Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2013.07.01 Agenda Item CITY C� Meeting Date BURLINGAME aF4TEO JYNEb BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes (Revised) Regular Meeting of July 1, 2013 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. Mayor Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Two students from McKinley School led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, Nagel MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION CA Kane advised that the Council met in closed session and gave direction. There was no reportable action at this time. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATION a. PRESENTATION OF A CHECK FOR MUSIC IN THE PARK FROM VEOLIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Recreation Coordinator Kari Thorson requested Council recognize Bill Toci of Veolia Water for sponsoring Music in the Park every year since 2004 and their $5,000 donation to cover the cost of the four concerts in July 2013 . Bill Toci spoke and presented the Council with a $5,000 check. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hillsborough resident Deborah Payne spoke about the Brown Act. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR �-- Councilwoman Baylock made a correction to item 8a and requested item 8d be removed for comment. 1 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2013 Approved Minutes Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approved items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f, 8g and 8h; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2013 Councilwoman Baylock made a correction to the June 17, 2013 minutes and requested that item 8c be amended to reflect her statement. Councilman Deal made a motion to approve item 8a; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ITEM WAS MOVED TO 10c C. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HILLSIDE RESERVOIR TANK INLET RELOCATION PROJECT BY CASEY CONSTRUCTION DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 61 accepting the improvements, Hillside Reservoir Inlet Relocation project by Casey Construction. d. APPROVE LOCATION FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN P&RD Glomstad requested Council approve Bayside Fields as the location for the Burlingame Community Garden. Mayor Keighran, Councilwomen Baylock and Nagel, Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked P&RD Glomstad, her staff and the community volunteers for all their efforts in finding a location that was acceptable to all. Mayor Keighran asked about a water charge estimate and if the fee to rent a plot would be enough to cover the water. P&RD Glomstad said they will have a meter located at the site and will monitor it for a year to determine if the _fees will cover it. In reply to the Mayor's inquiry, P&RD Glomstad also said there were no half plots at this time and no decision has been made on whether there will be a key or a combination lock for the gate access. P&RD Glomstad commented that it was Councilwoman Baylock who suggested Bayside Fields as a possible location for the Community Garden. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve item 8d; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AB 66, THE "ELECTRICITY: SYSTEM RELIABILITY"BILL CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 62-2013 authorizing the Mayor to send a letter of support for Assembly Bill 66 to Assemblymember Muratsuchi. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS FOR AGENDA MANAGEMENT AND VIDEO STREAMING CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 63-2013 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Service Agreement with Granicus for agenda management and video streaming. 2 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE-YEAR SERVICE ORDER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FROM THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution No. 64-2013 authorizing the City Manager to execute a one-year service order for Information Technology Services from the City of Redwood City. h. PTAF TOLLING AGREEMENT EXTENSION CA Kane requested Council authorize the City Manager to execute a fourth addendum to the tolling agreement between the City and the County of San Mateo regarding the existing property tax administration fee (PTAF) dispute between the parties. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL (without Preiudice) OF VANGUARD REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,LLC APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 778 BURLWAY ROAD CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and advised that Vanguard Real Estate Holdings is asking for a 10 year extension of the conditional use permit for its auto rental, storage and repair facility at 778 Burlway Road. He said that since 2003 the Planning Commission and the City Council have granted several two-year extensions and one five-year extension of the conditional use permit. He further advised that following consideration of the oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission denied the 10 year extension at their May 28, 2013 meeting, determining that extension could serve to deter efforts to sell the property. Councilmembers Deal and Baylock clarified the history of the permitting on the site and the payment structure under the existing Conditional Use Permit. During the public hearing, appellant Mark Hudak spoke about the history of the project and stated that the owner is seeking to market the property for sale. In response to questions from Councilmember Baylock, he clarified that the property owner had been paying a flat fee under the CUP of$36,500 per year, and that the site is being used for storage and preparation of rental cars. In response to questions from Mayor Keighran, Mr. Hudak and Peter Van Volkenburg, a company representative, stated that the use is currently not permitted on the site but that the CUP predates the zoning change that made the use impermissible and that the owner has been aggressive in seeking a buyer. In a colloquy with Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Mr. Volkenburg stated that marketing of the property has been hindered by the zoning on the site. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated his concern that the owner be incentivized to market the property aggressively. Councilmember Deal noted his agreement with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. He stated that a ten-year extension is too long for the site. In response to a question from Councilmember Deal, Mr. Volkenburg stated that he felt if the extension could not be negotiated then they would end up in court. 3 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Following closure of the public hearing, Councilmember Nagel stated that she sensed disappointment in the lack of progress on this sale. She moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application for an extension of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion was not seconded. -� Councilmember Deal stated that 2014 is just around the corner and to ask suddenly for them to stop the use is abrupt. He stated that he could look at a two-year permit but he did not want to see it come back in two years with yet another argument for extension. Mayor Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Nagel but because there were some good points made by Mr. Hudak she wanted to agree with a two-year extension. She stated this was extended in 2003, 2005, and then 2007 for five years. She stated that was plenty of time to figure out what to do. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was certain that ten years did not make sense. He agreed with the two- year extension. Councilmember Baylock also agreed with Councilmember Deal. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked to add a condition requiring no later than halfway through extension period the applicant should meet with economic subcommittee to renew what steps have been taken to look for a disposition of the property. The motion as amended was made by Councilmember Deal; seconded by Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved by a voice vote, 4-1 with Councilmember Nagel replying no. Motion by Councilmember Deal to adopt the CEQA resolution in the packet; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Motion was approved by a voice vote, 4-1 with Councilmember Nagel replying no. b. APPEAL HEARING ON BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF FOUR PROTECTED TREES AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE (HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) P&RD Glomstad reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider the appeal and conduct a public hearing. In response to a question from Mayor Keighran,Ms. Glomstad clarified that arborist Osterling, who had submitted a letter in support of the appeal, had not met with City staff. Councilmember Nagel stated the Beautification Commission was very specific about the trees that would be replacing the trees. She asked the City Arborist if he concurred with the Commission's recommendations. City Arborist Disco stated he did not. He stated it is not normal for them to be that specific about the type of tree. He stated that the staff report suggested replacing the four oak trees with four more trees,but the Commission decided to do eight. Councilmember Nagel asked about the sudden oak death problem in that area. Mr. Disco stated he stuck with the oaks because of the surrounding trees. He noted most sudden oak deaths are in oaks near creeks, which these are not. Mayor Keighran stated that it was mentioned the trees would be replaced in the general vicinity of where the oaks are now. She asked how far backs the trees need to be so they aren't damaged with construction. Mr. Disco noted there is an area that should have enough room for trees to grow. He noted the school district has -� a planting plan. 4 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Councilmember Deal noted that several arborists have looked at this, and Richard Huntington also came up with a similar solution that the trees had to be removed. He stated the retaining walls are moving very close to the trunks. Mr. Disco stated the image shows the retaining wall going through one tree and within a few feet of the other tree. Councilmember Deal stated that Mr. Osterling may not have understood the retaining wall was being moved. Mr. Disco agreed. CA Kane stated that people cannot hypothesize about what someone might have said and use that as a basis for a Council decision. Mayor Keighran stated that in the letter he states the oaks would be okay if undisturbed. Councilmember Baylock noted the drop off zone and asked if there is a curb between the drop off lane and the street. Mr. Disco replied he cannot answer that. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. Christine Fitzgerald,resident on Summit Drive, Hillsborough and Burlingame business owner stated there is a lawsuit pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court wherein a group of neighbors are seeking to enjoin the Hoover School Project until the District conducts a full environmental impact report. The trial is set for July 29, less than 30 days, and depending on that outcome the district could be forced to redesign the project and in particular the drop off/pick up location, and it could be moved to a different location. She stated that if the neighbors prevail then the trees might be moved unnecessarily. She stated delaying this decision would not delay the opening of the school. She noted that according to the District meeting minutes, the design of the modified drop off area had not been authorized as of June 11. She stated these trees are diseased, but need proper care and maintenance to live another 100 years. Diane Haggerty spoke against the removal of the trees. She stated the viability of the trees has been proven. She noted she hired Mr. Osterling to show the viability of the trees regardless of the retaining wall. She stated that she has observed that these trees are more viable than many other trees. She asked the Council to think of the trees like children that should always be accommodated for. She stated these two trees are safer than any spot a child walks on to get to that school. She asked that the drop off be moved to somewhere else. Joe Haggerty read a letter from his daughter who was raised in their home across the street from this property asking the Council to prevent the removal of the trees. Deborah Payne presented an image of the street by the oaks. She read comments from people who signed a petition to keep the trees. She spoke against the argument that the poor structure of the tree automatically means it needs to be removed or that they are weak. She noted that oaks have several leaders that support them. She noted that she asked David Babby to evaluate the trees and requests to allow him access to the trees were denied. He still supported Mr. Osterling's letter. She brought up a series of issues raised by Mr. Disco and refuted them. She noted that oaks and acacias are helpful to prevent erosion. She stated the pick up/drop off area should be done on the school site and not on Summit. She noted Hillsborough's recommendation to keep the trees for similar reasons. 5 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Dr. Robert Clark, assistant superintendent for Burlingame School District, spoke with the superintendent of the school district, Maggie MacIsaac, opposing the appeal of the Beautification Commission's decision. He argued that the design was reviewed and created with the community and the Planning Commission. He --� stated that safety of children is paramount and both the City arborist and the arborist contracted by the District report the trees pose a danger to the students and pedestrians. He noted that the District plans to maintain the densely wooded hillside that makes up 5 acres of the property. He noted that 75% of the trees that need to be removed for construction are within the campus area, with the four that are being disputed being the only other trees to be removed. He stated that eight trees will be planted to replace the removed trees. He asked the City Council to allow flexibility for the replanted trees pending the final design of the modified drop off area. He stated that the architect and City arborist have determined the design will only allow for 5 to 6 trees. He noted that the District has a long standing agreement with the City to replace any removed tree with at least one tree. She asked the City Council to uphold the Beautification Commission's decision to remove the trees. Ms. Payne stated a series of positive effects that oak and acacia trees can have. She stated that oaks have been around a hundred years, are drought tolerant trees,provide erosion control, etc. Acacia trees also offer drought resistance, erosion control, etc. She stated that a good solution is to move the development away from the trees so they can stay in tact. She stated that there were no landscape plans provided at the Beautification Commission. She stated there was no indication that the Beautification Commission or the City would have input on the final placement of the trees. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that part of the community asked for the City to widen the street to improve traffic,which means two parts of the community are in direct conflict. He asked Ms. Payne how to reconcile that. Ms. Payne stated that he must look at the street as a whole. She stated that this street is one of the windiest streets and has no sidewalks. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that is why they asked to widen it. Ms. Payne stated that only one part of it will be widened,not the rest of it. She stated that parents coming up and down the street in the mornings and afternoons won't be very safe. She stated the drop off could be moved to Easton rather than be on Summit. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that circulation isn't the topic here tonight,but his question is that there are different and contradictory community interests. Dr. Clark stated the decision to remove trees was not made lightly but the District desperately needs more student space that this property would provide. Councilmember Baylock noted the landscaping plan says it is with the original drop off plan. She asked if that was with six cars stacking and then it changed to fifteen. Dr. Clark stated that the modified drop off has not been designed yet, so what is in the landscaping plan now is part of the State-approved plans. Councilmember Baylock stated the drop off area was right below the existing building originally, and there were six cars and a curb or planter strip between the roadway and the drop off area. She asked if there is the same opportunity to have that planting strip between the drop off area and the roadway. Dr. Clark replied that there will not be that opportunity in the modified drop off. He noted this original design was very cost effective after doing the traffic study. He stated that the public requested a longer drop off, so the district responded by increasing the drop off. 6 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Councilmember Baylock asked if the modified drop off is what's driving the removal of tree one, or if that is from the original plan. Dr. Clark stated that oak tree number one would have stayed,because the roots would not have been touched. Councilmember Baylock asked if oak two and the two acacias were part of the original plan to be removed. Dr. Clark stated that they were already planned to come out. Mayor Keighran noted the Beautification Commission's recommendation to plant eight trees total in the general vicinity and the concern that that may not be possible. She asked if the City Arborist would be in on these conversations when this happens. She stated it could be decided to remove the trees but there should not be a blank area. She asked if it's okay to have a City Arborist in addition to the school district's arborist to make sure that every option is considered to commit to that condition. She asked if that can be requested. CA Kane stated that this is the school district's project so the City cannot control the landscape plan; however if the District indicated willingness to work with the City Arborist it could be something the Council could include in its conditions. Mayor Keighran stated that they don't have to follow what the City suggests,but it can be suggested. CA Kane stated that the Council could suggest it but as to whether the Council could require it, that would require additional briefing because it enters a questionable area in terms of control over the project itself. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the appeal were denied, what the timing is of the tree removal. Dr. Clark stated that if the City Council votes to deny the appeal, the District will move forward with the trees as soon as possible. He stated the arborists were scheduled for the following day. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the design were to change due to litigation, it would be unfortunate if the trees were to come out. Dr. Clark stated that trees three and four are in the way of the new building. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if that was the two acacias. Dr. Clark replied yes. He stated that number two oak was also coming out as part of the original design anyways. He stated that oak number one is the only new tree. He stated that there is not a finalized plan of the design. He noted there is an added cost of having an arborist come out to remove three trees and then have to come back out later to remove the last one. He stated that the initial review by the architect, arborist and landscape architect is between five and six trees. He stated the District will commit to planting trees but they don't want to commit to planting X number of trees of X size inside that area. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Deal stated that yes there are protected trees in Burlingame but protected doesn't mean that the tree cannot be removed; rather it means the tree can only be removed with justification. He noted the concern for safety of the trees. He stated that if the retaining walls are put in that will make the trees unsafe even if they were considered safe before. He stated when the decision was made to widen the drop off space there was no talk about the trees. He stated that the space is needed for the children so this project is extremely important. He stated that the trees need to come out and agrees with putting five to six trees in, or whatever the arborist decides, because the space cannot be overburdened with trees. The motion was made by Councilmember Deal to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. 7 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems a number of people have not wanted the school to go forward. He noted that part of the effort to keep the oaks may be partly an effort to stop the school from going forward. He stated that the oaks are an inevitable collateral damage of building a safer street. He noted that he would support asking the school district to delay the removal of oak tree number one until a decision is made about the design. Councilmember Baylock noted the difficulty of this decision. She stated there is a greater good that has to be addressed. She agreed with the suggestion of preserving tree number one until the lawsuit is completed. CA Kane advised that rather than conditioning the removal of the tree on the outcome of a lawsuit to which the City is not a party, the Council could delay it for sufficient time so that if the parties to the lawsuit could seek a stay if that is what they wish to do for the removal. Councilmember Nagel asked if there should be a specific timeframe the City Attorney would suggest. CA Kane stated that she did not want to influence the Council's ultimate decision. She advised allowing a moderate but time limited delay on whichever tree they wish, to allow the plaintiffs time to seek an injunction. She noted that the time it would take to seek an injunction would be a matter of weeks. Councilmember Nagel stated she has also been troubled by the issues in the discussion because it is the fate of the four trees that is before the Council. She stated she spoke to neighbors in the area and found there were two different camps of people who were ultimately supportive of taking the trees down and those who were not. Mayor Keighran agreed that this is a tough issue. She stated the City does have a lot of antiquated trees but there are new trees growing. She stated her preference is to follow the Beautification's recommendation to plant eight trees. She advised saving one or two trees for Arbor Day so the kids can see the progression of the trees when they enter the school and when they graduate so that they can appreciate the trees more. Councilmember Deal stated that the court system can take a long time to make its decisions. He stated that he cannot see delaying the whole project for tree number one which would allow the drop off zone to become something completely different and safer. Mayor Keighran asked if Councilmember Deal would like to include the suggestion be upheld that eight trees be planted by the District. Councilmember Deal stated the District should decide what is appropriate because plants cannot be put too close together. Mayor Keighran stated there should still be suggestion that the District work with the City Arborist so that two parties work on it. Councilmember Deal agreed to add that to the motion. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Councilman Deal raises a practical observation and he wanted to hear how others felt about delaying the removal of tree one. He stated it is probably not a wise discretion to include in the motion. He withdrew the proposal. Councilmember Nagel asked if there is a legal action in play already that won't be heard before July 26, could the District go ahead with plans to design the drop off area, or is the drop off area on hold until the legal case is resolved. 8 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes CA Kane advised she is not in a position to advise the District. She stated the only thing before the Council tonight is the question of the permits themselves. Councilmember Nagel stated that if that one tree does not need to be removed the next day, give the tree two weeks to give neighbors opportunity to follow up with an injunction. Mayor Keighran asked Councilmember Deal if he wanted to include that in his motion before the vote. Councilmember Deal replied no. CA Kane asked for clarification on the motion. She asked if it was to deny the appeal and to suggest that the District coordinate with the City Arborist in the replanting relocation for the replacement trees. Councilmember Deal stated there is nothing else except that the District follow the recommendation of the Beautification Commission. The motion was approved 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REVIEW OF,AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (ENA)BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND GROSVENOR USA LTD. RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING LOT E AND THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME POST OFFICE PROPERTY CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested that the City Council review and comment upon the draft Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the City and Grosvenor USA Ltd. regarding the development of Parking Lot E. CDD Meeker stressed that the City has no influence over the sale of the Downtown Burlingame Post Office property adjacent to Parking Lot E. He further requested that Council provide direction to staff for any substantive changes. Steve O'Connell, Development Manager for Grosvenor Americas and Matt Gray, Legal Counsel for Grosvenor thanked the City for the work on the ENA and were available for questions. During public comment, Jennifer Pfaff and Russ Cohen spoke on the item. Councilmember Deal asked for the agreement to permit in-lieu fees and other contributions. Mr. O'Connell noted the in-lieu fees are for replacement parking but there is also land sale and value. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that there is a fair amount of risk in this agreement on Grosvenor's part. In response to questioning by the Vice Mayor, Mr. O'Connell stated that there was no guarantee the Council would accept plans submitted by Grosvenor and a high likelihood that current draft plans would be altered in light of community feedback. Mr. O'Connell recapped Grosvenor's corporate history and expertise in similar projects. Councilmember Nagel questioned Mr. O'Connell on the automatic extension clause and various aspects of the agreement. In response to her questions, Mr. O'Connell stated that he hoped the entitlement process will cost less than$1 Million. He stated that the extension clause for market conditions would be necessary to account for unanticipated market crashes, such as that which occurred in 2008. Responding to 9 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Councilmember Nagel's concern that the project could stall out, Mr. O'Connell noted that his company would have considerable investments in the property and an incentive to realize that value. Vice Mayor Brownrigg clarified with the Community Development Director that the Citizen Advisory Committee to the Downtown Plan included business owners, representatives of property owners, and residents,representing different perspectives. He stated Ms. Pfaff was there representing the historic community to ensure the Downtown Plan represented a preservation of the character of the downtown. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated the plan specifically discussed the notion of redeveloping at-grade parking lots, and that there were higher and better uses. He stated one of the key elements was a significant public open space which is missing from the downtown. Vice Mayor Brownrigg clarified that the City does not constrain itself as to what design is ultimately approved with the ENA. He stated the City will deal with whoever it is that ends up buying the property. The Vice Mayor further stated that he thinks the fact that there is a developer who has experience, who can demonstrably build projects much bigger than this, is a benefit to the people of Burlingame and avoids the risk that a central property might be ring-fenced by a weak financial partner, like the property on Trousdale. Councilmember Baylock stated that she has ongoing concerns about the ENA. She stated that the ENA deals with a valuable public asset. She asked if the public knows about and/or supports the concept of using public property to build affordable housing. She read a statement which will be attached as an addendum. Mayor Keighran noted that Councilmember Baylock mentioned that the Council is precluded from talking to developers to come up with concepts for the Post Office,but the Council does not have control over designs for the Post Office, so if other developers succeed in acquiring that property and want to propose something then they can do so. Councilmember Baylock stated it precludes the Council from talking to potential developers of the site who may want to have the same sort of agreement to use Lot E. Mayor Keighran stated the process was open to everyone for Lot E. Councilmember Nagel stated that the Council did not want the Downtown Specific Plan to sit on the shelf, so they sent out requests for proposals. She stated this does not tie the City's hands but rather gives it the freedom to move forward with its vision for the downtown. She noted the importance of affordable housing and her support of authorizing the ENA. Councilmember Deal agreed. Mayor Keighran agreed with Councilmember Nagel. She noted that this is only a preliminary concept. She noted that there are people that want to downsize and move to downtown so they can walk and take public transportation. She stated that the design is to be discussed later in community meetings and will go in front of the Planning Commission. She stated her support for the ENA but noted a concern that parking is an issue that needs to be looked at very seriously in the near future. Vice Mayor Brownrigg moved to approve the ENA, with line edits: recitals,paragraph C, changing the final sentence to, "Moreover the City has no jurisdiction over the Post Office disposition and must therefore be prepared to work with whoever wins the Post Office bid"; City objectives, section 6 -- open space is the most —� should be first and other economic and commercial priorities, such as a hotel or retail; in paragraph 6.5, 10 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes strike all the language and simply say that if the developer could not acquire the Post Office parcel, the developer and the City would meet and confer about whether to restructure this agreement. Councilmember Deal warned against grouping with people that think similarly and realize that there are various needs and there are people that want to live downtown. Councilmember Baylock noted an error in Paragraph 6.5, regarding historical character. She also questioned the paragraph allowing market rate extensions. CA Kane clarified that the total time lapse for market delay is limited to 24 months. Councilmember Baylock noted that the total elapsed time on the agreement could add an additional 18 months to the 24 months and stated the manager can make any changes to the timeline without coming back to the Council. She noted she would be voting against the agreement. Motion to approve the ENA, incorporating changes discussed,made by Vice Mayor Brownrigg; seconded by Councilmember Deal. The motion was approved, 4-1, with Councilmember Baylock voting no. b. REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING TEMPORARY FREE PUBLIC PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and requested direction from Council. Mayor Keighran stated that her concern was the merchants utilizing the parking spaces, so she agreed with the chalking. She noted that people do wipe chalk off sometimes. She asked if there are scanners that can scan license plates. DPW Murtuza replied that it would cost about 25 thousand dollars. Councilmember Nagel noted that people have complained about confusing signage during construction. She asked what the City plans to do to improve signage of parking. DPW Murtuza stated that there was standard signage which said no parking with a time, so they drive past. He stated that changeable message signboards have been installed so that has helped. He stated that there have.also been suggestions from merchants to include special signs that say parking allowed,because people do not read the whole no parking signs. He noted that generally people utilize the spaces except the 1400 block. Councilmember Nagel expressed concern about the loss of revenue since this was money that was counted when the streetscape plan was developed. He stated a loss of revenue would impact the budgets. He noted that there was around $250,000.00 of fund balance in the parking fund which could be available,but that was not preferable. Mayor Keighran noted that the staff report is assuming that 7 days a week there will be free parking. She stated she would like a good faith effort because it is difficult to find parking. She noted an idea like Free Fridays. Councilmember Nagel stated she does not hear a lot of complaints from merchants. Mayor Keighran stated she has heard quite a few complaints from residents about how hard it is to find parking, and that it's difficult to read the signs. 11 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Councilmember Deal stated that he attended a Council of Cities meeting in South San Francisco, and some people said that they love what is going on with the Burlingame downtown even though parking is a difficult issue. -1. Councilmember Baylock stated that the cities are very glad that it's bad in downtown Burlingame because they are competing with each other. She stated that she hears complaints wherever she goes of how difficult it is. She stated that people avoid the Avenue because of these different problems. Councilmember Nagel stated that if people were avoiding it then there wouldn't be a parking problem. Councilmember Baylock stated people are confused about whether they can park there, and they don't want to drive over the plates. Mayor Keighran stated it would help merchants because of the avoidance of that area, so if there was something to draw people there it would help the businesses. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that his impression was that you can't please everyone, so even if there was free parking then people will complain that spots never turn over. He asked how to determine what merchants want. DPW Murtuza stated that is very difficult. He stated that those spaces are definitely impacting the merchants on that block. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that everyone understands it's difficult on people. He asked whether merchants really want free parking. DPW Murtuza stated that in the feedback door to door a few merchants asked for that. The majority of them --� wanted the job done quickly. Councilmember Nagel stated that it might be a good idea to put the parking lot map in the newsletter as often as possible. Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comment and John Root, Jennifer Pfaff and Mike Nagler spoke on the item. There were no further comments from the floor, and public comment was closed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg motioned to propose two hours of free parking on Burlingame Avenue; Mayor Keighran seconded the motion with the condition that there is code enforcement that consists of at least chalking the tires. Vice Mayor Brownrigg clarified that he was thinking of Free Fridays. CM Goldman asked if this was for the duration of the project or if there would be a different plan during holidays, etc. Councilmember Deal suggested waiting to see how it goes at first. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that they should decide to leave it going unless they decide it's not working. Mayor Keighran agreed and the motion was approved 5-0. 12 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes Mayor Keighran asked when that could begin. DPW Murtuza stated that he could work with the Police Department, etc., to work out the details and hopefully begin implementing it within a week. DPW Murtuza stated that he could work with the Police Department, etc., to work out the details and hopefully begin implementing it within a week. Mayor Keighran clarified it was free two hour parking on Burlingame Avenue, Free Fridays,with police enforcement. C. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT OF GUS GUINAN FOR THE PROVISION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS ACTING CITY ATTORNEY CM Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 65-2013 approving the employment of Gus Guinan for the provision of professional services as Acting City Attorney for the City of Burlingame for the period of August 5 — 16, 2013. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic Safety&Parking, May 9 2013; Library, May 14, 2013; Planning, June 10, 2013 b. Department Reports: Finance, May 2013 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 13 Burlingame City Council July 1,2013 Approved Minutes ADDENDUM TO ITEM Sa,Page 10 To:City Council From:Couucflmember Cathy Baylock SUBJECT: Grosvenor Exclusive Negotfatmg Agreement July 1,2013 The following are some of my concerns regarding entering an exclusive negotiating agreement with proposer Grosvenor culled from my original memo to council dated February 8,2012 1) We are considering entering a development agreement with a developer to potentially use a very valuable public asset. Does the public know about and/or support the concept of using public property to build affordable housing? 2) Questions I asked February 8,2012 that still remain unanswered a) What is the fair market value of the real estate in parking lot E? D) What is the annual income from Lot E including meter fees and parking tickets? c) How is traffic circulation affected by doing away with a de facto street? d) How do we consider the monetary/economic effects on both merchants and those property owners who paid into the parking district in the 1950's? e) How are we paying for the legal and other advice to ensure we are getting a fair deal? Grosvenor would like to enter an exclusive negotiating agreement prior to the post office coming on the market to gain an advantage in its acquisition: 1) Reduces pool of potential buyers at the outset as it leaves the impression that the Lead Agency(who ultimately will approve the project)has a preferred investor. The proposers in this pool were large developers who responded to the RFQ on the basis of using city parking lots to facilitate development. There may be a pool of mid-sized developers who are capable of financing the post office property but were not interested in bidding on the RFQ process that was in play at the time. The potential sale of the PO came at the eleventh hour and we have,by its timing,precluded potential developers from bidding on the site. 2) Grosvenor's proposal leaves little room for adaptive reuse of the building as a landmark structure in our downtown. It removes vast open space,adds high impact density with very little public benefit in return. The lots total around 80,000 square feet in size and a token amount of land is being offered as public open space(plot offered as"Town Square")in the their proposal we lose: -Landmark building _ -Open space -Parking in core of downtown -de facto road through PO parking lots The risks: 1) Precludes all other potential investors by essentially pre-approving Grosvenor 2) Ii negotiations fall and Grosvenor owns property, we lose all options e.g. city wanted Safeway to use city lots to make their project better, but,in the end, Safeway opted to only build on its own property 3) 3)Proposal offers to pay "in lieu" lees or assist the city in building a parking structure. The city has no funds in the foreseeable future to build such structure. Where does this parking go? 4) Could go through a lengthy process such as Los Gatos has done with the North Forty plan and have a public that rejects the proposal for not meeting the community's standards Concerns with the agreement before us: 1.1 Per this agreement, ` the City agrees not to solicit or otherwise entertain any other proposals or negotiate with any other third party desiring to become the Developer of the project...without the Developer's prior written consent..." precludes us from working with other potential buyers of the Post Office property for a period of at least 18 months and indefinitely if Clause 3.2.4 pertaining to the "Market Delay" is invoked. The contract unreasonably ties the city's hands and limits other potential bidders. 3.2.1 Extensions can be approved at the City Manager's Discretion with no further requirement for public review. 5.1 The negligible sum of $150,000 to become the city's exclusive partner in developing parking lot E and, by extension, the re-development of the Post Office property is effectively "forgiven" if the property is not acquired by Grosvenor. It is clear what the benefit to Grosvenor is in the ENA,but what is the benefit to the city? The City "maybe" receives $150,000 and in the long run, possibly precludes other, better developers from having the same development benefits. Is there a better development out there that includes major public amenities in exchange for the use of public land including the possibility of building a Boutique Hotel which would benelit the community at large as well as the General Fund with TOT into perpetuity? 6.5 (b)Indicates that the historic status of the Post Office building is unknown and questions whether the site is subject to CEQA analysis. This is untrue. The report titled "United States Postal Historic Structure Report Development History" dated February 2013 found 220 Park Road to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C as indicated in section 6.1 of the report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. A site, in order to be considered an historic resource need only meet one of four criteria. Furthermore, under CEQA, a site need only be "eligible" for the National and State registry(vs. "listed")to be considered to have a significant impact on the resource in the case of its demolition or major alteration. In closing, I have considerable concerns about moving forward with ENA for the reasons listed above as well as the points I articulated at our council meeting two weeks ago: is this what our community is asking for? When you are talking to your constituents are you hearing that the pressing problem in Burlingame is that we don't have enough high density housing in Downtown? I am not. Here is what I hear. We need more parking (this doesn't provide and could actually reduce what we have) We have too much traffic downtown(this makes 11 worse). We need more fields and open space(this takes open space away). The list goes on and on. I will be voting against the ENA. This is not what I had in mind when we talked years ago about potentially using our valuable public parking lots to provide for public amenities.