Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2020.02.03CITY O BURLINGAME $AarEo � xE � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 3, 2020 STUDY SESSION a. DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE Mayor Beach thanked everyone for coming to the study session. She asked the Council if they had any questions for staff. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what type of outreach the staff did for the businesses in Burlingame. City Manager Goldman stated that the Economic Development Specialist sent an email to those on the Economic Development Subcommittee agenda list and to the individuals that submitted their emails at the Burlingame Talks Shop event. Additionally, notice was put in the enews and on Nextdoor. She noted that she believed that Mayor Beach reached out to members of the business community. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that Council received an email from Ken Putnam concerning the minimum wage discussion and asked if any other businesses had reached out to the City. City Manager Goldman stated that she wasn't aware of any other emails. Mayor Beach stated that she had reached out to several businesses in Burlingame and could share the list with her colleagues. Councilmember Colson asked if Mayor Beach had collected data from the businesses. Mayor Beach explained that her outreach included extensive conversations with the businesses and that she invited everyone to be a part of the study session. Councilmember Colson asked if the staff surveyed the local businesses. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative. Mayor Beach opened the study session up for public comment. Unite Here 2 representative Cynthia Gomez thanked the Council for having the study session and urged the Council to raise the minimum wage. She discussed related issues including irregular scheduling, unmanageable workloads, and limited sick days that Council could regulate. Jose Esquiuel stated that he had worked at the Marriot for three years and had a second job at the Convention Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Center in San Francisco. He urged the Council to raise the minimum wage and asked them to look into regulating irregular work hours. Manuel Choy stated that he has worked for the Marriot for 22 years. He urged the Council to raise the minimum wage because the current rate is not enough to live on. Mike Dunham stated that he learned that a community can support a local minimum wage that is equal to 50% of the local median income. He noted that per his calculations, the City could support a $24 minimum wage, and therefore $15 was more than doable. Liz Scully stated that she was a childcare provider and that an increase in the minimum wage would negatively affect her childcare business. Elana Lieberman urged the Council to raise the minimum wage and stated that it was necessary to assist those facing rent increases. Cynthia Cornell urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. She stated that the increase was needed as a result of rental increases and the high cost of living. San Mateo County Central Labor Council representative Erin Chavez urged the Council to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by July 1, 2020, with annual CPI increases beginning in 2021. Additionally, she asked that the ordinance include strong enforcement and education outreach. San Mateo County Central Labor Council representative Julie Lims urged the Council to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by July 1, 2020, with annual CPI increases, strong enforcement language, strict penalties, and a robust public information campaign. Senior Community Health Planner Belen Seara stated that access to adequate income is one of the most important predicters of health. Ms. Seara encouraged the Council to increase the minimum wage. Laura Hinz voiced her surprise that anyone would pay under $15 an hour. She noted that she believed this was an ethical matter. Burlingame United Methodist Church Pastor Holly Hillman discussed the people that come to the church to avail themselves of supplemental food. She urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. Alice Larios voiced her support for increasing the minimum wage to $15. Kent Lauder discussed the importance of unions and urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. Mayor Beach closed public comments. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he understood the hardship on small businesses when the minimum wage is increased. However, he noted that he couldn't in good conscience leave the minimum wage where it 2 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes is in Burlingame. He stated that the minimum wage is a way of ensuring people have livable wages. He explained that he believed there should be a transition period, and that the new minimum wage should start January 2021. Mayor Beach stated that she scheduled the study session because she thought it was an important conversation for the City to have. She discussed how the City has been a leader in terms of creating market rate and affordable housing. She noted that while creating housing is an important piece of the puzzle, there is also a need to pay individuals livable wages. Mayor Beach acknowledged that it is hard to run a business in Burlingame, especially restaurants. However, she noted that it is even harder to be a low wage worker. She stated that this issue came to her attention after studying the school district demographics. She explained that 12.3% of Burlingame school students are on free or reduced lunch. To qualify for free lunch, a family of four is earning no more than $33,475 a year; for a reduced lunch, the family of four is earning no more than $47,638. Mayor Beach stated that a few years ago, she spoke with an individual in Burlingame that was working for a major national company and was earning $13 an hour. She stated that the individual told her that he hoped he could get a transfer to the company's San Francisco Airport location because he would earn $17.66 an hour there. Mayor Beach discussed the outreach that she conducted with coffee shops, restaurants, and retailers in Burlingame. She stated that many of them are already paying $15 an hour. She noted that nearly 60% of the County is on an accelerated path to $15 an hour. She explained that San Mateo hired an expert from the Northern California Small Business Development Center to assist restaurants in managing the minimum wage increase. She stated that she would like Burlingame to do something similar. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was in favor of studying this issue further. He noted that he did believe that increasing the minimum wage in one fell swoop would be difficult for a lot of businesses. He suggested phasing in the increase so that businesses could adjust to the new reality. He asked that staff review potential exclusions for family members and solutions for sales positions that are commission -based. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed an article that she read in the Mercury that stated that when Oakland raised their minimum wage, the majority of issues were in the childcare industry. She explained the article stated that low income individuals were unable to afford childcare as a result of the minimum wage increase. She asked for data on the childcare industry. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she talked with the restaurants in Burlingame and overall they were okay with the increase but wanted a transition period. She noted that they did say that the increases would be passed along to the customers. She asked that staff provide information about whether other cities with $15 an hour have had issues with businesses leaving and whether staff has been made part-time. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that staff would need to conduct extensive public education. She asked if the City would be implementing a penalty on businesses that don't increase their wages within a specified time period. City Attorney Kane stated that this is a policy decision for Council. Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes City Manager Goldman noted that Council would need to determine whether enforcement was the responsibility of staff or whether the City would hire outside management. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the cities that implemented their own minimum wage laws incorporated any exemptions for small businesses. City Manager Goldman stated that some of the cities had transition periods that included different acceleration paths to $15 an hour for nonprofit versus for -profit businesses. Councilmember Colson stated that if you looked at the Economic Policy Institute's family budget calculator, to live in San Mateo County requires earning $13,024 a month. She noted that if you put that into an hourly rate, it's almost $80 an hour. She stated that small businesses would bear the brunt of increasing the minimum wage. Councilmember Colson talked about enforcement and the amount of staff time it would take. She asked that staff review the possibility of aiding childcare facilities. She noted that the staff report discussed how an increasing minimum wage would increase the costs of the recreation programs. She explained that many families used the recreation programs for daycare. Therefore, she asked that staff not increase the costs and instead increase the General Fund support for these programs. Councilmember Brownrigg asked staff to send Council information about how San Mateo enacted their minimum wage. He noted that the State would be increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour on January 1, 2022, for large employers. Therefore, he stated that Burlingame should enact their increase prior to the State's for it to be effective. Mayor Beach stated that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg about staying ahead of the State. City Manager Goldman stated that Council expressed an interest in following the San Mateo model of escalating to $15 minimum wage with annual increase of CPI at no limit. She noted that other jurisdictions have limited the CPI increase to 3% or 3.5%. She stated that Council also expressed an interest in contracting out enforcement. Mayor Beach discussed Redwood City's ordinance and asked that staff review it. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked that staff review potential exemptions for family members. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. 4 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:12 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Sandra Lang. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. AYSO TEAMS RECOGNITION Mayor Beach stated that any child that wants to play soccer between the ages of 3 and 18 can be a part of AYSO. She noted that in Burlingame, the league is 100% volunteer run. AYSO Commissioner Jackie Haggerty recognized the U14 girl strikers. She stated that this team won the Burlingame Cup, and then qualified for the Area Tournament and Section Tournament. She noted that the Section Tournament included teams from Alaska and Nevada. She thanked the players and their parents for their hard work this past season. Next, Ms. Haggerty recognized the U12 "Spicy Blueberries" girls team. She stated that this team won the Burlingame Cup, Area Tournament, and the Section Tournament. She noted that in March, they will go to Arizona to continue their tournament play. She thanked the players and their parents for their hard work this past season. Ms. Haggerty thanked the City, Parks and Recreation Department, and the AYSO volunteers for their support this past year. Councilmember Colson thanked Coach Ardito for volunteering at AYSO and working as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. 5 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Ortiz discussed his time coaching at AYSO and congratulated the teams on their wins! 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran pulled item 8g and Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8d. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f and 8h; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 21, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 21, 2020. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 25, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 25, 2020. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING CUP TIMELINES FOR 778 BURLWAY DURING EVALUATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 008-2020. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,998.60 TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SEVEN -STORY MIXED -USE BUILDING 1766 EL CAMINO REAL Councilmember Brownrigg stated the project at 1766 El Camino Real would be four stories of office space and two stories of residential. He explained that he asked the developer about the ratio and was informed that this ratio was more financially beneficial. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that the City was currently undertaking a review of its commercial impact fees with 21 Elements. He voiced his support for this review and stated that he wanted to see the ratio flip for developers so that it was more attractive to build residential versus commercial. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. 6 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 009-2020; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ECS IMAGING, INC. FOR A THREE YEAR EXTENSION City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 010-2020. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP FOR GEOTECHNICAL AND SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER FOR $327,250, CITY PROJECT NUMBER 83240 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 011-2020. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF THE FY 2019/20 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY'S FLEET SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $163,189 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the City's criteria was for determining that a vehicle had reached the end of its useful life. DPW Murtuza stated that it varies across the different departments. He noted that for Police it is 80,000 miles, and for Public Works it is about ten years. Councilmember Colson noted that two of the vehicles being purchased were hybrids. She thanked staff for considering EV options. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that staff consider utilizing www.driveevfleets.org in the future when purchasing electric vehicles. He explained that it was a resource offered by the Climate Mayors' group. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 012-2020; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DIGESTER EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND DIGESTER NUMBER 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,895 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 013-2020. 7 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM C-1 TO R-4 AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM SHOPPING AND COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DESNITY RESIDENTIAL; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); DESIGN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND DENSITY BONUS (WITH REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM R-4 FRONT/REAR SETBACKS) FOR A NEW SIX - STORY, 150-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1095 ROLLINS ROAD (FATTORIA E MARE SITE) Mayor Beach asked her colleagues about any ex-parte communications they had on the 1095 Rollins Road project. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran and Mayor Beach stated that they spoke with the developers. Councilmember Colson noted that she spoke with the development team and some of the neighbors. CDD Gardiner reviewed the proposed project. He stated that the application was to construct a 150-unit apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road. Ten percent of the units (15 units) would be offered at below market rate to moderate income households for 30 years (this number was later corrected to SS years). He explained that because the project included 10% below market rate units, the development was entitled to a density bonus. The State's density bonus entitled the project to a reduction in parking requirement, as well as one concession and a waiver to the development standards. He stated that the project was utilizing the concession for relief of the parking standards by proposing the use of required parking in the form of stackers and tandem spaces. Additionally, the project was requesting a waiver to the development standards for lot coverage. CDD Gardiner stated that the project proposes merging two parcels. He explained that the two existing parcels are currently zoned C-1, with a prior General Plan designation of Shopping and Commercial. Therefore, the application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to change the site to a high -density residential land use designation with R-4 zoning. He noted that pursuant to R-4 zoning, the project is requesting variances to the required front and rear setbacks. CDD Gardiner explained that the application was submitted prior to the City updating the General Plan. He stated that the application is requesting a designation to the prior high -density land use in the previous General Plan. He noted that these are the same land use and zoning designations as the North Park Apartments and Summerhill's Anson project. CDD Gardiner stated that environmental review was conducted on the project pursuant to CEQA. The review was an initial study and mitigated negative declaration. He stated that it was determined that any potential environmental impacts could be mitigated so that they would not be significant. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the below market rate units would be spread across the different sized units. CDD Gardiner replied that the City has a provision that requires the units need to be representative of the total mix of the building. 8 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Ortiz asked about visitor parking. CDD Gardiner replied that the applicant has a solution to this issue and that it was part of their presentation. Councilmember Colson stated that the below market rate units would be in place for 30 years. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that she has heard that there is an indication that ABAG won't be giving cities RHNA credit for below market rate units that are for less than 55 years. She stated that would like the applicant to explain their decision to maintain the below market rate units for 30 years and not 55 year. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the Summerhill project was included in the traffic study. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Colson that the units should be kept affordable for 55 years, not 30 years. City Attorney Kane noted that the ordinance as drafted has a non -substantive error that would be corrected prior to being brought back for adoption. She explained that the proposed ordinance stated that if adopted, it would be effective 60 days after passage, but it was really 30 days after. Mayor Beach stated that the below market rate units would be for moderate income. She asked if this was 120% AMI and what the corresponding dollar amount was. CDD Gardiner stated that moderate is 80% to 120% AMI and that he would have to review the numbers. City Attorney noted that the report does include a condition of 10% affordable units for 55 years. Therefore, she stated that she believed the 30 years was just an error. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. Hanover Company representative Scott Youdall stated that it is his understanding that the below market rate units would be for 55 years. Mr. Youdall stated that the project consists of 150-residential units with the following breakdown: • 35 studios • 74 one bedrooms • 38 two bedrooms • 3 three bedrooms 9 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes He noted that there will be 15 below market rate units. He stated that there will be 195 parking spaces; 175 will be in stackers, 14 will be standard, and six will be tandem. BDE Architecture's Johnathan Ennis displayed a site plan for the project. He stated that in the front of the building, there are stoop units that activate the ground floor and allow for pedestrians to not be faced with a parking garage. He showed the different levels of the project. Mr. Ennis discussed the materials that would be used on the outside of the building including a smooth cement plaster, panelized fiber cement, wood panels, and stone veneer at the base of the building. He noted that there are large light -giving vinyl windows and custom railings. He discussed the street trees along the building. Mr. Ennis displayed the landscape plan for the project and the fire department pull -in area. He depicted the various outdoor areas that would be open to the residents of the building including grills, firepits, and tv seating areas. Mr. Youdall discussed Council's question about guest parking. He noted that under the City's municipal code, there is no requirement for guest parking. He stated that the project includes 195 spaces, which is 45 more spaces than units. He stated that they can create guest parking spaces in any of the unassigned spaces within the building. He explained how this would be utilized with the stackers. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the project includes a truck/moving van location to the side of the complex. She asked where UPS, Amazon, and other delivery services would park. Mr. Youdall stated that they had created a white loading zone for deliveries in the front of the complex by the package room. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there is a backup generator for the parking garage. Mr. Youdall replied in the affirmative. He stated that there are several redundancies in CityLift (the company making the stackers) that will ensure access. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Mr. Youdall had determined a street tree for the project. Mr. Youdall stated that he worked with the City Arborist and determined that they would use a Sycamore species that would mirror the Summerhill project. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if they had brought samples of the materials that would be used on the building. Mr. Ennis went through the different types of materials that would be used on the outside of the building. He noted that fiber cement material lasts approximately 30 years and is very durable. Mr. Youdall showed pictures of the projects that they had completed in Oakland: Hanover Broadway and Hanover Northgate. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the traffic impact of the project. CDD Gardiner stated that the traffic study was done by W-Trans, but Andrew Metzger from Circlepoint, the City's environmental consultant for the project, could address the Council's questions. 10 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Mr. Metzger stated that when conducting a traffic study, they review the trip generation that the proposed project would create against the trips generated from the current use. Additionally, they review consistency with transportation plans and level of service impacts at nearby intersections, provide a vehicle miles traveled analysis, and review potential traffic hazards as a result of a project's design features. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that a few Planning Commissioners and residents believe that this neighborhood is already dealing with traffic issues and that this project would only make it worse. Mr. Metzger stated that they reviewed the estimated number of current trips for the parcel's use (restaurant) versus the estimated number of trips caused by the project. He explained that they found the numbers comparable. He stated that in fact the residential use was estimated to create fewer daily trips. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the traffic assumptions were made with the Summerhill project included. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that restaurant traffic usually occurs within a three-hour period whereas residential traffic could vary throughout the day. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative and noted that they focused on traffic during peak hours. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if grade separation would alleviate traffic. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach stated that the Council is hopeful that grade separation will improve traffic flow. She asked if the traffic study took into consideration the re -opening of the Broadway Caltrain station. Mr. Metzger replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked about who the development was being geared towards. She asked if the development was being marketed towards individuals who utilize public transportation versus owning a car. Mr. Youdall stated that the developers were attracted to the site because of its proximity to the Caltrain station. He noted that the two projects in Oakland are located a seven to ten-minute walk to the 19th Street BART station. He added that the residents leasing in Oakland are coming without a car. He stated that he doesn't see multiple car ownership in this development. He discussed the requirements under the State's density bonus for parking spaces. Mr. Youdall stated that the project meets the parking requirement under the State Density Bonus. He explained that this is one space per studios and two spaces per two bedrooms. CDD Gardiner stated that the State's density bonus parking ratios are less than the Citywide parking standard but greater than the City's transit -oriented parking standard, which applies to downtown Burlingame and North Rollins mixed use. Councilmember Colson asked if the development would include green infrastructure. Mr. Youdall replied in the affirmative. He explained that the developers are aiming for a high silver greenpoint certification. He discussed the appliances, finishes, location, and EV chargers that are helping them reach this goal. 11 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the EV chargers are incorporated into the parking stackers. Mr. Youdall replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the developer sees an increase in electric vehicles, could they add chargers. Mr. Youdall stated that they are pre -wiring to allow for future chargers. Councilmember Colson asked about the history of the original project and where it was scaled down. Mr. Youdall stated that R-4 zoning allows 35 feet by right and 75 feet with a conditional use permit. He explained that by the time they went to Planning Commission, it had already been scaled down. He stated through feedback they ended up with six stories, with five -story elements at the edges to break down the massing and articulation of the building. A resident on Toyon Drive discussed the traffic that already existed in this neighborhood and the amount of street parking. She stated that it would only increase as a result of the Summerhill project and this proposed project. Additionally, she noted that she had not been noticed about this proposed project. Mayor Beach discussed the extensive public outreach that was done to update the General Plan. She stated that the plan accommodated significant housing growth particularly around public transportation. She asked about the noticing requirement for specific projects. CDD Gardiner stated that for larger projects, the notification requirement is 500 feet. A resident from Winchester Drive discussed her discontent with the project and discussed the increase in traffic the project would cause. Burlingame resident Andrew Malarky questioned the noticing requirement for projects of this size. He discussed the traffic issues that already exist in the neighborhood. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Council has committed to creating housing in Burlingame while also protecting neighborhoods. He noted that the proposed location is close to the freeway and public transportation, and there are no single family houses in the area. He stated that anywhere the City adds housing, there will be an impact. Therefore, while he sees an impact, he believes this is the kind of impact the City needs to live with in order to add housing. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that over the past three years, the community has discussed affordability and housing. She noted that the State is pressuring cities to add housing. Therefore, unless the City proves it is providing housing, it will be hard to make arguments against the State forcing the City's hand. She stated that she understood the residents' concerns, but it is important that the City maintains control over how and where housing is added. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced concern for the residents that didn't feel they knew of the development. He discussed the Council's sensitivity to maintaining single-family home neighborhoods. He explained that 12 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes the Council worked with Summerhill to phase down the size of the Anson project along the edges of neighborhoods. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the area of the project is an impacted area for traffic. He explained that the Council recently reviewed the traffic in Lyon Hoag and suggested that this neighborhood be next. He added that the neighborhood could get in contact with the City about the parking permit program. Councilmember Brownrigg stated he liked the 22-foot setback from the street and thought the street trees would soften the building. Councilmember Colson stated that this type of housing would allow for the younger generations to move back to Burlingame. She stated that the younger generations aren't using cars and want to live closer to where they work. Councilmember Colson stated that this project is an innovative solution to an odd site. She noted that the developers had done a great job with the amenities and design. Councilmember Colson discussed the Governor's initiative to add 3.5 million homes to California, a 20% increase in housing. She explained that Burlingame has about 12,000 units of housing; a 20% increase would be 2,500 units. She noted that the development will assist the City in reaching its RHNA number. Councilmember Colson discussed State legislation to create housing and how local control would be lost. She noted that the State is considering holding back transit funds from jurisdictions that don't add housing. Mayor Beach stated that the Council is trying to thoughtfully add housing. She explained that she believed the project was attractive. She also discussed how people are moving towards a carless life and stated that the data shows that many people want to live near transit so that they don't have to have a car. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the CEQA Resolution Number 015-2020; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 014-2020 and Resolution Number 016- 2020; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach directed staff to bring back the ordinance for adoption and asked the City Clerk to publish notice. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that be believed the public noticing requirement for large projects should be extended to 1000 feet. Councilmember Colson asked that staff announce major projects in the e-newsletter. Mayor Beach stated that the City Manager is working on an initiative to provide more information on the main page of the City's website. 13 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes 10. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDERATIONOF A COUNCIL POLICY GOVERNING USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS City Attorney Kane stated that recently, a Commissioner asked staff if she could access her agenda packet from her tablet rather than having a printed copy. She explained that the City doesn't currently have a policy regarding the use of electronic devices by decisionmakers (Council and Commissions) during public meetings. City Attorney Kane stated that the key issue is that the public's business needs to happen in the public. Therefore, the concern is that if during a public meeting a decisionmaker is reviewing something on their electronic device that influences their decision, the public has a right to know what they were reviewing. City Attorney Kane stated that the policy states that the use of personal electronic devices is allowed, but if the decisionmakers receive or review information outside the agenda packet during the meeting, it must be disclosed and entered into the public record. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could consider having the City purchase electronic devices, such as a tablet, for the Council and Commissioners. She explained that several cities do this and load the agenda packets onto the devices. She noted that by utilizing a government issued device, the City would be able to track what was accessed during the meeting. Additionally, she stated that it would avoid the situation where a decisionmaker has to grant access to their personal device. Councilmember Colson discussed her usage of electronic devices at various meetings. She noted that for traveling, she likes to access her agenda packet via her tablet but prefers the hard copy. She added that during meetings, she uses her device to do some quick calculations. City Attorney Kane explained that in the situation where the Councilmember is utilizing their phone during a meeting to do calculations, the Councilmember could state on the record that they are calculating the number. This would allow the public to know what is being done. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked to utilize the hard copy. She noted that this idea was previously discussed under Mayor Nagel. She stated that she was open to the discussion of government - issued tablets being given to the Council and Commissions. She noted that she thinks that the usage of a device on the dais creates a perception that the Council is not paying attention. Mayor Beach discussed her tablet that she utilizes to write notes. She noted that previously she had used legal pads. She asked if this would be a concern. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she doesn't have an issue with that as Mayor Beach isn't utilizing the search engine. 14 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has used his personal device to do calculations and review maps. He noted that during the public hearing, he looked up the different AMI levels. He stated that for him it is valuable to utilize electronic devices. He noted his support for City -issued devices. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he utilizes electronic devices at meetings in the same fashion as his colleagues for calculations, looking up a website address, and reviewing maps. He noted that for SBWMA, he accesses his agenda packet via his tablet. Mayor Beach discussed the perception issue. She noted that the public may think that they are receiving texts or emails during the meeting that influence their decision. City Attorney Kane agreed with Mayor Beach. She noted that she drafted the policy to specify that the decisionmakers need to disclose information that is relevant to the agenda item. Therefore, this wouldn't include when your child texts you a question during the meeting and other such situations. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the appearance issue would be answered by having a dedicated City -issued device. City Attorney Kane stated that it would answer the perception issue, and all searches during the meeting would be logged for public transparency. Councilmember Colson asked if the Council could get the hard copy and the device. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 017-2020 and to explore the cost of obtaining electronic devices for Council and Commissions; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS a. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Brownrigg asked to agendize a discussion of San Mateo's Peninsula Interchange project. City Manager Goldman noted that San Mateo would be coming to Council to present the project in the near future. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin-a�g. 15 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 16 Burlingame City Council February 3, 2020 Approved Minutes