Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.12.03 Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on December 3, 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 Alianna Reed. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. STUDY SESSION a. DISCUSSION OF VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME PARKING GARAGE (LOT N) 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT HIP Housing representative Diana Kayiatos presented the Council with the 2019 HIP Housing Calendar. The calendar is filled with drawings from students describing what home means to them. Ms. Kayiatos recognized Alianna Reed, a six year old from Burlingame, for her drawing that is featured in the calendar. Ms. Reed stated that “Home is when everyone is together. Everyone is happy at home.” Mayor Brownrigg and the Council thanked Ms. Reed for her hard work and contribution to the calendar. Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No item was removed. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2018. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY HR Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 149-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS F AND N CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 150-2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CDD Gardiner stated that the hearing was a follow up to the staff report presentation at the November 19, 2018 meeting. He explained that an Environmental Review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared on behalf of the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that there wouldn’t be a significant impact on the environment from the project. The Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 mitigation measures that are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan would be attached to the project as conditions of approval. Vice Mayor Colson stated that under the noise mitigation element, it states that the hours of construction are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. However, she noted that Council amended the construction ordinance so that work couldn’t begin until 8:00 a.m. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and stated that this was a typo. He noted that the actual mitigation measure has the correct hours. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in the air quality comments it explains that the areas need to be watered down twice a day. She asked if the State goes into another drought, would the City still water down these areas twice a day. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked that there be signage to alert the public of why the City is watering down the area. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened up the public hearing. Burlingame resident Doug Kniveton voiced concern that the project’s parking lot and garage on the east side of the property would reduce the value of his property. He asked how he would be compensated for the reduced value of his property. City Attorney Kane advised Mr. Kniveton to submit his question to her office. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 151 -2018; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Finance Director Augustine stated that the Tourism Business Improvement District (“TBID”) was formed in 2001, with the City acting as the lead agency. TBID now includes 14 cities and the unincorporated County area. She explained that at the November 5, 2018 meeting, the City Council approved TBID’s annual report and a resolution of intent to levy annual assessments. She asked the Council to conduct a public hearing and, if there isn’t a majority protest, adopt the resolution levying the assessments. Mayor Brownrigg opened up the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked that San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau President Anne LeClair discuss the future outlook for the tourism industry in the area. Ms. LeClair stated that it is looking strong for 2019. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 152 -2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGES TO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY HR Morrison explained that Public Employment and Retirement Law requires that changes to Department Head and executive compensation be presented in open session. She noted that the benefit plan for the Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications expires at the end of 2018. She stated that the City tries to maintain equity with salary and benefit changes amongst miscellaneous employee groups. These groups have been receiving a 3% COLA for the past three years and will again in the coming year. HR Morrison stated that during a closed session on August 20, 2018, staff met with the City Council to discuss salary and benefit changes for the group. She noted that the discussion included a 3% salary increase each year for the next three years, 1% required matching contribution to a Retiree Health Reinvestment Account for all employees, and an additional City contribution to this account for new employees. HR Morrison stated that the estimated increase in cost for these changes is $700,000. Mayor Brownrigg opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 153 -2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CITY’S AGREEMENT WITH LIME AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO IDENTIFY A LONG-TERM BIKE SHARE VENDOR Assistant to the City Manager Nil Blackburn stated that staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 154-2018 to extend the City’s agreement with bike share provider LimeBike (now known as Lime). She noted that staff is also recommending that the City Council authorize staff to issue a RFP to identify a long-term bike share vendor. Ms. Blackburn stated that during the City Council’s 2017 Goal Setting Session, Council identified four priorities for the City: sustainability, transportation, housing, and infrastructure. Bike sharing plays an important role in supporting the City’s sustainability goal and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In November 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement for a six-month pilot program allowing the use of the City’s public right-of-way and public spaces to facilitate the Lime bike sharing program. She noted that Lime offers dockless bike share that allows riders to leave the bikes at their destination rather than at a docking station. Ms. Blackburn stated that the goals of the six-month pilot program were to test dockless bike sharing in the City; provide another transportation alternative to cars, especially for making first and last mile transit connections; and support the City’s climate action goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She noted that Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 under the City’s current agreement with Lime, Lime is responsible for all aspects of operating and supporting the bike sharing program, including maintaining a 24-hour customer service line and responding to complaints within two hours. Ms. Blackburn explained that on May 7, 2018, the City Council voted to extend the pilot program with Lime for another six months. City Council extended the pilot program in order to (1) collect more usage data, particularly during the warmer months of the year; (2) continue to learn from other cities’ experiences; and (3) assess the opinion of Burlingame residents by conducting a customer community opinion survey. Ms. Blackburn reviewed Burlingame’s usage of the Lime bikes. She explained that Lime launched in Burlingame at the end of December 2017 with 50 bikes. By January 2018, Lime had deployed a total of 200 bikes. In February, Lime replaced some of the manual bikes with electric assist bikes known as e-bikes. As of October, Lime’s dashboard showed that there were 107 bikes deployed in Burlingame. According to a Lime representative, there is “a lot of movement from Burlingame to and from San Mateo and SSF. So it’s possible there’s not always exactly 200 bikes in Burlingame at all times.” Ms. Blackburn added that based upon the monthly usage data provided by Lime, total rides have averaged about 5,473 per month since May. She discussed a few other takeaways from the data including that e-bikes are more popular than manual bikes and that complaints have decreased. Ms. Blackburn next discussed benchmarking other cities’ experiences. She noted that South San Francisco was an early adopter of a dockless bike share program with Lime. While South San Francisco will likely continue with some type of bike share program, it has extended its pilot program through February 2019 to allow more time to investigate necessary changes to its City ordinances. She stated that initially South San Francisco had an issue of users leaving the bikes in inappropriate areas; however, this has declined. She explained that one reason for the decline in bad parking may be due to the elimination of promo codes for free rides. Ms. Blackburn also discussed Alameda’s experience with Lime. She noted that Alameda was the second city in the Bay Area to test dockless bike sharing. She explained that at the close of the pilot program, Alameda conducted a community survey to assess public opinion regarding the program. While the program was generally well supported, respondents cited two primary issues: bad parking of bikes and youth riding without helmets. She explained that Alameda issued an RFP and only had two proposals: Lime and Ofo. Alameda awarded the RFP to Lime and capped the number of bikes at 200 and only manual. Ms. Blackburn stated that Palo Alto kicked off a 12-month pilot program in March 2018 and opened up the program to any eligible bike share company that could meet its permit requirements. She noted that Palo Alto removed any cap on the number of bikes deployed in order to encourage competition. She added that the City of San Mateo launched its pilot program with Lime in May 2018 after a two-year pilot program with Social Bicycles. Ms. Blackburn explained that on November 12, 2018, staff released a community survey designed to gauge the degree of public support for dockless bike sharing in the city. She noted that the survey was posted on Nextdoor, the City’s e-newsletter, and in Burlingame High School’s student newspaper. She reviewed the ten key findings from the survey: 1. Most residents support dockless bike share in Burlingame. Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 2. Non-Lime users also support a dockless bike share program. 3. Similar to other cities’ experiences, the two biggest complaints about dockless bike sharing in Burlingame are poor parking by users and users riding without helmets. 4. Most respondents did not wear a helmet when riding a Lime bike. 5. Users want more bikes around Burlingame. 6. Respondents that consider themselves “neutral” or “not supportive” of dockless bike sharing might be more supportive of the program if users did a better job parking the bikes, and docking stations were used in some locations. 7. Most Lime riders are adults. 8. Lime does not always address questions or concerns within the two hours required by the agreement between Lime and the City. 9. Implementation of this pilot bike share program supported the City’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 10. Most Lime users are not riding for fun or recreation. Ms. Blackburn stated that although some members of the community oppose dockless bike sharing in Burlingame, the community survey and other data indicate that the program has been well received and should continue. She noted that during the six-month extension, staff would like to issue a RFP for dockless bike sharing in the City and negotiate an agreement. She added that alternatively, the Council could decide to employ a permit model similar to that used in Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the program is doing a great job of connecting people to public transit. She asked if the permitting fees could be set up to cover the costs of running the program. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She noted that permitting fees for bike sharing programs was not included in the fee study and therefore it would be something that staff would need to look into. City Attorney Kane cautioned the Council that the City shouldn’t become embroiled in the bike share company’s operations. She explained that because the City doesn’t directly control how the company maintains the bikes, the City could end up with responsibility without authority. Vice Mayor Colson asked if Lime wanted to bring scooters to Burlingame and if staff believed they could obtain an agreement only for bikes. Ms. Blackburn stated that while Lime has been clear they want to introduce scooters, the City has been clear that it doesn’t want scooters. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the RFP would only be for dockless options. City Manager Goldman stated that this is up to the Council. She added that staff has been considering dockless because the docking stations take up a lot of parking spaces. She noted that in some cities, the companies have been painting spots to let users know that these are spaces that the bikes should be returned to. Councilmember Keighran asked how much time staff spends on complaints concerning the bikes. Ms. Blackburn stated that it has decreased in the past months. She noted that when staff does get a complaint, they forward it to Lime to handle. She added that the City could add Lime to SeeClickFix so that the City could see how long it takes for complaints to close. Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Councilmember Keighran asked if Lime could give staff the data on complaints and whether Lime responded in the two-hour window. Ms. Blackburn replied that the City should be able to get this data. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City decides to undertake an RFP, staff could ask the question “what would you do to ensure transparency of complaints with the City.” Councilmember Keighran stated that the City should also require an educational component on the importance of wearing a helmet. She asked if staff had noticed issues with individuals riding Lime bikes on the sidewalks. Ms. Blackburn replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach stated that the permit system is being embraced in communities that already have a lot of infrastructure for bikes and are looking to get people out of their cars. She asked if the City decided to utilize permits for bike sharing companies, could the City deny a company or set a cap on the number of permits issued. City Attorney Kane stated that there are different ways that the City could structure it if they went with a permit program. She gave the example of a permit lottery where the City would have five permits to give out, and the first five qualified would get them. She discussed the different requirements that the City could enforce to get a permit including reviewing the bike-share company’s safety record. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council needs to decide between a permit program which is more flexible or an RFP which allows the City to have a greater degree of control over the bike-share program. Councilmember Beach asked if Council decided to utilize an RFP, what staff’s recommendation for the length of the contract would be. Ms. Blackburn suggested one year with the option to extend. Councilmember Ortiz asked if there have been any accidents reported in Burlingame as a result of Lime bikes. Ms. Blackburn replied in the negative. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he remembered that there was some education done at BHS and helmets were given to students. Ms. Blackburn stated that at the beginning of the program, Lime gave 100 helmets to BHS students. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Lime had done any outreach to the elementary schools. Ms. Blackburn replied in the affirmative. However, she stated that she advised that in the future the City not conduct outreach to the elementary schools. She explained that Lime’s service agreement states that individuals under 14 shouldn’t be utilizing Lime bikes. Mayor Brownrigg asked how other communities had handled the tricky question of helmets for those under 18. Ms. Blackburn stated that in Alameda, Lime has offered to give helmets to individuals that ask for it. She added that parents should be educated on the importance of helmets for everyone, especially those under 18. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach stated that every Lime bike trip is probably a trip saved from an automobile. She stated that bike sharing programs add a value to the community. She explained that she leans towards an Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 RFP for a sole source contract because it gives the City a little more control over this fluid business. She noted that there may be a time where Burlingame moves to a permit process. She added that she fully supports dockless only as it solves the last mile solution. Councilmember Beach stated that the RFP should include the question of how the provider will incentivize users to park bikes in the proper locations. She explained that she read articles where different companies created economic incentives to park bikes in certain locations. Councilmember Beach discussed other components she wanted to see in the RFP including an education component, transparency of complaints, business plans concerning how bikes will be deployed, and how many bikes will be in circulation. She added that the City should consider a revenue model as the bikes are parked in the public right-of-way. She explained that a fee should be charged as the bike share company would be making revenue off of their use of a public right-of-way. Councilmember Beach stated that she is a huge helmet proponent. She explained that education is the key and that the City needs to partner with BHS and BPAC on this issue. However, she noted that around the world many countries with bike infrastructure don’t utilize helmets. Therefore, she explained that for those over 18, if they want to take that risk, it is on them. She added that she didn’t believe the City was ready for scooters. But the City needed to face the reality that these modes of transportation are coming into the City’s right-of-ways. She explained that the City needs to figure out how they are going to share Burlingame’s roadways so that it is safe for all. Councilmember Ortiz stated that in his opinion the bike share program was working. He added that he was concerned about the helmets but the majority of the people using the service are adults. Therefore, while he believes they should be wearing helmets, it is their choice not to. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she liked the program and thought the benefits for the community outweigh the risks. She explained that the education should be focused on the high school students. She noted that she is concerned about the scooters and wanted to know if the City can prevent scooters from coming into Burlingame. She voiced her concern about bike share programs’ pricing. She explained that pricing has increased, and the longer that you ride the bike, the more it costs. She noted that it can become too expensive. She asked that the RFP request pricing information. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was in favor of an RFP. She added that there should be an education component and a requirement for transparency of data. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the City set the fee at a level that is at least as high as neighboring cities but with the option of reducing the fee depending on the quality of the application. He stated that the fee will never move the City’s revenue needle in any meaningful way. He explained that the City doesn’t need the funds, they need the service. Ms. Blackburn asked if the fee was what would be imposed on the company if it violates terms of the agreement. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the negative and added that the fee would be the upfront cost to do business in the city. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City should cap the number of bikes in circulation in the city. Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t see any benefit of capping the bikes. Councilmember Keighran stated that her concern is that once the City picks a bike sharing company they might not be as compliant as Lime has been during the pilot program. She asked if the City has the ability to penalize a company if there are too many complaints. The Council discussed termination and cure language for the agreement. Councilmember Beach discussed the need to review the provider’s maintenance plan to ensure that bikes are kept in good shape. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 154 -2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 Finance Director Augustine stated that the external auditors completed the annual independent audit and helped staff create the CAFR. She explained that the external audit provides the public with reasonable assurance that the information presented in the report is reliable. She noted that the auditors were able to give the City an unmodified clean opinion. Councilmember Ortiz stated the auditors were very complimentary of the City staff and rarely gave a clean opinion. Vice Mayor Colson stated that earlier in the year, an Assemblymember introduced AB 1912, which would have allowed cross collateralization of liabilities across JPAs. She explained that she went up to Sacramento to testify about why this wasn’t appropriate and violated the State Constitution. She added that the City participates in a number of JPAs. She explained that since the introduction of AB 1912, the legislation changed in order to protect JPAs. She noted that the CAFR explicitly states that the City is only responsible for its pro-rata share. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2018; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT c. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT Burlingame City Council December 3, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 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 8:33 p.m. in memory of President George H.W. Bush. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk