter is to answer the question “how do you do this?” Former Burlingame Mayor Terry Nagel asked if community members have suggested changes and haven’t gotten a response, is it possible to see what staff is recommending. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if after this hearing, staff will consolidate all the input and produce a new version for review. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Burlingame resident Maryann voiced concern about the historic review process in the draft General Plan. She explained that it becomes difficult to sell a home if portions of it are considered historic. She added that there is only one company that does historic review in the City. She noted the importance of protecting the industrial businesses on Rollins Road as they are owned and run by local families. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that she wasn’t in favor of increasing the allowed height on auto row. She discussed the issues with the Burlingame Park neighborhood being reviewed for historic preservation because the Mills Act only applies to the Downtown Specific Area Plan properties. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed the negative impacts that the historical preservation chapter on property owners. Mayor Burlingame closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City’s goal is adopt the General Plan by the end of the year. Councilmember Beach asked about the consultant’s statement that the draft General Plan is inconsistent with regional planning efforts for El Camino Real. Ms. Stetson stated that ABAG will take into account what individual cities want to do in their next update. She added that El Camino Real has a different feel in Burlingame than it does in any other cities. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he felt that the urgency of affordable housing is completely lost in the draft General Plan. He explained that affordable housing often colors Council’s discussions and decisions. Therefore, he felt that it needed to be more prominent in the General Plan. He noted that Burlingame is no longer a bedroom community, and the regional issue of affordable housing has to be noted in the report. The Council under Mayor Brownrigg’s guidance reviewed each change area in the draft General Plan and a few other topics. Bayfront Mayor Brownrigg asked why the floor area ratio (“FAR”) is limited to .75 for the inner Bayshore. CDD Gardiner stated that the intention was to provide a setting for industrial activity to continue. He added that this area isn’t meant to accommodate larger users like commercial buildings and hotels. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the draft General Plan is maintaining what already exists in the inner Bayshore. He noted that it made sense to keep it this way. Mayor Brownrigg stated that when the City limits uses it is making a significant policy choice. He asked if the FAR of 3.0 for hospitality and commercial is the maximum height it can be. CDD Gardiner stated that 3.0 is consistent with this type of district in other communities. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was curious what Mayor Brownrigg thought the Bayfront should look like under the updated General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Bayfront is completely removed from single family residential areas. Therefore, he would be inclined to let people build as big as they want to build. Councilmember Beach asked if this is the driving job creation area in the draft General Plan. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 15 Councilmember Beach stated that therefore under the draft General Plan, the City is looking at 9,731 jobs if this plan is fulfilled. She cautioned the Council that the City needs to balance commercial growth with the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Therefore, the drafted plan for the Bayfront didn’t strike her as irresponsible. She noted that if the City followed the Mayor’s vision and let people build whatever they want, it will have an impact on the community with increased housing needs and traffic issues. She stated that she believed the Council needed to be thoughtful with plans for the Bayfront. Councilmember Beach asked the consultants if other cities when updating their general plans consider phasing commercial growth so that housing can keep up. Ms. Stetson replied in the negative because it is extraordinary difficult to monitor. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if the City allows office buildings to go as big as they want on the Bayfront, the City would lose views and gain wind issues. She added that she agreed with Councilmember Beach about the need to balance job growth and housing needs. However, she noted that on the table for the Burlingame General Plan growth projections, the City’s ratio is one housing unit per three jobs. Therefore she felt good that the City is balancing housing and job growth. She added that she felt that industrial should have space on the Bayfront, but wanted to learn more about their facility needs. Councilmember Ortiz agreed with the Vice Mayor. He stated that he was comfortable with the levels that are proposed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed there was consensus that the numbers proposed for the Bayfront were accurate. Rollins Road Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe the 1.0 FAR was right for live/work spaces on Rollins Road. He discussed using Rollins Road to build a new neighborhood with affordable housing. He explained that with a 1.0 FAR, if someone wanted to build a four story building, than three-quarters of the property is open. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the proposal for Rollins Road is an FAR of 1.0 and 70 units per acre. She asked what this looked like. CDD Gardiner clarified that they are additive. The FAR applies only to commercial space. The 70 units per acre applies to residential. Therefore, an individual could build commercial space on the first floor and 70 units per acre above. This would allow for a fairly large mixed use project. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he misunderstood these numbers and asked about the height of a 70 unit building. CDD Gardiner stated it could be four to seven stories. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the original project on Lot F had a density of 160 units per acre. She explained that it is now closer to 130 units per acre. She discussed how these buildings become large boxes and it is important to work on the aesthetics of the buildings so that they are more attractive. She stated that she needed to understand the interplay a little more and would be interested to know if 70 units per acre is enough. Additionally, she wanted to know if the developer was to take on the State density bonus, what does that look like. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 16 Councilmember Ortiz stated that this is the area to increase housing as it is right by the BART station and freeway entrances. He noted that he is in favor of going as big as the City can go in this area. He stated that by putting housing in this area, you are still protecting the neighborhoods in other parts of Burlingame. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that this is the right area to increase housing. She stated that there is no question that the Millbrae BART station will continue to be important, and that this is where you should build housing. She stated that the City would be able to reduce parking requirements because of the area’s close proximity to public transportation. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was okay with the numbers listed in the draft General Plan. She stated that Rollins Road was being targeted for live/work. She noted that she believed a better location for public transit housing would be by the Burlingame Plaza. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one thing he thought was missing in this chapter is how neighborhoods are created and the assurance of open spaces. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing was that three Councilmembers were interested in knowing whether the City could set a higher target for housing and what it would like, and one Councilmember thought the proposed numbers were good. However, he thought all of the Council was struggling with whether they would get four stories or seven stories in this area. Therefore, he stated that it would be useful if the consultants showed what this would look like with different standards. North Burlingame Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the City could zone for more units, but once the change area had reached the maximum listed in the EIR, the City would need to update the EIR. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked CDD Gardiner to discuss Peninsula Health Care District’s request. CDD Gardiner explained that the perimeter properties along Marco Polo and Trousdale are currently zoned mixed use and would like to remain mixed use. He explained that currently, the Peninsula Health Care District’s land is zoned unclassified. Unclassified is a use that the General Plan attributes to facilities of a public nature that don’t have zoning. However, general plans are no longer allowed to have unclassified areas, so the new version of this label that is being used is public institution. The perimeter neighbors are concerned that they are going to be labeled public institution. The Peninsula Health Care District doesn’t want to be labeled public institution and instead wants to be zoned mixed use. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed it was only fitting and proper that the perimeter properties get to maintain their mixed use zoning. She stated that if the Peninsula Health Care District is allowed to go from no zoning to mixed use, the District would be adding significant value to their property. Therefore, she thought the Council should further discuss this request and consider what the District wants to do with the land and what community benefits it provides. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City is being asked to put the overlay into the General Plan. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 17 Mayor Brownrigg asked if because it is an overlay, the City could move forward with the General Plan update and handle the overlay separately in the future. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He added that another option is to leave these lots as public institution, and when the project comes forward, it would include a request for a General Plan amendment. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this would create more flexibility in the future and agreed with CDD Gardiner’s suggestion. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supported increasing density in North Burlingame. Councilmember Ortiz voiced concern about allowing tall buildings next to residential communities like the homes on Dufferin. Mayor Brownrigg stated that while the General Plan would set densities, it wouldn’t set style. Therefore, the Council could require that the developer decrease the height of a project as it got towards Dufferin. He noted that this is why variable massing made sense instead of fixed height. CDD Gardiner stated that it sounded like the Council was interested in going for the alternative of 140 units per acre. The Council replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that pursuing that density doesn’t necessarily increase height as developers could be building smaller more transit-oriented units. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council should be discussing height limits for the North Burlingame change area. CDD Gardiner stated staff will be bringing interim zoning to Council to review that would include height limits. He noted that staff was using the Summerhill project as a case study, and that height limits on a block by block basis had been discussed. Councilmember Beach discussed the impact of increasing density and population on the schools. She stated that it was important to work with the schools and ensure that the City’s decisions didn’t negatively impact the schools. She asked CDD Gardiner to discuss the information he had researched about transit-oriented developments. CDD Gardiner cautioned on making broad generalizations as the nature of the data varies and there are a lot of variables. However, staff found that in Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Walnut Creek, Foster City, and Mountain View, the units tend to be small near transit hubs. He explained that this is driven by densities and the market. The smaller transit-oriented units don’t attract families at the same level as town homes. He added that a lot of the projects built near transit are life style projects not geared towards families. Councilmember Beach stated that the City is growing, and the student population is growing because of how good the schools are in the community. She stated that the City is probably going to need a new school in the future, but she is at least comforted by the research that adding units will not negatively impact the schools. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this flagged one of his stylistic issues, which is that the City needed to increase references to the schools in the General Plan. He stated that where other school districts are shrinking and consolidating, the City has grown by 40% in K-8 school populations. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 18 Broadway Mayor Brownrigg noted that the draft General Plan decreased the FAR on Broadway. He asked how this would change Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that what Broadway is currently missing is residential as an allowed use. Therefore, the draft General Plan proposes 40 units per acre with a 2.0 FAR. He noted that he didn’t believe there was a building on Broadway utilizing the 3.0 FAR. Mayor Brownrigg asked if anything would change with the proposal. Ms. Stetson explained that the proposal for Broadway would protect retail while allowing office uses on the side streets. Mayor Brownrigg stated that therefore the City is not likely to see live/work built on Broadway. Ms. Stetson stated that the opportunity is there. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supported offices on the side streets and believed that design review would help with protecting the nature and facades of the buildings on Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she thought there needed to be a Broadway Specific Plan. She asked how long it would take to implement a specific plan for Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that implementation of the General Plan will include specific plans. He stated that staff has felt that Broadway would be a natural candidate. Mayor Brownrigg stated that even if the General Plan was approved, there would be a chance to do an overlay on Broadway. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane noted that staff will need to go back and look into the staging and phasing aspect of the General Plan. This is because if the City unlocks new uses without coordinating standards, than the City might have the problem of projects coming in that aren’t consistent with the City’s overall vision. Therefore, the City is going to have to review the timing aspects as they relate to interim zoning, to make sure staff has captured the important parts in a timely manner. Downtown Area Mayor Brownrigg stipulated that he thought the current Downtown Specific Plan is working out. Therefore, he wanted his colleagues to focus on auto row. He asked what the current standards are for auto row. CDD Gardiner stated that the maximum height is 55 feet. He explained that the Downtown area does not have density or FARs and instead projects are limited by heights and setbacks. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Kent Putnam’s request was for a maximum height of 85 feet. He stated that he believed this was too high but thought 55 feet was not high enough to create workforce housing. He asked if his colleagues would be okay with having 55 feet by right and 70-75 feet with a conditional use permit, provided that the rationale for that extra height was to create workforce housing. Vice Mayor Colson explained that the Council should gain input from the Lyon Hoag community prior to increasing height on auto row. She stated that while she did understand the need to build additional housing, she was also concerned that 70 feet on auto row would create an aesthetic barrier that divides the city. She Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 19 added that 70 feet would work in the center of Downtown provided that structures were sloped down to meet the neighborhoods. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was concerned about going too high on auto row. He asked if there were any buildings in the area that were 75 feet. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the AT&T building was 75 feet and possibly the condos on Park. Councilmember Ortiz stated that a building that is 75 feet tall would change the feel of the area. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to flag Kent Putnam’s request because in listening to the auto dealers, he wasn’t sure that dealerships and auto shops were viable without workforce housing. Councilmember Beach stated that her inclination is that a lot went into the Downtown Specific Plan so the City should keep the 55 feet maximum height. She asked if it is the use that prevents the auto dealers from creating workforce housing. Councilmember Beach asked if the predicted population growth would need to be increased based on Council’s decisions to increase allowable units and heights of structures. Ms. Stetson replied in the negative and explained that it was accounted for in the Environmental Impact Report. CDD Gardiner stated that if there are interests in changing height limits in the Downtown area, this would have to be done in the Downtown Specific Plan. California Drive CDD Gardiner stated that the General Plan is proposing to reintroduce residential as a permitted use. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the draft General Plan envisions a road diet and protected bike lanes on California Drive. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. El Camino Real CDD Gardiner stated that it is remaining consistent with its current status. He noted the one request at Adeline Market for mixed use. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it is an area that should be mixed use. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to come back to Council with a proposal for design standards in this area that would fit in with the other El Camino Real properties. Councilmember Beach noted that she lives close to this market. She asked if the Council was running into any spot zoning issues by discussing one parcel’s request. CDD Gardiner stated that staff would be discussing the two parcels together and therefore it is a node and isn’t singling out one parcel. He added that it does make sense to apply the same zoning overlay to both properties. Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 20 Councilmember Beach asked staff to notify the surrounding area of this proposed change. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Residential Neighborhoods Mayor Brownrigg stated that this area is remaining consistent. He noted that the historic preservation chapter in the draft General Plan does apply to these areas. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the 50-year minimum threshold for resources being deemed historic was State mandated. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that CEQA has a presumption of a 50- year threshold where an approving body has to have confidence that if a building is at least 50 years old, that it doesn’t have historic status. He noted that the environmental review is handled differently if the building does have historic status. CDD Gardiner clarified that while there had been a proposal to have evaluations triggered by sales of property, this is not what is being proposed. Instead, the proposal is for evaluations to be triggered by a major project like second-story additions or a major remodel. City Attorney Kane noted that the exact mechanism for evaluating historicity doesn’t have to be in the General Plan. Instead, it can be a work item to follow the General Plan with more of a community process. Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently, if he buys a house that is older than 50 years, nothing would happen. He asked if he was to currently undertake a major remodel on a home that is more than 50 years old, what would happen. CDD Gardiner replied that if the home was in Burlingame Park, an evaluation would be done. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the proposal was for all neighborhoods to behave like Burlingame Park. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that 50 years is going to encompass most of the properties in Burlingame. She asked if the threshold could be changed to 75 or 100 years. Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently, the evaluation would be triggered for anything built after 1968. MIG Environmental Planner Ray Pendro explained that the 50-year threshold is a State law from the State Office of Historic Preservation. He noted that interior renovations wouldn’t trigger an evaluation. Councilmember Beach stated that this is a complex question. She noted that there are issues of equity and wasn’t sure what the right threshold would be. Therefore, she stated that this is a work item that the Council needs to receive significant community impact on before making a decision. She added that it seemed to be a large cost to community members when 88% of those evaluated are found to not have historic resources. Vice Mayor Colson stated that there is a neighborhood of Eichler homes that are getting into the 50-year range. She noted that this is a historic area. She explained that what people traditionally consider to be historic are tudors and colonials. However, what is considered historic doesn’t just deal with the architecture Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 21 but could also deal with the events that occurred in the building. She stated that staff should research how other cities have handled this matter. Mayor Brownrigg stated that there was consensus that this item should be pulled out of the draft General Plan, and a working group should be formed. He added that the City should make it easy for individuals to self-elect their property as historical. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the soft story request was something that the City should try to build into the General Plan, or is it another work item to look at after adoption. CDD Gardiner stated that the policy is currently in the draft General Plan, and it is a work item with a timeline. Councilmember Beach stated that she supported integrating school district coordination in the General Plan. Councilmember Beach asked how prescriptive the bicycle network is in the General Plan. She noted that the City is about to embark on a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Ms. Stetson stated that the bicycle network is trying to show that there are opportunities to link destinations with bike routes. Councilmember Beach stated that the routes were determined through the advisory committee and consultants, but there could be additional layers of outreach. Ms. Stetson replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked that if his colleagues had any specific comments, they submit them to staff and the consultants. Mayor Brownrigg added that the City received comments from the Burlingame Hills Association. He explained that if he was rewriting the annexation section of the draft General Plan, that it would stress that annexation should be done in a collaborative manner. Councilmember Beach asked if she was correct that the overlays in the change areas didn’t prohibit the current use, it just adds additional uses. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative, if it is an actual overlay. Councilmember Beach asked if the changes on Rollins Road would drive out industrial. CDD Gardiner stated that change is not being structured as an overlay but rather as new zoning. However, staff has been cognizant of the uses that the City wants to protect. Councilmember Beach asked staff to flag these areas for Council. Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff, MIG, and the public for their assistance in this project. f. DISCUSSION OF MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY HIRE A PUBLIC SPACE DESIGN FIRM TO ASSIST WITH THE DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE WITHIN THE POST OFFICE PROJECT Mayor Brownrigg stated that one of the public benefits of the Post Office redevelopment is a town square. He explained that he wasn’t confident that the architect for the project would spend as much time as Burlingame City Council November 5, 2018 Approved Minutes 22 someone designing the square for the City would spend. Therefore, he stated that he wanted the City to hire someone that would be the City’s advocate for the public space. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought this would be covered when staff and the Planning Commission review the plans. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Planning Commission is a great place to be reactive but thought the City should hire a specialist for this project. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she agreed and suggested forming a subcommittee. She added that she would expand the mandate to include the paseo, common areas, and the side streets. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Beach agreed with the project. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council agreed to have staff go out for a RFP on obtaining a specialist. Councilmember Beach asked if the Post Office redevelopment team would need to assist in paying for this specialist. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this would be a question for the City Attorney to research. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’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 10:54 p.m. in celebration of Martha Benson’s 90th birthday. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk