Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2021.09.20CITY O BURLINGAME coo � 90 $AarEo � xE � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on September 20, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:03 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by City Manager Goldman. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 PROPERTY: 250 ANZA BOULEVARD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SPANSAIL, KAREN MURPHY FROM BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN NEGOTIATING PARTIES: CITY OF BURLINGAME; TOPGOLF USA BURLINGAME, LLC UNDER NEGOTIATIONS: PRICE AND TERMS OF REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS City Attorney Guina stated that the City Council met in closed session on August 31, 2021 and that direction was given, but there was no reportable action. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor O'Brien Keighran reviewed upcoming events in the city. Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes 6. PRESENTATIONS a. CELEBRATION OF BURLINGAME PANTHERS BYBA TEAM Mayor O'Brien Keighran congratulated the 11 members of the Burlingame Panthers BYBA team on their success playing at Cooperstown Dream Park and reaching the Championship game. She noted that the 12 year old boys team won championships in Pleasant Hill, San Bruno, and Burlingame. Mayor O'Brien Keighran presented each of the players with a certificate for their accomplishment. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Coach Gary thanked the City for recognizing the hard work of the team and their accomplishments. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg congratulated the team and the coaches for their hard work and success at Cooperstown. Congratulations to the team! b. RECOGNIZING NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH AND LATINX HERITAGE MONTH Vice Mayor Ortiz read the proclamation recognizing September 15, 2021 through October 15, 2021 as National Hispanic Heritage Month and Latinx Heritage Month. c. PRESENTATION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 1383, SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS; ORGANIC WASTE METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Sustainability Coordinator Michael introduced Tracy Webb from CalRecycle to give an overview of SB 1383. Ms. Webb stated that organic waste comprises half of California's waste stream with a breakdown of- * Food waste — 13 % • Paper — 14% • Green waste — 7% • Wood waste — 9% • Other organics — 9% She noted that while food waste comprises 13% of the State's waste, one in five children go hungry. She added that California throws away more than six million tons of food waste every year. 2 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Ms. Webb stated that SB 1383 was passed in 2016 as part of California's larger strategy to combat climate change. She explained that the law was designed to reduce global warming and super pollutants like methane. She noted that methane is 84% more potent than carbon dioxide. Ms. Webb reviewed the requirements of SB 1383: • 50% reduction in landfilled organic waste by 2020 • 75% reduction in landfilled organic waste by 2025 • 20% recovery of currently disposed edible food for human consumption Ms. Webb noted that organic waste is defined broadly in the regulations and includes food waste, paper, cardboard, green waste, organic textiles, carpets, and lumber. She explained that CalRecycle collaborated with other stakeholders over the past 3.5 years to complete the regulations that became final November 3, 2020. She noted that the regulations don't take effect until 2022. Ms. Webb discussed the benefits of successfully implementing the new statewide programs to reduce super pollutants including: • 27 million tons of organic waste not landfilled • Millions of meals to one in five individuals that are suffering from food insecurity in California • 15,000 new green jobs • 10,000 refuse trucks or 5,700 buses powered by renewable fuels Ms. Webb next reviewed the key implementation dates of SB 1383: • January 1, 2022 — regulations take effect and state enforcement begins • January 1, 2024 — regulations require local governments to begin enforcement • January 1, 2025 — 75% reduction in organics disposal and 20% increase in edible food recovery Ms. Webb reviewed the responsibilities of individual jurisdictions: • Provide organics collection services to all residents and businesses • Establish edible food recovery program • Conduct education and outreach to the community • Procure recyclable and recovered organic products • Secure access to recycling and edible food recovery capacity • Monitor compliance and conduct enforcement Ms. Webb discussed the responsibility of jurisdictions to implement edible food recovery programs. She explained that inspection of Tier 1 entities, which includes wholesale food vendors, food service providers and food distributors, grocery stores, and supermarkets, begins in 2022. Inspection of Tier 2 entities, which includes restaurants, hotels with onsite food facilities, local education agencies, large venues and events, state agencies, and health facilities, begins in 2024. Ms. Webb reviewed CalRecycle's oversight that begins in 2022: • Authorize waivers • Oversee and monitor state agencies and facilities Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes • Oversee and monitor compliance • Handle violations Ms. Webb stated that CalRecycle is helping jurisdictions by creating templates for them to use including: • Franchise agreement • Mandatory organics disposal reduction ordinance • Procurement policy • Food recovery agreement Ms. Webb discussed the documents that Burlingame would be developing in preparation for SB 1383's implementation: • SB 1383 ordinance • Reviewing an agreement with RehinkWaste to implement SB 1383 on behalf of the City • Reviewing an agreement with the County of San Mateo's Office of Sustainability to implement an edible food recovery program • Researching the SB 1383 recovered organic materials targets Councilmember Colson asked if most cities were able to handle the compliance work with their existing staff, or are cities needing to retain additional consultants and staff. CalRecycle representative Cara Morgan stated that it varies across the state. South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA/RethinkWaste) representative TJ Carter discussed how their organization is planning for the implementation of SB 1383 on behalf of their member agencies. Mr. Carter explained that under SB 1383, jurisdictions are ultimately responsible for compliance. He noted that jurisdictions may delegate to public or private entity(ies) for assistance. However, the authority to impose civil penalties can only be delegated to public agencies. Mr. Carter stated that to implement SB 1383, it is expected that RethinkWaste, San Mateo County Office of Sustainability, Recology, and other contractors will have responsibilities under SB 1383. He noted that RethinkWaste's compliance approach includes: • 3-container system provided to all customers (recycling, compost, and landfill) • Limited waivers Mr. Carter stated that RethinkWaste has developed a model ordinance for jurisdictions to customize and adopt. He noted that they will also provide technical assistance. He stated that it is the job of the individual cities to adopt and amend their ordinances and policies to bring them into compliance with SB 1383. 4 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Mr. Carter reviewed the responsibilities of the individual cities and RethinkWaste when it comes to enforcement of SB 1383: Entity Responsibility RethinkWaste • Conduct education and outreach • Identify and educate non -compliant entities • Report non -compliant entities to jurisdictions City . Adopt enforcement ordinance • Issue notice of violations and assess penalties for non -compliant entities • Hire more staff if needed for enforcement Mr. Cater reviewed the responsibilities of the individual cities and RethinkWaste when it comes to procurement for SB 1383: Entity Responsibility RethinkWaste • Research options with San Mateo County Office of Sustainability • Coordinate compost and mulch distribution with member agencies, if materials are part of the compliance approach City • Coordinate with San Mateo County Office of Sustainability • Support implementation of selected procurement program, which may involve use, sale, or donation of compost/mulch and/or support use of electricity or renewable natural gas • Purchase recycled -content paper to meet SB 1383 specs • Maintain records for above programs 5 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Mr. Carter next reviewed the responsibilities of the individual cities and RethinkWaste when it comes to Recology services: Entity Responsibility RethinkWaste • Work with Recology to provide SB 1383 compliant collection services • Negotiate changes to collection and processing agreements • Negotiate cost structure for new services • Provide waivers to eligible generators City • Review Amendment 2 of Franchise Agreement Mr. Carter stated that the County Office of Sustainability has offered to take the lead on the edible food recovery program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the county. He noted that the individual jurisdictions will have to adopt a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Sustainability for these services. He added that RethinkWaste will support the County with food recovery program outreach and education. Mr. Carter stated that RethinkWaste has hired additional staff and contractors to help with the project. He noted that they will take a lead on maintaining recordkeeping and reporting. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that SBWMA has tried to get ahead of this item by taking organics out of the waste stream. He explained that SBWMA has put in place machinery that can convert the organic waste into a material that can be turned into bioenergy. He noted that one of the organizations that can use the bioenergy is limited by the California Energy Resources Board. He asked if CalRecycle can help them break through that logjam. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that being part of a JPA with ten other member agencies means the cities can share some of the overhead. However, he noted that SB 1383 is very burdensome. He explained that having three bins for every business means a lot more bins in the downtown district and at multi -family dwellings, which puts a lot more trucks on the road. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City has the staff to undertake implementation of SB 1383. Sustainability Coordinator Michael replied in the affirmative. Mayor O'Brien Keighran questioned where all the bins would be put outside of businesses. Additionally, she discussed the complaints she receives about garbage pick-up at multi -family dwellings. She asked if the new regulations would increase the pick-up routines. She also discussed the amount of outreach that RethinkWaste would need to undertake for a successful implementation of SB 1383. RethinkWaste Executive Director Joe La Mariana stated that compliance with SB 1383 is a big lift. He noted that they have estimated a 3% to 7% increase in costs to handle the required three bins. 6 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Mr. La Mariana stated that there are three different waivers that can be granted when it comes to bins. He noted that one of the waivers is if there are space limitations. He added that verification of space limitations is done on an on -going basis every five years. Mr. La Mariana stated that they will hold several public outreach meetings and inviting the local businesses to attend. He added that RethinkWaste will work with their partners to communicate with commercial members. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that it would be helpful to send the workshop information to the City so that it could be put in the City's eNews. Mr. La Mariana replied in the affirmative. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the extra cost burden is going to get passed down to the local jurisdictions. He noted that it will be something that the Council would need to discuss at a later date. Councilmember Beach thanked CalRecycle and RethinkWaste for the presentation. She voiced concern about the cost of implementing SB 1383. She noted that there is a bill on the Governor's desk that would help fund the implementation of SB 1383, but that it would take billions to implement. Councilmember Beach stated that she hoped the State was thinking about how they can help cities and counties with the implementation of SB 1383. Mayor O'Brien Keighran thanked staff, CalRecycle, and RethinkWaste for the presentation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Sandra Lang encouraged the Council to review home hardening, a technique for wildfire prevention. She added that she would like to see some relief for homeowners and renters incorporated into City policies. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if anyone on Council or members of the public would like to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. No item was removed. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Colson. Councilmember Brownrigg commented on the motion. He stated that regarding item 8g, the Burlingame Police Department is already ahead of the curve and has adopted the practices discussed in the grand jury report. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 7 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes a. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.39 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW OFF -PREMISES MASSAGE BUSINESSES (CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378,15061(B)(3)) ACA Spansail requested that the Council adopt Ordinance 1997. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2020 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM BY GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 85960 DPW Murtuza requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 114-2021. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADDITION OF ONE NEW FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT ADMINSTRATIVE ASSISTANT I POSITION IN THE BUILDING DIVISION CDD Gardiner requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 115-2021. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 116-2021. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Finance Director Yu -Scott requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 117-2021. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR SUPPORT CONTRACT WITH PACKET FUSION, INC. FOR SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SHORETEL/MITEL VOICE-OVER-INTERNET- PROTOCOL TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,542.55 Finance Director Yu -Scott requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 118-2021. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "BUILDING GREATER TRUST BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY & LAW ENFORCEMENT VIA THE RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT" Police Chief Matteucci requested that Council adopt Resolution Number 119-2021. 8 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR SEWER RATE ADOPTION (CEOA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURUSANT TO STATE CEOA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378,15601(B)(3)) DPW Murtuza stated that the purpose of this item is to modify the procedures to change sewer rates in order to make them consistent with the procedures for changing water rates. He explained that while sewer rates are changed by ordinance, water rates are changed by resolution. He stated that in both cases, the Council holds public hearings to adopt new rates. DPW Murtuza stated pursuant to the proposed ordinance, sewer rates will be changed by resolution. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel - Shearer read the title. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that this public hearing was for the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District assessments. She explained that approximately $90,000 in assessments are collected annually from businesses within the district. She added that the funds are forwarded to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. Finance Director Yu -Scott asked the City Clerk if any businesses had filed protests. City Clerk Hassel - Shearer replied in the negative. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that therefore staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution for the assessment, since a majority protest wasn't reach. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 120-2021; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 9 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Transportation Program Manager Lisha Mai stated that California Drive is the city's major north -south commuter corridor. She noted that it is recognized in the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a high - priority project. She explained that for tonight, staff was focused on California Drive between Broadway and Oak Grove and on extending the Class Two Bikeway north of Broadway. She added that the City aims to enhance the connection across the city by improving the safety and comfort for all people to bike on California Drive. Ms. Mai reviewed staff s work on this project: • December 2020 — Award of $800,000 SMCTA Measure A/W Grant • June 2021 — Community Online Survey • June 2021 — Discussion at Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission • August 2021 — Discussion at Community Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee • August 2021 — Update to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission • September 2021 — Discussion at the City Council • Summer 2022 — Project Advertisement Ms. Mai introduced Aaron Silva from Mark Thomas, the design consultant for the California Drive Bicycle Facility design. Mr. Silva explained that during the development of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, a survey was created to obtain feedback. He stated that the survey showed that a protected bike plan was preferred for California Drive. Mr. Silva reviewed the project goals: • Improve safety and comfort for bicyclists • Improve signal timing • Improve Broadway intersection for bicyclists • Coordinate with Caltrain Grade Separation Project • Align with future bikeways south of Oak Grove Avenue Mr. Silva stated that one of the first steps of the project was to conduct a traffic analysis to determine if a lane reduction would be a viable option. He reviewed a table that shows the before and after delays at the different intersections along the corridor. He noted that the results were promising as there were no significant delays. Mr. Silva stated that based on this study, his company designed two alternatives for the Council and community to consider: 10 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Alternative A (One-way Class IV Bikeway) The benefits of this alternative include: • Traffic calming • Separated bikeways leading to an increase in comfort and safety • Bicycle facility adjacent to businesses The impacts of this alternative include: • Parking loss near driveways and intersections (approximately 35 spots) • Narrow vehicle lanes • More conflict points with vehicle lanes Alternative B (Two-way Class IV Bikeway) The benefits of this alternative include: • Traffic calming • Separated bikeways leading to an increase in comfort and safety • No conflict points with vehicles • Consistent with future corridor plans The impacts of this alternative include: • Potential existing parking loss on the east side (15 spots) Mr. Silva noted that both Alternatives A and B include a reduction of vehicle travel lanes from four (two northbound and two southbound direction) to three vehicle travel lanes (one lane each direction, with a center turn lane). He explained that the lane reduction is supported by a traffic operations analysis that evaluated the level of service, delay, and queuing at four intersections along the project corridor. He added that the lane reduction, also referred to as a "road diet", was envisioned in the City of Burlingame's Envision Burlingame General Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Silva discussed the online survey that ran for three weeks and received 185 responses. He reviewed the questions that they asked on the survey. He noted that 52% of the people preferred Alternative B. Mr. Silva stated that after receiving that feedback, they presented the alternatives to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. He explained that they were asked to add a little more detail to highlight some of the intersection treatments, how transitions would be handled, and provide more details at street crossings. He added that the Commissioners expressed concerns with bicyclists switching back and forth between the existing one-way bike route and the proposed two-way cycle track (Alternative B), as well as concerns related to access at intersections. Mr. Silva walked through the detail of Alternative B as if he was a cyclist. He also showed depictions of what a two-way class four bikeway would look like. (All images and information can be found in the 11 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes presentation attached to the staff report). He discussed the implementation of flashing beacons at crosswalks to assist cyclists and pedestrians. Modified Version of Alternative B Mr. Silva explained that through the development of Alternative B, they undertook a parking study to see if parking on the east side of California Drive could be removed. He stated that the preliminary results of that report show that there are adequate openings for parking within the adjacent streets. He noted that as a result of that additional space, there is an opportunity to include along with a cycle track on the east side, a southbound buffered bikeway down California Drive. He reviewed the tradeoffs of removing parking on the east side of California Drive: • Removal of 90 parking spaces • Parking protection removed from east side bikeway • Reduced parking on west side of California at driveways • Potential conflicts with Broadway Grade Separation project • Reduced pedestrian refuge area Therefore, under the modified version of Alternative B, there would be both the bike lane on the east side and a southbound buffered bikeway. Mr. Silva noted that once the Broadway Grade Separation Project is underway, they would need to modify the bike lane near Broadway. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if she was hearing correctly that the modified version of Alternative B would conflict with the Broadway Grade Separation. Mr. Silva explained that under the modified version of Alternative B, once the Broadway Grade Separation is undertaken, the bikeway would be reconstructed into a class one bike path in that area. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked where the eliminated parking spaces are located under the modified version of Alternative B. Mr. Silva explained that there is red curb on each side of the driveways on that stretch of California Drive. He noted that this would decrease parking. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the red curbing would be done all the way along the project. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked about the impact of the Broadway Grade Separation on Alternative B and the modified version of Alternative B. She stated that after talking with DPW Murtuza, her understanding is that the effect would be the same for both. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she watched the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meeting, and there was an interesting discussion about parking on the west side. She asked if she was correct that the businesses located in that area generally have onsite parking. Mr. Silva responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the plans to create two southbound turn lanes from Broadway onto California Drive as part of the Broadway Grade Separation. He asked if these lanes would prevent the 12 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Council from creating a road diet on California Drive. Mr. Silvia replied in the negative. He explained that immediately after the cars turn onto California Drive, the lanes would merge into a single lane. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it was necessary to have two lanes turning left from Broadway onto California Drive. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He explained that this is due to the queuing of cars coming off Highway 101. Mr. Silva discussed the feedback that they received from the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission in August 2021: • Consider No -Right -Turn -On -Red restrictions at Carmelita Avenue • Evaluate additional treatments for the northbound thru-bike lane between Broadway and Canmelita Avenue • Consider leading pedestrian/bike intervals at existing traffic signals • Consider pedestrian refuge where possible Mr. Silva reviewed the feedback that they received from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee in August 2021: • Support southbound buffered bike lane • Provide additional treatments for the northbound thru-bike lane between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue • Provide access to and from cycle track at all intersections • Consider leading pedestrian/bike intervals at existing traffic signals • Design must consider existing storm drainage grates and interactions at bus stops He added that BPAC supported the modified version of Alternative B. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the potential elimination of 90 parking spots was under the modified version of Alternative B. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. He stated that the 90 parking spots lost pertains to the removal of parking on the east side. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that the total number of parking spaces that would be lost under the modified version of Alternative B is 120. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how wide El Camino Real is. DPW Murtuza stated that he didn't remember the exact number but believed it was 52 feet wide. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed it is 44 feet wide and that each lane is 11 feet wide. He explained that he was trying to judge the different widths that the alternatives would create on California Drive. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he shared the concerns of BPAC regarding cyclists going southbound who don't want to cross over California to complete their route. He explained that he thought it was important to map out the ways in which cyclists would travel on these lanes. 13 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Councilmember Beach asked about a BPAC comment that discussed additional parking being added under the modified version of Alternative B that currently doesn't exist. Ms. Mai stated that BPAC's comment refers to parking spaces closer to Broadway. Councilmember Beach asked if it was studied whether the City could handle the removal of the parking spaces on the east side under the modified version of Alternative B. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. He stated that an occupancy study was done during the mid -week and weekend to survey the parking situation in the area. He noted that it was determined that there would still be available space for parking. Councilmember Colson stated that currently the City can accommodate parking under the modified version of Alternative B. However, she wanted the Council to consider the recent passage of housing legislation that would create increased density and homeowners' ability to build ADUs. She noted that the City may soon see a greater need for parking. Therefore, she wasn't sure that it was wise to remove the 90 parking spaces under the modified version of Alternative B. Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson. She stated that at a recent Planning Commission meeting, there was a discussion that businesses didn't have enough parking. Therefore, she was concerned that there might not be enough parking on California Drive. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Manito Velasco discussed the potential impacts that this project could have to allow for greater bike access. However, he voiced concerns about the two designs as he didn't believe they promoted safe driving and cycling. (Comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ag me.org). BPAC representative Leslie Beatty stated that ultimately, they supported the modified version of Alternative B. However, she noted that she was concerned about the door zone bike lane. She added that BPAC agreed that a southbound bike lane is necessary. Lastly, she suggested mapping out the routes that the bicyclists would use. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why Alternative A isn't the best option. Ms. Beatty stated that they didn't like that the bike lane was behind the parking spaces. She discussed how this is problematic when there is a lot of side streets and driveways for cyclists. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Beach stated that whatever the Council decides, the fact that improvements are going to be made to California Drive for cyclists is great. She noted that this is the most dangerous stretch for cyclists in the City. Therefore, this is an important project. She added that she would like to see California Drive be repaved. Councilmember Beach stated that she liked the two-way protected class four bikeway. She added that she liked reducing the lane sizes for traffic calming. However, she voiced concern for cyclists that are going southbound and want to continue on California Drive. She explained that the project focuses on a .6 mile 14 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes stretch of California Drive. She noted that she rode it several times prior to the meeting to better understand the concerns. She stated that it is a lot to ask a commuter cycling southbound to cross at Broadway or Carmelita, and then wait for a signal and cross back at Oak Grove. Therefore, she felt it was important to have a lane that prevents the need to cross over California Drive. Councilmember Beach stated that she would be open to removing further parking in order to make it safe. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that this was a tough issue. He explained that the modified version of Alternative B creates two southbound bike lanes by eliminating 90 parking spaces. He noted that he has had trouble parking on California Drive and therefore was concerned about the removal of the spaces. He stated that he wanted to see the bike lanes extend past Broadway. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he found this decision difficult. He explained that it felt like the BPAC was not happy with the design options. Therefore, he was unsure why the City was approving a bike plan that the BPAC didn't like. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the City would need to get rid of parking on the west side. Mr. Silva stated that the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has minimum setback requirements. He explained that to meet the current standards, they would need to remove parking. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the two-lane track doesn't go beyond Oak Grove. Mr. Silva stated that the current funding is for the stretch between Oak Grove and Broadway. He noted that his organization has also been tasked with studying the feasibility of extending the lanes to the roundabout. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would find the designs more palatable if Vice Mayor Ortiz's vision for extending the bike lanes from BART to the Burlingame Train Station were realistic. DPW Murtuza stated that Councilmember Brownrigg raises a good point about what happens south of Oak Grove. He explained that staff has asked Mark Thomas to ensure that the design alternatives make it feasible to extend the lanes in the future to the roundabout. He added that the consultants have found it doable. Councilmember Colson stated that she concurred with the Vice Mayor and supported Alternative B. She discussed different options that cyclists have in order not to cross over California Drive. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she has gone back and forth on what option she thought was the best. She stated that she supports Alternative B. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she is concerned about the removal of parking on the west side because the neighborhoods aren't going to want the businesses parking in their neighborhoods. Additionally, she stated that the survey showed that the community favored Alternative B. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that given the detailed comments that the City received from BPAC, is staff refining the design in order to address those concerns. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. 15 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he will continue to bike southbound on the west side of the street and wanted to know what the practical implications would be for him and other cyclists that choose this route. DPW Murtuza stated that he believed the lanes would be more restrictive and make that route more difficult. Mr. Silva added that his recommendation would be to encourage cyclists to use the new lanes. Councilmember Beach stated that she has a few big concerns if the Council selects Alternative B over the modified version of Alternative B. She explained that by selecting Alternative B, she believed the Council wasn't listening to the cyclists about what they believed would be the safest and most convenient design. Additionally, she was concerned about asking cyclists to travel across California Drive in the .6 mile stretch. Lastly, she was concerned about utilizing the transportation grant money to add parking to California Drive. Councilmember Beach asked that part of the grant be used to repave California Drive. Additionally, she asked that the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission actively monitor future cycling accidents on the west side. Councilmember Colson made a motion to accept Alternative B; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-2 (Councilmember Beach and Councilmember Brownrigg voted against). Mayor O'Brien thanked staff and the consultants for the presentation. b. CONSIDERATION OF BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES CDD Gardiner stated that this item was requested as a future agenda item. (Stated in the staff report and to give context to the discussion: Over the past year, Planning Division staff has been approached by a number of prospective applicants interested in new development in the city s Bayfront area, east of Highway 101. The vast majority of proposals are for life science or office/research & development (R&D) projects. Development on the Bayfront involves a number of overlapping issues, including sea level rise resilience and protection, development standards, transportation, and community benefits. This item is intended to allow the City Council to provide policy direction on these matters, as development proposals and zoning regulations continue to be reviewed. " CDD Gardiner explained that under the General Plan, the Bayfront has two land use districts: 1. Bayfront Commercial ("BFC") — this designation provides opportunities for both local and tourist commercial uses. Permitted uses include entertainment establishments, restaurants, hotels and motels, retail, and higher -intensity office and research and development uses. Development in this area should prioritize public access to the waterfront; thus, the designation allows public open space and includes open space easements to implement local and regional trail plans, recreation, and habitat preservation objectives. The Bayfront Commercial designation provides a mix of uses, creating a welcoming environment for Burlingame residents and tourists alike to visit, shop, eat, bike and walk, and enjoy nature. 2. Innovation Industrial ("I/I") - this designation applies to the Inner Bayshore area on the west (inland) side of Old Bayshore Highway. This district functions as a light industrial and logistics 16 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes center, with complementary commercial businesses. Creative and design -related businesses are encouraged to diversify the mix. Permitted uses include commercial and light industrial uses, creative industry businesses, design businesses, limited indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses. Hospitality uses are allowed on properties fronting Old Bayshore Highway. CDD Gardiner discussed the issue of sea level rise protection on the Bayfront. He noted that during the study session, the Council discussed future financing mechanisms to protect the Bayfront against sea level rise. He explained that while it is important to discuss the financing mechanism for this task, it is also important to define the project. He showed a map of the different reaches on the Bayfront and explained that each reach has different options for sea level rise resiliency. CDD Gardiner noted that when staff receives applications for new projects on the Bayfront, they are often asked what they need to do to address sea level rise. He explained that the City has been coordinating with the countywide Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (now known as OneShoreline) on this matter. He noted that OneShoreline has done a lot of research on regulations cities can enact to help both the community and the developments. He reviewed depictions of different landscaping methods and elevation of buildings that developments could undertake to prevent flooding. CDD Gardiner stated that the staff report also discusses public transportation needs on the Bayfront. He noted that Airport Boulevard and Old Bayshore Highway lend themselves to shuttles. He also discussed how close the Caltrain station is to the Bayfront. CDD Gardiner discussed implementing a community benefits program for the Bayfront. He explained that community benefits programs provide a way for cities and counties to derive greater benefit from the granting of planning entitlements that increase the value of private property than would be possible from conventional development review procedures. He noted that traditionally, community benefits are physical elements such as affordable housing. However, he noted that community benefits could also include childcare and recreational programs. CDD Gardiner stated that the City Council can prioritize community benefits on a periodic basis. He explained that ideally, community benefits should have the greatest good to the Burlingame community. He added that a financial feasibility analysis may be completed by consultants to quantify the appropriate amount of each benefit. Councilmember Colson stated that page three of the staff report discusses the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (`BRIC") grant. She discussed the $500,000 grant amount that would be utilized to collect data and undertake outreach. Councilmember Colson stated that page four of the staff report discusses OneShoreline's suggestions for a series of standards to address sea level rise including finished floor elevations. She explained that the current Special Flood Hazard Area ("SFHA") elevation is ten feet, but Burlingame requires an additional foot of elevation. However, she noted that the recommendation goes beyond that and suggests 13 feet in order to future proof the regulations. 17 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Councilmember Colson discussed the San Francisco Bay shoreline setback. She explained it is a setback for flood protection infrastructure. She stated that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (`BCDC") requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the shoreline. Therefore, while development can occur within the 100 feet, the developer has to work with BCDC, which has stringent requirements. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that if part of a building needed to be within the 100 foot setback, BCDC might be flexible. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked all the community benefits that were mentioned in the report. She noted that she liked the idea of having a Transportation Demand Management study ("TDM") done collaboratively amongst the new development projects on the Bayfront. She noted that many of the businesses might have different peak hours. She asked how this would be studied. CDD Gardiner stated that they are working with Commute.org on this issue. Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed the category of "significant community benefits" on page 8 of the staff report. She explained that she didn't understand the last part of that section that states: "additional funding for City programs such as contribution to a local facade improvement program, or subsidy for existing commercial tenants or other local small businesses." CDD Gardiner gave the example of a small business that is being priced out, and there might be a desire to retain the local business. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if BCDC's 100-foot setback applies to Anza Lagoon. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that when he thinks about the Bayfront, there is a large amount of open space on top of the 100-foot setback. Therefore, he was less concerned with asking developers on the Bayfront to make sure there is public space as a community benefit. Instead, he stated that he thought the Council should prioritize some of the other benefits. He discussed the impact fees that the City will receive from developments on the Bayfront. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Council needed to think about a levee for the Bayfront holistically instead of being piecemealed by different developments. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that when the City does build the wall, it needs to be future proofed. He added that when the City thinks about community benefits there are some that don't need to be provided to everybody. He gave the example that while the City needs additional childcare, they don't need every developer to choose childcare. He discussed the need to get a diversity of benefits. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Woodstock Development President Kirk Syme stated that they are contemplating further development of their property on the Bayfront. He thanked staff for introducing the discussion of sea level rise and agreed that addressing the challenge is a regional issue. 18 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Karen Pace, Dayna Chung, and Liz Scully all stated that they supported including childcare as a community benefit on the Bayfront. (comments submitted via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org). Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Colson thanked the childcare representatives that wrote in about the need for more facilities in Burlingame. She stated that she thought the staff report outlined some good community benefits. Councilmember Colson discussed that another way the City would be funding the infrastructure to prevent sea level rise is private sector investment. She noted that when a project goes through the Planning Commission for approval, landscaping is considered. She explained that this would be a way to protect properties against sea level rise. Councilmember Colson discussed the work that OneShoreline has been doing to combat sea level rise. Councilmember Beach discussed TDMs for the Bayfront and the work that is being done at Commute.org. She explained that there is recognition that cities need help monitoring TDMs, and she thought there would be some Countywide resources to help cities. She added that she appreciated the conversation in the staff report about shuttles on the Bayfront. Councilmember Beach stated that the City is trying to maintain a sustainable Bayfront. Therefore, she noted that she felt that new development plays a role in protecting against sea level rise but so do existing developments. She added that she would like to see Bay Trail improvements. She discussed other community benefits such as zero net energy and net zero water. She stated that she thought the Council should explore additional community benefits including: • Funding for the Broadway Grade Separation • Childcare • Incentives to create a sustainable workforce such as providing healthcare and an apprenticeship program. OneShoreline representative Len Materman stated that while not all properties will look the same along the shoreline, it is important to make sure that the top of the levee is uniform. He noted that this is one of the benefits of OneShoreline working with Burlingame, Millbrae, and SFO. He stated that it is important that the zoning ordinances contain elevations based on science that are also flexible. Mr. Materman stated that beginning next year, they will design the project and provide CEQA coverage utilizing the funds that they have been awarded. Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Mr. Materman and stated that consistency across the region is important. 19 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that every time the Economic Development Subcommittee meets, the hoteliers are begging the City to make the Bayfront more attractive. He noted that they want to see the Bay Trail completed. He added that there is a lot of room for bike infrastructure on Old Bayshore Highway. Vice Mayor Ortiz concurred with Mayor O'Brien Keighran about the hours for the shuttles needing to be more flexible on the Bayfront. Councilmember Brownrigg concurred with Vice Mayor Ortiz. He thanked Mr. Materman for his efforts on sea level rise. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought opening the Bayfront up to life science and increased density is important to the City. He explained that he thought it would create additional revenue and property tax income for the City. CDD Gardiner stated a draft of the zoning code would be going to the Planning Commission in October and to the City Council in November. Mayor O'Brien Keighran thanked everyone for their work on this item. c. DISCUSSION OF THE CITY'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR COUNCIL ELECTIONS City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that at the August 16, 2021 meeting, the Council was asked whether to amend the City's current campaign ordinance or go with the State law, AB 571. She noted that under AB 571, the FPPC would control the contribution limits for the City Council elections, administer the program, and undertake enforcement of the limits. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that at the August meeting, Council asked the City Clerk to bring the item back for future discussion. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer reviewed the questions that Council asked at the August meeting: 1. Can the City impose a cap on the total amount a candidate can raise? City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the answer was no because it would infringe on an individual's First Amendment rights. Instead, she stated that the City can impose a voluntary expenditure limit. She reviewed examples of how other cities had set up their voluntary expenditure limits. 2. Do other cities include escalators with their campaign contribution limits? City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the answer was yes. She stated that while most cities raise contribution limits based on the CPI, she would suggest utilizing a round number like $50. 3. Can the City ensure that the campaign contribution limits include in -kind donations? City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that in -kind contributions are included as they are regulated by State law. However, she noted that by referencing in -kind contributions and the California Code of Regulations in the City's ordinance, it would help to better inform and educate the public. 20 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes City Clerk Hassel -Shearer reviewed the different methods other cities use to enforce their campaign contribution limits including creating a commission, sending potential violations to their District Attorney, or basing the fine on the amount of the infraction. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer asked for Council direction on campaign contribution limits. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that his initial reaction to the discussion of whether to repeal the City's ordinance or amend it was that the State's contribution limit was too high for the City of Burlingame. However, he explained that since the August 16th meeting, he has further reviewed the issue and decided that the City should go with the State limit. He explained that it would save the City Clerk a lot of work and that campaign contributions are open for public review. Councilmember Colson stated that she focused on two sentences in the report regarding the City going with the State limit: "This would make the administration and enforcement of the contribution limits the responsibility of the FPPC at no cost to the City. It would therefore save staff time and create a separation between the City and the enforcement of the contribution limits." She noted that she liked the idea of separating the City Clerk's Office from the enforcement of the limits. She added that a vast majority of the cities in both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County have gone with the State limits. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was curious as to why Vice Mayor Ortiz changed his mind on this issue since the August 16 meeting. He noted that he believed that the State limit of $4,900 was too high for the City. He thought it made it so that one donor would have a greater impact on a candidate. He added that he thought it was better for politics to have more donors with small donations rather than a few donors with large donations. Councilmember Beach concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg. She noted that she didn't believe a single couple should be able to give $9,800 to a districted election race. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the vast majority of cities have gone with the State limit, and she noted that donations are open for public review. Therefore, she thought the City should repeal its ordinance and go with the State limit. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that for him it's about the transparency. He noted that all the campaign donations are open to the public. He added that he believed a candidate with a bunch of small donations is more compelling than a candidate with a few large donations. Councilmember Colson made a motion to have the City Clerk bring back an ordinance repealing the City's campaign contribution limits; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-2. (Councilmember Beach and Councilmember Brownrigg voted against). 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 21 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that Burlingame became Age Friendly certified by the AARP. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked for an update on the Enterprise project to be agendized. Council agreed to agendize it. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin ag me.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. in memory of Willy Ostertag and Barry Ongerth. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 22 Burlingame City Council September 20, 2021 Approved Minutes