Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2020.10.05CITY BURLINGAME $AniEo JLNE � O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on October 5, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by the Youth Advisory Committee. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Beach began the meeting with the following statement on behalf of the City Council: As we're gathering together tonight, all of our hearts are heavy in the wake of a tragic accident in Washington Park two weekends ago when a tree limb unexpectedly fell, took one person's life, and injured others. On behalf of Vice Mayor O'Brien, Councilmembers Ortiz, Brownrigg, Colson, myself, and our entire City staff, we offer our deepest sympathy to the victims and their families and friends. We will also be taking a moment of silence to honor all the victims at the closing of our meeting tonight. 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957) TITLE: INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY/CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Kane stated that her last work day with the City would be November 6, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail would be appointed Interim City Attorney in her place. She added that Council authorized hiring a recruiter to assist with obtaining a permanent City Attorney. b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8) PROPERTY: CITY PARKING LOT E, APN 029-204-230 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY KATHLEEN KANE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR KEVIN GARDINER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SPANSAIL NEGOTIATING PARTY: SARES REGIS GROUP OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS City Attorney Kane stated that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. UPDATE FROM THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC) Parks and Recreation Coordinator Nicole Houghton stated that the Youth Advisory Committee is comprised of 13 teenagers ranging from 7ffi to 12a' grade, who go to school and/or live in Burlingame. She stated that the following students are on this year's Youth Advisory Committee ("YAC"): Shareen Ahmad, Dylan Aguinaldo, Carina Husain, Pamela Xiang, Maddie Gillette, Christiana Carroll, Pierce Schuman, Taylor Roe, Ethan Wan, Sylvie Olson, Zach Wong, Cameron Leung, and Kylie Holzman. YAC representative Dylan Aguinaldo stated that YAC held its first meeting of the new term on September 8. He explained that they discussed their by-laws and determined that no changes were needed. YAC representative Maddie Gillette stated that at this meeting, YAC also discussed possible initiatives for the group to focus on for the year. She added that YAC discussed how to involve the Youth Advisory Board in more activities and noted that they would be having a Zoom mixer for the two groups later in October. YAC representative Carina Husain reviewed the Facebook Workshops that members of YAC attended. She explained that they met with individuals from Facebook on how to utilize their programs to promote YAC and increase outreach to the community Ms. Gillette discussed YAC's Halloween event, which is called "Bggtober" and allows families to register for goody bags that will be delivered to their children. YAC representatives Pierce Schuman and Dylan Aguinaldo discussed future YAC activities to reach out to teen and senior communities via Zoom. Councilmember Colson asked if YAC's Mills Canyon clean-up was successful and whether they would be doing more clean ups. Mr. Aguinaldo replied in the affirmative. He noted that there was a lot of work that still needed to be done in Mills Canyon. He added that YAC is always open to suggestions. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked the idea of YAC working with the senior community. She noted that seniors are at high risk when it comes to COVID-19, and it has made them isolated in their homes. 2 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Brownrigg thanked YAC for their service to the City. He stated that he was interested in what initiative YAC chooses and would like to hear more about it. He added that he worries about people's mental health right now due to COVID-19 and asked YAC to think about what the City can do to help the community. Councilmember Ortiz thanked YAC for their service. He noted that he was also concerned with the senior community and how isolated they are. Mayor Beach stated that the YAC is very inspiring and loved that they were thinking about green initiatives, mental health, and intolerance. She extended an invitation to YAC to work with the City on "Burlingame Stands United Against Hate." 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked her colleagues and members of the public if they would like to pull any item off the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the City Council Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2020. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (DONNELLY AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR ON PROPERTIES LOCATED NORTH OF DONNELLY AVENUE THAT HAVE SOLE FRONTAGE ON DONNELLY AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DONNELLY AVENUE AREA), MAKING FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND LOT COMBINATION FOR A PROPOSED FOURTEEN (14) UNIT MIXED USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1214-1220 DONNELLY AVENUE CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance 1983, Resolution Number 124-2020, Resolution Number 125-2020, and Resolution Number 126-2020. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 11 BY STOLOSKI AND GONZALEZ, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 85130 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 127-2020. 9. PUBLIC HEARING a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.07.110 TO MODIFY CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND THE EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR WORK CONDUCTED OUTSIDE OF LEGAL HOURS CDD Gardiner stated that in 2016, the City Council amended the City's construction hours. He noted that originally, the City's construction hours were from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The 2016 amendment revised the start time to 8 a.m. on weekdays and prohibited construction on Sundays and holidays. CDD Gardiner stated that in June 2020, Council discussed amending the City's construction hours to accommodate some particular needs of construction applicants. He noted that at that meeting, the Council provided direction and that the proposed ordinance reflects that direction. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed amendment seeks to provide more latitude for allowing exceptions for unusual and unavoidable circumstances such as large concrete pours, timelines from other agencies, and environmental matters that can't be controlled or mitigated by the developer. He explained that staff recommends amending the Code to specifically recognize these common exceptions so that developers will be able to pursue projects in Burlingame without fear of delays that could conflict with time -sensitive construction operations. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance amends construction hours in certain zones to allow an additional hour during weekday mornings. He noted that this would eliminate the need for exceptions in many instances. The Bayfront Commercial, Innovative Industrial, and Rollins Road Mixed Use are all zones where staff believes the start time could be amended to 7 a.m. with only minor disruption to residents. He explained that developers have informed staff that a majority of their construction crews commute from areas outside the Peninsula, and that the City's current construction hours require them to drive during peak traffic times. He added that allowing a 7 a.m. weekday start time in the above listed commercial zones may at least partially alleviate that issue. CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance attempts to balance the concern of excessive construction noise with the builders' need for an earlier start time by prohibiting inherently loud construction activities, such as jack -hammering and pile -driving, during the first hour. He noted that the proposed ordinance requires that all work during the 7 a.m. hour be approved by the Chief Building Official, who will balance the need for additional time with the needs of the community. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the proposed ordinance would affect the construction hours in residential neighborhoods. CDD Gardiner stated that the change to 7 a.m. would be only for the commercial districts. However, the exception process that allows for more latitude could occur in a residential zone. He noted that the exceptions in residential areas would be for a much more limited scope. 4 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked who is determining what can and can't be allowed at the 7 a.m. hour. CDD Gardiner stated that the 7 a.m. hour is only in the commercial zones. He noted that there has been discussion with the stakeholders that inherently loud activity such as pile driving and jack -hammering shouldn't be allowed at this hour. He stated that staff received feedback after the agenda was published that it might be easier if the ordinance specified what are classified as loud activities. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran suggested specifying what isn't allowed in the ordinance so that it is clear to the public. Assistant City Attorney Spansail stated that when you list the specific activities, it will be important to list every activity that the City doesn't want to have happen during that hour. He explained that how the proposed ordinance is currently written, the City has a little more wiggle room to determine what can and can't be allowed at 7 a.m. He noted that by specifying what isn't allowed, the City will lose some discretion. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with the feedback staff received. She stated that consistency is going to be essential, and therefore she thought it would be better to specify in the ordinance what is not allowed. Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff is proposing a change to the process of requesting an exception. CDD Gardiner stated that the process would be similar to what is currently done. However, he explained that the current Code allows exceptions only "in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety." He noted that the staff was trying to expand the definition to better reflect the type of requests that the Chief Building Official receives. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the exception process applies both to residential and commercial areas. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the ordinance. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. SummerHill Senior Vice President Elaine Breeze stated that she reached out to staff after the agenda packet was published regarding the need to have clear language about what activities would not be allowed at 7 a.m. She noted that SummerHill's project on Adrian Court would be the first residential project in the Rollins Road Mixed Use area. She explained that residents would have a disclosure notice about construction and loud activities that are a part of living in a commercial area. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Mayor Beach asked if her colleagues had thoughts or support for requiring more specificity about what activity won't be allowed at 7 a.m. in commercial districts. 5 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Colson stated that her inclination is always to go with more specificity. She noted that projects can take years, and if staff turns over, it is important to have consistency with what is allowed and what is not allowed. Therefore, she thought it should be spelled out in the Code. Councilmember Ortiz stated that if the Council gets overly prescriptive and lists everything, then it is difficult for staff to use discretion. He noted that he didn't remember hearing a lot of complaints except for the pile driving at Burlingame Point when it comes to construction noise. He explained that he wanted to make sure some discretion was left to staff. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought specification should be added to the ordinance. She discussed how the commercial areas would have more building over time, and therefore the City could hear more complaints. She added that it would help developers to know exactly what is and isn't allowed at 7 a.m. She stated that the specifications could be written in a way to allow staff some discretion. Councilmember Colson concurred with the Vice Mayor. Mayor Beach stated that she was leaning towards more specificity. Councilmember Colson suggested amending the proposed ordinance to call out the specifics that the Vice Mayor stated of not allowing pile -driving, jack -hammering, and other loud activities. She noted that the important part of the proposed ordinance was the change from an 8 a.m. start time on weekdays in commercial areas to 7 a.m. She explained that this would allow people to commute in and keep Burlingame competitive. Mayor Beach asked if amending the proposed ordinance would require the ordinance to be re -introduced. Assistant City Attorney Spansail replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the Assistant City Attorney's point that listing every activity could lead to a lack of discretion for staff. He suggested listing pile -driving, jack -hammering, and then stating "and any other excessively loud activity". He thought this would give staff discretion. Assistant City Attorney Spansail stated that staff would work on the language to be specific and allow staff discretion. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought it depended on what is added. She noted that there might be three to five things that need to be listed that are not allowed at the 7 a.m. hour. She explained that she was not expecting a long, detailed list. Councilmember Colson stated that she was okay with the interior construction portion of the proposed ordinance. This portion of the proposed ordinance would allow work to take place outside of construction hours within fully enclosed buildings as it would have little impact on residents and would allow builders to finish a project in a more expedient manner. Councilmember Colson discussed a project in the Downtown Area. She noted that it is in a mixed -use area and wondered if an 8 a.m. start time would be an issue. CDD Gardiner stated that the City used to have a 7 a.m. start time citywide. However, due to complaints from residents, the City amended the start time to 8 6 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes a.m. He noted that the Downtown project does have some residential neighbors within a block or two, while the commercial zone's closest neighbors are .25 to .50 miles away. CBO Caro stated that staff could amend the ordinance to state that anything that requires a compressor to operate would not be allowed during the 7 a.m. hour. Mayor Beach asked her colleagues if there was consensus to bring the proposed ordinance back with amendments to list specifications of what is not allowed during the 7 a.m. hour. The Council agreed, b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REMOVE AN EXEMPTION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FROM THE BURLINGAME MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE City Attorney Kane stated that the Council recently adopted a minimum wage ordinance. She explained that during the Council's discussion, it was brought out that the model ordinances that the City's ordinance was based on included an exemption for certain collective bargaining agreements. She stated that Council directed staff to remove this exemption. She explained that Council determined that the best course of action was to adopt the minimum wage ordinance and bring back an amendment to remove the exemption for collective bargaining agreements. She noted that if adopted, this proposed ordinance would be effective prior to January 1, 2021 when the City's minimum wage ordinance would be effective. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the ordinance. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to bring the ordinance back for adoption; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10 STAFF REPORTS a. DISCUSSION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION BUSINESSES CDD Gardiner stated that in 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance that added regulations to the Code regarding cannabis. The City's ordinance, in compliance with State law, allows for the indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants. He explained that the City's ordinance prohibits commercial cannabis activities. He stated that the ordinance specifically prohibits the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, wholesale, and retail distribution of cannabis. CDD Gardiner stated that recently staff was approached by a business interested in establishing a cannabis sales and delivery facility in Burlingame. Allowing such a business to operate in Burlingame would require 7 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes an amendment to the City's cannabis ordinance. He explained that a sales and delivery operation would most typically be located in an industrial area and would not include a retail storefront. He stated that the facility would process sales, which would then be delivered to customers in Burlingame and neighboring cities. He added that it is currently legal to make deliveries to residents in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner stated that while this facility would not have a public facing retail component, there would be sales transactions, and those would be subject to ordinary sales tax. He explained that the City could put a cannabis tax on the ballot for voter approval. This tax would be on top of the regular sales tax. CDD Gardiner stated that if the Council chooses to consider allowing cannabis sales and delivery operations, it could consider limiting the number and location of operations. He explained that Redwood City has limited facility permits to six, and Mountain View limited it to three permits. He stated that staff could research regulations from other jurisdictions and identify potential approaches that would address community concerns and objectives. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the staff report doesn't specify where in Burlingame these facilities would be allowed. She noted that she wouldn't want to see these facilities in the Downtown Area but would be okay with them on the Bayfront. She added that she would like to get crime statistics from the cities that have allowed these facilities and find out what security measures were put in place. She stated that she had questions about how many trucks would be used, high volume hours, and what Brisbane's experience has been. CDD Gardiner stated that staff would look into the Vice Mayor's questions. Mayor Beach asked if the City would have any additional liability if Council allowed these facilities in Burlingame since cannabis remains illegal at the Federal level. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She explained that the City is not partnering with the use and is instead permitting it. She stated that she believed any Federal actions that were taken would be directed at the State level versus at specific municipalities. Mayor Beach asked if the City could incur liability if the voters approved a cannabis tax. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She explained that what is illegal under the Federal law is the behavior related to sale and possession of cannabis itself and not the governmental function of taxing and providing general City services. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Eaze's Senior Governmental Affairs Manager Rashad Johnson began by discussing Eaze's background. He explained that Eaze is a web -based cannabis delivery company that has been operating since 2014. He reviewed the process by which customers pick out products for delivery. He noted that the company had to obtain a State license and must abide by the State's rigorous regulations of cannabis sale and delivery. He stated that deliveries are done in unmarked vehicles and that there have been zero incidents in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson discussed the potential for the City to implement a cannabis tax. He explained that the tax would likely be 5% in order to ensure that customers still preferred to obtain their products via Eaze, or a similar company, instead of illegally. He stated that Eaze estimates that if the City implemented a cannabis tax it would collect approximately $1 million in the first year from Eaze. 8 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Eaze had a problem with being limited to a certain industrial area to keep their business more remote from schools and businesses. Mr. Johnson replied in the negative. He discussed the State's requirements for buffer zones around areas like parks and schools. He stated that Eaze prefers to be in industrial zones because there is more parking for their drivers and to keep their business discreet Councilmember Brownrigg asked if he was correct that Eaze already delivers to Burlingame. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. He noted that their company typically uses vehicles for deliveries and not trucks. Councilmember Colson explained that if the City amended the Code to allow these facilities, the Council would probably want to cap the number of facilities that would be allowed. She asked if Mr. Johnson had any thought as to the number of facilities that the City should allow. Mr. Johnson noted that Mountain View capped it at three, and Redwood City capped it at six. Councilmember Colson asked how many deliveries Eaze is making in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson stated that in 2019, Eaze made 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame. He added that if Eaze had a facility in Burlingame, they would be making 250,000 deliveries a year on the Peninsula. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked Mr. Johnson to discuss security measures that Eaze implements at their facility. Mr. Johnson stated that there are a lot of State regulations as to the number of cameras, the need for roll -up doors, and 24-hour security. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked about signage on the building. Mr. Johnson stated that there is no signage on the building. He added that the public wouldn't know if they were repairing a car engine or selling cannabis in the building. He discussed the discretion they use when selling cannabis. Mayor Beach asked Mr. Johnson to discuss the different taxes that the City could receive if Council approves allowing these facilities in the city. Mr. Johnson stated that under State law, there is a sales tax on every order, and then the additional transaction fee would be a City cannabis sales tax. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the City is currently receiving sales tax off the 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that the only other potential tax revenue the City could get from these facilities would be if the voters approved a cannabis tax. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. He explained that then the City would collect taxes on the estimate 250,000 deliveries that Eaze predicts it will do by operating a facility in Burlingame. Mayor Beach asked how many cities that have allowed these facilities have a cannabis tax. Mr. Johnson replied that he believed that all of them have a cannabis tax. San Mateo County Health Department representative Edith Cabuslay discussed the assessment that her organization conducted on cannabis delivery in San Mateo County. She noted that several concerns were raised including ensuring that the customer is at least 21 years old and who's responsible when products are delivered to underage individuals. 9 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes Mr. Johnson stated that to even look at the products that Eaze offers on their website, you have to enter your driver's license information to confirm that you are at least 21. He added that then when the driver is delivering the product, they have to first scan the individual's license prior to handing over the product. He noted that if an operator was to give an underage individual cannabis, it would be the operator's fault. He added that he understands Ms. Cabuslay's concerns. However, he explained that Eaze takes care to ensure that their delivery staff understand the requirements. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz stated that when the Council discussed legislating cannabis a few years ago, he was adamantly against allowing facilities in the city. However, he explained that he believed the Council now needed to explore this issue. He noted that he thought it would be important for the City to not allow a retail store front and for the facilities to be restricted to industrial areas. Mayor Beach asked Police Chief Matteucci if he had any thoughts on this topic. Chief Matteucci stated that he reached out to other cities that allow similar facilities. He noted that they didn't report any real problems with the facilities. He added that he would want to make sure the facility has proper security. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the question before the Council was whether to permit delivery from a central location in Burlingame to the entire Peninsula. He explained that in an era of COVID, he would be further inclined to move forward with this proposal. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that would like staff to further research this issue. She added that her main concern was security and that she wanted to see Chief Matteucci's questions answered. Councilmember Colson stated that she was willing to consider amending the City's cannabis ordinance. Mayor Beach echoed her colleagues and thought it was important to further explore this issue. She added that she would like to discuss a cannabis tax. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. COUNCILMEMBER BROWNRIGG'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 10 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting thinking of those impacted by the Washington Park tree accident at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 11 Burlingame City Council October 5, 2020 Approved Minutes