Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.11.19 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on November 19, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by several veterans. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION a. UPDATE ON BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. VETERANS RECOGNITION PRESENTATION Councilmember Beach stated that Veterans Day is a day to thank those that are currently serving or have served in the past. Mayor Brownrigg presented certificates to: • Albert James Hart: served in the US Navy from 2002 to 2007 • Daniel Devoy: served in the US Army from 1998 to 2006 • Ben Nielsen: served in the US Army from 1971 to 1972 • Robert L. Waterson: served in the US Navy for 30 years Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 b. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATE Burlingame’s Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Jennifer Lee gave an update on the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan. She explained that prior to urban development, nature would handle stormwater by absorbing it into the ground. However, as a result of development, there are a lot more impervious surfaces, which don’t allow for storm water runoff to infiltrate the ground. Ms. Lee explained that storm water runoff picks up pollutants like pet waste, oil, and pesticides. She stated that in 1990, the US EPA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) stormwater program. She explained that the NDPES program is overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Ms. Lee explained that every five years, the City gets issued a new Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The most recent permit was issued in 2015. The City of Burlingame is one of 22 San Mateo County permittees. She explained that the permit includes requirements for municipal operations, new development and redevelopment, construction sites, and public outreach. Ms. Lee explained that there are a lot of ways the City can deal with stormwater runoff. She stated that it is becoming more common to incorporate green infrastructure into projects. She discussed green streets, rainwater capture systems, and green roofs. Ms. Lee stated that the pollutant of concern is PCBs, which were predominantly used in the 1920s until being banned in 1979. She stated that PCBs were commonly used for electrical equipment, sealants, and coolants. She added that mercury and trash are other pollutants of concern. Ms. Lee discussed the benefits of green infrastructure: • Reduces pollutants from entering the Bay • Increases natural habitat • Increases infiltration into the ground • Filters air pollutants and particulates • Mitigates the risk of localized flooding • Promotes traffic calming and increases pedestrian safety Ms. Lee reviewed the requirements for the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan: • Map green infrastructure projects • Establish targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over time • Prepare design guidelines and standard specifications • Integrate Green Infrastructure Plan with other planning documents • Evaluate funding options • Conduct public outreach to let residents know about the Green Infrastructure Plan She added that one concern the State has when cities develop these plans is that they don’t want the plans to just sit on the shelf. Accordingly, one way to address that concern is to integrate the plan with planning documents. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Mayor Brownrigg asked about the second bullet point, which stated: “establish targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over time.” He asked whose target and how. Ms. Lee explained that the State Water Resources Control board has a total maximum daily load of how many pollutants can go into the Bay. She stated that the Green Infrastructure Plan is assumed to treat some of that runoff. She added that the City is using a consultant to measure how much PCBs and mercury are entering the Bay. Therefore, the City has to set goals by 2020, 2030, and 2040 of how much impervious surface has to be removed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems to him to be a large unfunded mandate to remove impervious cement and replace with pervious cement. He asked if this responsibility falls on the City. DPW Murtuza responded in the affirmative. He added that the PCBs are located in mostly industrial areas of the county. He explained that there is an effort underway to have all cities band together and look for a cost-effective option to meet these mandates. Ms. Lee reviewed the progress that the City has made since last year. She explained that staff is collaborating with the County to develop the required documents. Additionally, staff is working with the Community Development Department to incorporate the Green Infrastructure Plan into the General Plan. She explained that the Green Infrastructure Plan is due September 2019. Ms. Lee reviewed examples of green infrastructure. She noted that at 1600 Trousdale Drive, there are flow- through planters that collect all the rainwater from the roof. At 1800 Trousdale Drive, there is permeable pavement. She also noted that the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project includes green infrastructure. Ms. Lee reviewed the next steps: • City staff participates in countywide Green Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee meetings. • Staff is working with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program to explore alternatives for complying with the mercury and PCBs load reduction requirements. • Staff will keep City Council apprised as these alternatives evolve and provide recommendations. • County Pollution Prevention Program is developing design guidelines and resources for member agencies to use in their Green Infrastructure Plan. Vice Mayor Colson asked how the City incorporates residents into the program and if the City can regulate businesses. Ms. Lee stated that she reviews all the plans that are submitted to the Planning Department. She noted that if a project is over 10,000 square feet, it has to include a stormwater runoff treatment device. She added that projects are regulated at a minimum of 2,500 square feet. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City used to require that all rain that hit a roof had to be diverted to the streets. He asked if this has changed. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He stated that the City is trying to encourage property developments to use the water for their gardens. DPW Murtuza stated that in the coming months, staff would be bringing a proposed ordinance to Council to prevent PCBs from getting into the water from the demolition of old buildings. He explained that this will be a huge impact on developers, and therefore the City will need to hold workshops. He noted that this ordinance will not affect residential homes. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 Councilmember Keighran asked if the proposed ordinance would affect multi-dwelling buildings. DPW Murtuza stated that single family residences have a minimum requirement to submit a checklist, but multi- dwelling units would need to be further reviewed. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked if it was necessary to clean the basins that are collecting the PCBs. Ms. Lee explained that when developers create rain gardens, they use bio treatment soil mix, which is a combination of different types of soil specifically designed to capture the pollutants. The soil mix doesn’t need a lot of treatment. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a bunch of PCBs run into the grass, wouldn’t they just stay there or go into the water table. DPW Murtuza stated that they get intercepted by the soil, and that the soil acts like a filter. He added that the question becomes how long the soil will be effective. Mayor Brownrigg thanked Ms. Lee for her presentation. c. UPDATE ON THE ALL-MAILED BALLOT/VOTING CENTER ELECTION City Clerk Hassel-Shearer began by giving a brief overview of the City Clerk’s role in elections. She explained that the City Clerk handles candidate filing, measures, and citizen initiatives for the City, and then contracts with the County to administer the election. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed the November 6th election, which was an all-mailed ballot/voting center election. She explained that at the 2014 midterm election, the voter turnout rate for the State was approximately 32%. As a result, the Legislature drafted SB 450, which gave counties the option of holding their election as all-mailed ballot elections. The Legislature believed that all-mailed ballot elections would help increase voter turnout. She noted that because of San Mateo County’s high permanent vote by mail percentage, the County chose to conduct its elections as all-mailed ballot. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer noted that two important requirements of SB 450 elections is that there must be two ballot drop-off locations per jurisdiction, and there must be at least one voting center per 10,000 voters on Election Day. She noted that the voting center requirement applies to the County as a whole, and therefore the County needed 39 voting centers on Election Day. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the County chose City Hall as the voting center in Burlingame because of their need for secure internet and ADA accessibility. They have also previously used City Hall as a polling place. The voting center was open for four days beginning the Saturday before the election. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that beginning at 6:00 a.m. on Election Day, there was a line of voters, and the average wait time was an hour. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed the election night results and explained that the election night results only accounted for approximately one-third of the ballots submitted. She noted that this was the result of Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 vote by mail ballots being dropped off at voting centers, and the postmark +3 law, which allows ballots to be postmarked by Election Day and received within three days, to count. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the delay of results was not the result of the all-mailed ballot election but rather was the trend in California. She referenced the number of uncounted ballots in other Bay Area counties and in Los Angeles. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed early lessons for the County. She discussed the need to have another voting center in Burlingame, public education/outreach concerning election night results, and redefining “re- register” as a way to change anything on your registration form. Lastly, she encouraged the County to begin sending “I voted” stickers with vote by mail ballots. Councilmember Beach asked when the final results would be coming in. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the County is estimating that the results won’t be completed until later in November. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood why City Hall was chosen, but he agreed that the City needed at least two polling places. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City Clerk would be delivering these suggestions to the County. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the recent fires and asked that the City think of the distribution of masks for future issues. 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 8d. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0 with Councilmember Keighran abstaining from the minutes vote as she was not present at the last meeting. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO KITCHELL CEM FOR THE FIRE STATIONS EMERGENCY GENERATORS REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84950, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 145-2018. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE FIRE STATION 35 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84340 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 146-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE Councilmember Beach stated that this item concerned creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. She explained that there was a question that came from a member of the public about the cost of the project. DPW Murtuza stated that staff issued RFPs for a variety of transportation engineering services including preparation of the bicycle and pedestrian master plan update. He noted that staff received seven proposals, and after reviewing the proposals, staff chose Alta because of their extensive experience. He discussed the need to conduct several rounds of public outreach and the additional options that Alta made available in their proposal. Accordingly, he stated that the cost was in line with the City’s budget. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the amount of meetings that Alta would be holding with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. She stated that she believed it would be a thorough project. She noted that she hoped there would be an opportunity for Alta to educate the public on the different infrastructure designs that are available and what the tradeoffs of the different options are in regards to safety and parking concerns. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident and Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee member Adrienne Leigh thanked the City for funding the plan and asked that the Council look at the intersections that bicyclists and pedestrians have to use to access public transportation. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg asked for Alta to ensure outreach with the schools. He stated that he met with Facebook, and one of their top four priorities is safe bike routes. He asked that when the City conducts public outreach that they engage the public with specific suggestions. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 147-2018; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 Finance Director Augustine requested Council accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2018. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE REGARDING SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2019, 2020, AND 2021 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 148-2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION OF EDITIS TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR); DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS CDD Gardiner stated that the General Plan is part of a multi-year process that includes both an update to the General Plan and a new zoning ordinance. He explained that staff and MIG consultants presented Council with an overview of the draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) at the last meeting. MIG representative Dan Amsden reviewed the Envision Burlingame process. He explained that Envision Burlingame asks the question “How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from now?” He noted that there has been extensive community engagement throughout the process. He reviewed the timeline of Envision Burlingame: • Public Draft General Plan – August 2017 • Draft Environmental Impact Report – June 28, 2018 • Draft EIR Formal Comment Period – July 3 through August 20, 2018 • Final Environmental Impact Report – October 11, 2018 • Planning Commission Study Session – October 22, 2018 • City Council Study Session – November 5, 2018 • City Council Public hearing – November 19, 2018 Mr. Amsden stated that the Housing Element is not included in the current draft of the General Plan. He explained that the Housing Element is part of the General Plan but functions differently as it has to be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. He noted that in 2015, the City adopted the Housing Element, which will apply until 2023. Mr. Amsden discussed the Environmental Impact Report. He explained that general plans are subject to program-level analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). He noted that “program- level” analysis differs from “project-level” analysis in the sense that the EIR evaluates the impacts the proposed policies may have on environmental conditions. As a result, proposed mitigation measures in the EIR are typically designed as changes to policy language. Mr. Amsden stated that of all the different topics addressed in the EIR, there were two areas of significant and unavoidable impacts. The first was greenhouse gas emissions. He explained that there will be increases in greenhouse gas emissions until the City’s updated Climate Action Plan is adopted. The second was Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 ABAG’s consistency with Plan Bay Area. He explained that the last version of Plan Bay Area included more housing and employment growth along the El Camino Real corridor. He noted that through the City’s process, the community identified different areas in different parts of the city where increased housing should occur. He stated that this is technically inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, but the next time that ABAG’s consistency plan is updated, it will take Burlingame’s plan into account. Mr. Amsden stated that through the City’s EIR process, MIG looked at three different alternatives. The first alternative was to not update the General Plan. The second alternative looked at increased density in North Burlingame, and the third alternative looked at having no live/work designation in the northerly one-third of the Rollins Road corridor. He explained that the results of the EIR process found that alternatives two and three had the same impact levels as the General Plan, and none would reduce significant unavoidable impacts. Additionally, the proposed General Plan is the superior alternative as it meets all project objectives. Mr. Amsden reviewed additional policies discussed by the City Council at the November 5 meeting that might be included in the General Plan. The first was better coordination through policy with the school districts. He explained that MIG proposes to add two additional policies to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: • City and District Collaboration – assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment • School Partnerships – support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Mayor Brownrigg asked about the second bullet point concerning school partnerships and what it meant. Vice Mayor Colson asked in reference to the second bullet point what types of facilities would the City be assisting in funding. CDD Gardiner explained that neighboring cities have assisted school districts in finding unconventional sites for new schools. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this assistance is covered in the first bullet point and that the second bullet point made it sound like the City would be asked to undertake funding mechanisms like parcel taxes for the schools. Councilmember Beach stated that she interpreted the second bullet point as referencing community benefits. Mayor Brownrigg asked if what Councilmember Beach was stating was that if the school district wanted to work with a private developer, the City should lean in, not that the City should be the public entity of the public-private partnership. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that if the Council was confused about the second bullet point that it should be further clarified. Mr. Amsden stated that another discussion that arose from the November 5 City Council meeting was variable massing in the Downtown. This policy would allow portions of a building to be taller than 55 feet provided that other portions of the building are less than 55 feet, so that the average height of the building is no more than 55 feet. The intent is to provide a more varied roofline. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a cap on variable massing so that a building didn’t have heights of 90 feet and 20 feet. CDD Gardiner stated that the suggestion was to reference the highest building in the Downtown as the maximum height for any point of a building. Therefore, the maximum height in a project would be 75 feet. Councilmember Keighran asked what is currently allowed Downtown. CDD Gardiner stated that currently, the maximum height in the Downtown Specific Plan is 55 feet. Councilmember Keighran asked if variable massing could be covered by design guidelines. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative but explained that staff was trying to create an objective standard that could be used to review a project. Councilmember Ortiz asked if this applies to the whole Downtown Specific Area. CDD Gardiner stated that it is focused on the Howard Mixed Use Zone. He added that he didn’t know if he would suggest it for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Zone. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of this policy. Councilmember Beach stated that the City shouldn’t lose the pedestrian scale of buildings on the Avenue. She stated that she thought the policy could add design value by ensuring that everything wasn’t built to maximum height. She suggested a possible compromise might be for maximum peak height at 65 instead of 75 feet, with average height maintained at 55 feet. Councilmember Keighran raised concern about how variable massing would be implemented. CDD Gardiner stated that this policy doesn’t need to be in the General Plan and instead could be further explored in the zoning ordinance. City Attorney Kane stated that given the nature of the General Plan versus the zoning documents, one option would be to either omit this policy entirely or include a policy stating that the City will investigate the possibility of having zoning that accommodates variable heights in the Downtown. Mr. Amsden stated that the City might have different standards or requirements for different parts of Downtown. Councilmember Keighran stated that the Council should consider this option. Vice Mayor Colson agreed. She also suggested a minimum lot size for applying variable height. The City Council agreed that there should be a policy in the General Plan that states the City will investigate utilizing variable heights. Mr. Amsden stated that included in the agenda packet were various written comments that staff received from City Councilmembers following the November 5 meeting. He explained that because these comments Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 had not been discussed by the full City Council, staff and the consultants compiled all the comments for Council’s review. Mr. Amsden stated that the consultants and staff were looking for feedback from Council in six specific areas. The first area was the Historic Resources Preservation chapter that was reviewed in depth by the Council at the November 5 meeting. He stated that staff is proposing that this section be revised as follows: CC-3.2: Historic Evaluation Approaches. Evaluate options for identifying potential historic resources, both to allow property owners to utilize historic preservation incentives, and as a consideration in development review. The second area is the current policy on the City Hall site which states: “Explore options for relocation of City Hall to another location within Downtown convenient for residents and the business community, and consider reuse of the City Hall site for other beneficial uses, including housing and open space.” The third area for further discussion is the California Drive Mixed Use District height limits. Mr. Amsden explained that for the Auto Row area, the height limit is 35 feet, or up to 55 feet with a conditional use permit. One of the major property owners within that district has expressed an interest in increasing the height limit to facilitate mixed-use development. The fourth area for further discussion is the height limits for Broadway. Mr. Amsden explained that Broadway has two policies that describe height limits alternatively as either two or three stories. He noted that the concept is to allow additional density at California Drive and El Camino Real. However, in written comments Councilmembers have asked to clarify whether the remainder of the Broadway corridor would be limited to two or three stories. Mr. Amsden stated that the fifth area for Council discussion is the lots at the intersection of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. He explained that these two lots are zoned C-1 (commercial). He noted that this is the only commercially zoned property on El Camino Real between Downtown and Dufferin Avenue. He added that at the November 5 meeting, there was some discussion to change this area to a mixed use designation. Mayor Brownrigg asked what the height limits would be if this area was rezoned mixed use. CDD Gardiner stated if it is zoned like Broadway, then height limits would be two or three stories (depending on Council’s determination for Broadway). He explained that another suggestion for the lots was to allow for higher density while maintaining the height limits of their current R-3 zone. He noted that R-3 has a height limit of 35 feet, or 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the height of 1509 El Camino Real. CDD Gardiner replied that he believed it was around 45 feet. Lastly, Mr. Amsden stated that the sixth area for further discussion concerned what the right density is for the North Rollins Road live/work area. He showed examples of different live/work buildings throughout the Bay Area and described their densities and sizes. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the City should encourage higher density near public transit. She discussed building smaller units and decreasing parking ratios. She stated that transit oriented units usually don’t attract families and therefore the increased density wouldn’t impact the schools. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame residents Assad Stefan and Michael Stefan discussed their property, Adeline Market, and stated their concern about setbacks and height restrictions if the property was rezoned mixed use. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced concern about variable heights in the Downtown and increasing height limits on Auto Row. Burlingame business owner Kent Putnam talked about the importance of increasing height on Auto Row in order to allow for workforce housing. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a specific height that Mr. Putnam was looking for and whether he had done a feasibility study on building workforce housing. Mr. Putnam stated that he has met with some developers and believed he needed to build to 65-75 feet. Burlingame resident Kamran Ehsanipour discussed the vacant lot he owns on the corner of El Camino Real and Adeline Drive. Burlingame resident Joe Baylock voiced his concern about the City’s water supply and the need to incorporate its protection in the General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg directed the Council’s attention to the Historic Preservation Policy. He asked if his colleagues were in favor of creating a working group to determine what the policy should be for the City. Councilmember Keighran asked if at a later date the Council would discuss making neighborhoods historical and attaching fees to remodels of buildings over fifty years old. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the language in the General Plan would be “CC-3.2: Historic Evaluation Approaches. Evaluate options for identifying potential historic resources, both to allow property owners to utilize historic preservation incentives, and as a consideration in development review” or would the working group be creating the language for the General Plan. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. The Council agreed with the proposed policy and the creation of a working group. Mayor Brownrigg next directed Council’s attention to the City’s current policy regarding the City Hall site: “Explore options for relocation of City Hall to another location within Downtown convenient for residents and the business community, and consider reuse of the City Hall site for other beneficial uses, including housing and open space.” He proposed that the General Plan state that City Hall is becoming outgrown and Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 outdated and therefore alternatives need to be developed. He noted that the General Plan didn’t need to state that it would be off site. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg next directed Council’s attention to the question of whether the height limit for Auto Row should be increased. He proposed increasing the height limit to 65 feet with a conditional use permit. He added that the conditional use permit should be limited in scope to the creation of workforce housing. Councilmember Ortiz asked Mayor Brownrigg what his suggestion was for the by right height on Auto Row. Mayor Brownrigg suggested leaving it at 35 feet. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this sounded reasonable. Councilmember Beach stated that she was reluctant to change the Downtown Specific Plan because a lot of thought and effort went into creating the document. She added that with stackers becoming more popular and potential changes in parking requirements, there would be more space with a 55 foot conditional use permit to build housing. Accordingly, she stated that she was in favor of maintaining the current height limits. Councilmember Keighran stated that because the City is proposing increasing the density in North Burlingame and on Rollins Road she wanted to maintain the current height limits on Auto Row. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was leaning towards maintaining the current height limits. She explained that there were options to go below grade to create parking and thereby free up height for workforce housing. She noted that until she had a more firm understanding that the 55 feet is not feasible, she wanted the height limits to remain. She added that she would be willing to increase the density of this area. Mayor Brownrigg stated that a majority of the Council felt that the height limits should remain at 35 feet and 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council to review the proposed Broadway height limits. He stated that the question is whether the City meant to zone Broadway for two stories or three stories. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he would be comfortable with going to three stories on Broadway. Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of Broadway’s Specific Plan and stated that any change could dramatically alter Broadway. Therefore, she stated that she was in favor of maintaining the current limits until the City held a public process. She asked what the current use and height limits are for Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that it is zoned C-1, and there are no fixed height limits in this zone. Instead, height limits are based on a floor area ratio of 2.0. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 Councilmember Keighran agreed with Councilmember Beach. She asked about zoning of the side streets of Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that in the draft General Plan, there is a policy that discusses allowing office space on side streets that are zoned commercial. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the need to revitalize Broadway and that allowing developers to build three stories could help. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. He added that he didn’t believe three stories would be that dramatic. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she could agree to three stories. She explained that she believed this would add residential on top. She noted that residential units will assist in revitalizing Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated her colleagues’ comments and agreed with what the Council was stating. However, she stated that without a specific plan she wasn’t sure there was enough public input on increasing height on Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee created the two to three stories reference as a way to describe the scale of buildings they saw appropriate for Broadway. Councilmember Keighran stated that it is odd that the recommendation was two to three stories. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee was trying to depict their desire for a combination of both heights. Councilmember Keighran asked if a developer would be able to build a three story building on Broadway while complying with the current parking ratio. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee didn’t get into the mechanics of this policy suggestion. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing from his colleagues is that three stories is okay but that there is doubt that it will lead to project applications. Council agreed. Councilmember Beach asked if the change to three stories was reviewed in the EIR. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it was within the scope of the EIR. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the question of rezoning the C-1 lots at Adeline and El Camino Real. He asked CDD Gardiner to summarize the Council’s choices on this matter. CDD Gardiner stated that the Council could: 1. leave the lots as they are currently zoned; 2. zone the lots like Broadway Commercial Mixed Use, which allows three stories and 40 units per acre 3. zone the lots utilizing the density of the North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone but with maximum height being 45 feet so that a future development is no taller than 1509 El Camino Real Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City’s building code require setbacks. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. CDD Gardiner explained that C-1 Zones allow zero setbacks in places but that the City has Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 found that mixed use zoning doesn’t work well with zero setbacks. He added that a 20 foot El Camino Real setback is required for any type of zoning. Councilmember Beach asked if the owners of the lots could choose to develop their lots 100% residential. CDD Gardiner stated that this could be a fourth option. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the need to slope any potential projects on these lots to meet their surrounding neighborhoods. CDD Gardiner stated that this would be where the concept of the R-3 height limit would work. Mayor Brownrigg stated that one simple proposal is to zone the lots as R-3, which has a height limit of 35 feet, or 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Mayor Brownrigg’s suggestion would be for mixed use. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if she had to recuse herself from discussing this matter because of the proximity of her house to the lots. City Attorney Kane reviewed the location of Councilmember Beach’s house to the lots on Adeline and El Camino Real and determined that she was not recused from this matter. Vice Mayor Colson stated her preference would be to zone these lots like Broadway with three stories and 40 dwelling units per acre. Councilmember Keighran asked what the approximate height is for three stories. CDD Gardiner stated no more than 45 feet. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran agreed with the Vice Mayor’s suggestion to zone the lots like Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she concurred and thought the lots had to be sensitive to their neighbors. She added that she would open to the option of allowing the lots to be commercial or residential. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council’s decision was to zone the two lots like Broadway. Additionally, the lots would be able to choose whether to include commercial space or be 100% residential. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council to discuss the Rollins Road live/work change area. He asked CDD Gardiner to review the questions Council needed to discuss. CDD Gardiner stated that at the last meeting some of the Council asked for visuals of the types of live/work developments. He added that the only discussion related to the interim zoning. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 15 Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed parking requirements for the neighborhoods near public transit. He suggested reducing the parking ratio for studios to .5 spaces. Summerhill Apartment Communities representative Elaine Breeze discussed her experience with the need for smaller units and less parking. She discussed the City’s role in creating new neighborhoods by ensuring that areas have open spaces, sidewalks, and street trees. She added that the Summerhill Apartment Communities is pleased with the Planning Commission’s work on creating a neighborhood. Mayor Brownrigg asked for Ms. Breeze’s opinion on what the height and density should be for Rollins Road. Ms. Breeze discussed the opportunity for increased density on Rollins Road because of its proximity to public transit. She added that it would be good to decrease the parking ratio near transit. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the parking ratio should be less than one space per unit. Ms. Breeze stated that only if the unit size drops below 525 square feet. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the Rollins Road live/work change area should look like it belongs to Burlingame. She thought the setbacks should be increased so as to plant larger trees to create a neighborhood. Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh discussed the need for trees to separate the cars from the pedestrian walk ways. She discussed the isolation of the new neighborhood and suggested creating pedestrian/bicycle paths. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comments. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the street design of Rollins Road was something that needed to be decided now or is that something that would occur later. CDD Gardiner stated that the interim zoning would discuss setbacks and frontage requirements. He explained that these requirements would define the space between the curb and the building in order to incorporate a feature of a specific plan. He added that these requirements were incorporated in order to anticipate the streetscape plan by ensuring there is enough room for trees and sidewalks. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City is committed to maintaining Rollins Road as six lanes. CDD Gardiner stated that the frontage standards for Rollins Road are stating how far back from the street a project must be and what should be designed between the curb and the building. He stated that on Rollins Road there would be a 15 foot sidewalk between the curb and the building, of which five feet would be for street trees. He noted that this is an urban standard. Councilmember Ortiz asked CDD Gardiner to comment on Ms. Pfaff’s statement that 25 feet is needed for large trees to grow. CDD Gardiner stated that 15 feet is an urban standard and would create a sidewalk like Burlingame Avenue. However, the trees on Burlingame Avenue are medium sized. Therefore, if the decision is to have larger trees, there would need to be more space. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 16 Mayor Brownrigg stated that they could also push the setbacks back. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that the concern is the order of operations. She stated that once the General Plan is adopted, the City will process applications under those standards. She noted that the purpose of interim zoning is to have something in place for the first few projects. She stated that Council didn’t need to make determinations at this meeting about the width of Rollins Road and the pedestrian experience. She stated that these would be topics discussed a later date. She added that the interim zoning was trying to look ahead a bit at how to process the first few applications. City Attorney Kane noted that if the City requires larger setbacks to accommodate larger trees, then the buildings are even further apart and would give the perception of an eight lane road. She added that this could be fixed by utilizing traffic lanes for the pedestrian experience. Next, Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council if they had a point of view on the interim zoning. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the discussion and stated that Rollins Road is ripe for a road diet and green infrastructure. She explained that because the City envisioned creating a transit oriented neighborhood in the Rollins Road change area, she was reluctant to take away additional space for larger setbacks. Councilmember Beach asked what the upside is for the City to decrease the parking requirements to something that is more aligned with modern transit oriented development. CDD Gardiner stated that the interim zoning suggests utilizing the Downtown Specific Plan parking ratios for Rollins Road and North Burlingame: 1 space for studios and one bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for two bedroom units. He explained that this was chosen because it is an understood standard. However, he noted that staff has heard from developers that a 1 to 1 ratio would be more suitable in some circumstances if the parking was unbundled. He explained that unbundling the parking means that instead of automatically including a certain number of spaces, the parking is sold or rented separately. Councilmember Beach asked what the community benefit of decreasing the parking ratio in these areas is. CDD Gardiner stated that parking is an expensive component of housing. Therefore, if the parking ratio was decreased, it would make these areas more attractive to build in. Councilmember Beach stated that an additional benefit is that it frees up some more resources for community investment in green or other fees the City has to create neighborhoods. She added that she would be in favor of decreasing the parking ratio to one per unit unbundled. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the interim zoning was developed by a Planning Commission working group. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wasn’t interested in second guessing the interim zoning because a lot of work went into it by people who had the same goals as the Council. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 17 Councilmember Ortiz agreed. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was comfortable as well but agreed that Ms. Pfaff’s question about tree- scaping on Rollins Road had to be addressed. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was okay with the interim zoning. She added that she envisioned decreasing the number of lanes on Rollins Road to make it friendlier to pedestrians. Mayor Brownrigg stated that there are a series of comments on the draft General Plan. CDD Gardiner explained that the staff and consulting team had not yet prepared responses to the comments that are redlined in the draft General Plan. He suggested allowing staff and the consulting team a chance to respond to the comments and have this compiled and brought back to Council. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one comment he would make is that the City has to do a better job of laying out the regional context against which the City is operating. He stated that the draft General Plan has been built against the background of a housing crisis and it has informed many of the City’s decisions. Vice Mayor Colson asked for a timeline of the adoption of the General Plan. City Attorney Kane stated that staff and the consulting team will have to review necessary steps and then would present a timeline to Council. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CDD Gardiner explained that at the last City Council meeting, Group 4 provided a progress update on the Community Center. He noted that the project is subject to CEQA and that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. He added that because the Community Center is a municipal facility, rather than a development project, staff is requesting that the City Council take action to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program. City Attorney Kane noted that there was a noticing issue for this staff report as it should have been on the public hearing portion of the agenda. Therefore, in order to avoid any issues, she suggested having any of the substantive discussion at this meeting and that the item be noticed for a public hearing at the December 3 meeting. Group 4 Architect Dawn Merkes stated that she received three questions from Council. The first question asked how many trees would be removed. She explained that the project called for the removal of 41 trees. She stated that she would need to come back to Council with more information about the trees that are Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 18 protected and their status. She added that her preliminary analysis shows that there are 21 trees that are protected, and 14 of those trees are in poor health. Ms. Merkes stated that the second question asked whether a TDM strategy would be applied to the project. She explained that this is a management plan and would be something that could be added as a goal. Ms. Merkes stated that the third question concerned curb management and utilizing the driveway for drop- offs. She explained that she has been working on creating two drop-off zones. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is a tree replanting diagram. Ms. Merkes responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. b. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A REVIEW AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES CDD Gardiner stated that at the Economic Development Subcommittee’s October meeting, the members discussed the retail environment in the city’s two commercial districts. He explained that commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a conditional use in the Howard Mixed Use Zone and on Broadway. He stated that staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Commission to review the proposal to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial zone. Councilmember Keighran stated that while she agreed that the Planning Commission should look into this, she wasn’t sure if she agreed with allowing commercial recreation businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this request makes him think of the Pilates studio and how it has increased foot traffic on Broadway. Therefore, he saw how it could be beneficial for a street but was concerned that it might not be appropriate on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Commercial broker Christina DeRockere discussed the interest she has received from fitness companies to take over the space at Sole Desire. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. City Manager Goldman stated that this discussion occurred at two different Economic Development Subcommittee meetings. At the first meeting, the commercial broker who represents the J Crew space discussed the difficulty of leasing the space because of its size. She stated that at the second meeting, in October, six property owners and others joined the conversation. She explained that they told a compelling Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 19 story about how it was important to open Burlingame Avenue up to different uses provided there is a retail front. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the property owners, real estate agents, and small business owners told the Subcommittee members that the City needed to rethink programing in the major commercial downtown areas. She discussed the interest of several fitness studios, like SoulCycle, to open on Burlingame Avenue. She stated that her concern is that if the City doesn’t get ahead of this, Burlingame Avenue could end up having several empty storefronts. She added that the State is considering taxing services. Therefore, the City would be able to capture these taxes by incorporating commercial recreation into the downtown commercial areas. Councilmember Beach agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he gets the pressure to try to fill up the spot. He added that while he could get comfortable with allowing fitness studios on Burlingame Avenue, he wouldn’t be okay with fast food or banks. Councilmember Keighran asked if the commercial recreation would include entertainment uses like music venues. City Manager Goldman stated that it wasn’t something that came up at the Subcommittee but the Council can ask the Planning Commission to include entertainment in the study. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Planning Commission should first look into the commercial recreation uses like fitness as there is immediate need, but could later look into entertainment. 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 11:04 p.m. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 20 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk