Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.05.07 Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on May 7, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by the Youth Advisory Committee. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8) PROPERTY: 1200 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BURLINGAME, APN NO. 026-142-130 AGENCY NEGOTIATORS; SYED MURTUZA, CAROL AUGUSTINE, LISA GOLDMAN, KATHLEEN KANE NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND CITY OF BURLINGAME UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS City Attorney Kane stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. YAC PRESENTATION Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC). She explained that YAC is comprised of 13 teens from seventh to twelfth grade, all with the passion of giving back to their community. She introduced the members of YAC: Taylor Abbey, Jiana Ang, Tiana Carrol, Nicole Chan, Carina Husain, Aiden Mendoza, Diana Milne, Sophia Morales, Lauren Shannon, Kaia Stannard-Stockton, and Ethan Wan. YAC representatives discussed events they assisted with this past year including: Fall Fest, Holiday Helping Hands, Burlingame Muddy Mile, Royal Ball, Senior Valentine’s Dance, YAC Attack, and Streets Alive. Mayor Brownrigg thanked YAC for their hard work. He asked how YAC sets their agenda. Recreation Coordinator Rath explained that at the beginning of every school year, YAC has an initial planning meeting to discuss what events they want to take on. Vice Mayor Colson asked when students would be able to submit an application to join YAC. Recreation Coordinator Rath stated that openings would be announced in August. She explained that to join YAC, students must be in seventh to twelfth grade, a resident of Burlingame or attend a school in Burlingame, attend one meeting a month, and assist with various events during the year. Councilmember Beach stated that seeing YAC in action was impressive, as they make each event better. Councilmember Keighran asked if there are opportunities for YAC to talk about issues that they are concerned about in Burlingame. YAC representative Aiden Mendoza stated that at each of their monthly meetings there is time to discuss issues that arise. Recreation Coordinator Rath added that YAC invites speakers to attend their meetings and speak to the students about issues in the community. Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be great for Council to receive feedback from YAC on different projects in order to obtain the youth’s perspective. Councilmember Ortiz stated he would like to see a few of the Councilmembers attend a YAC meeting. The Council agreed. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 a. APPROVAL OF A LETTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE SUNSHARES 2018 PROGRAM Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council approve a letter authorizing the City’s participation in the Sunshares 2018 Program. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CATEGRAPH SYSTEMS LLC TO PROVIDE ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES FOR THE MAINTENANCE DIVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 53-2018. c. ADOPTION OFA RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 9, CITY PROJECT NO. 84780 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 54-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HVAC IMPROVEMENTS BY MARINA MECHANICAL, CITY PROJECT NO. 84330 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 55-2018. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE EL PORTAL 7 TROUSDALE CHANNEL REHABILITATION, PHASE 2, AND SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECTS DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 56-2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (SUMMERHILL HOMES AND BURLINGAME POINT) DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 57-2018. g. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 58-2018, Resolution Number 59-2018, and Resolution Number 60-2018. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 4, 2018; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2017-18 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 61-2018. i. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2018 Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve the Quarterly Investment Report, period ending March 31, 2018. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED TAX FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2018 BALLOT MEASURE City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 62-2018. k. MAYOR BROWNRIGG RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MAYORS PLEDGE AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS Mayor Brownrigg requested Council’s approval regarding the Mayors’ Pledge against illegal guns. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Brownrigg introduced this item by stating that the Council interviewed nine applicants on April 25, 2018. Councilmember Beach stated that last year she recused herself because of a connection she had with a candidate that applied and re-applied this year. She explained that while an economic connection existed between the candidate and herself last year, it no longer exists. Therefore, after discussing the matter with the City Attorney, she was informed that she could vote this year. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council voted and handed their ballots to the City Clerk. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the ballots. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 Mayor Brownrigg congratulated Will Loftis, Richard Terrones, and Audrey Tse on being appointed to the Planning Commission. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all applicants. b. UPDATE ON LIMEBIKE BIKE SHARING PILOT PROGRAM Sustainability Coordinator Michael gave an update on the LimeBike pilot program. In December 2017, the City agreed to a six month pilot program with LimeBike to initiate bike-sharing in the City. The pilot program was at no cost to the City and allowed LimeBike to use the City’s public right-of-way for parking bikes. She stated that the City’s goal was to provide the community with an alternative transportation option and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that in the past two months, LimeBike averaged 4,000 unique rides a month in Burlingame. She added that the electric bikes were the most popular option. Councilmember Ortiz asked why there was a spike in February of 5,670 unique rides. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that she believed this was due to free promos. Sustainability Coordinator Michael compared Burlingame’s numbers to Alameda and South San Francisco, two other cities using LimeBike. She explained that Burlingame’s numbers are comparable to the other cities. Next, she showed a heat map that highlighted the areas of town with the greatest number of rides. Sustainability Coordinator Michael reviewed the concerns some members of the public have with the program: bikes blocking pathways, cluttering streets, and kids not wearing helmets. She noted that the number of complaints has decreased since the program’s inception in January. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that South San Francisco is extending their pilot program for another six months. Alameda’s pilot program ended, and the City will be releasing an RFP this week, looking for a single operator. Additionally, she stated that LimeBike is undertaking pilot programs in San Mateo, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose, Walnut Creek, and Gilroy. Sustainability Coordinator Michael discussed LimeBike’s electric scooters. She reviewed the safety and public concerns that have been raised by their presence in Oakland and San Francisco. She noted that while the City has not approved of their addition to the pilot program, San Mateo has, and therefore they will end up in Burlingame. Sustainability Coordinator Michael recommended that the City extend the pilot program for another six months in order to collect a full year of data. She also recommended conducting a community survey and creating a bike sharing policy. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City would issue an RFP after the extension of the pilot program ends. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that the City could issue an RFP for a single operator like Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 Alameda. She noted that another option would be to follow San Francisco’s approach and allow for all operators to apply for permits to operate their business in the City. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is an increase of electric LimeBikes in Burlingame. LimeBike representative Alex replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that she thought the pilot program was working well. However, she voiced concern about bicycles blocking sidewalks. She asked that the pilot program include an educational component for students on proper bike etiquette and where to park bikes. Alex stated that LimeBike is creating videos about how to properly use the bike-sharing program and where to park bikes. Additionally, he stated LimeBike has been reaching out to schools to provide helmets and conduct educational events. Councilmember Beach stated that she received public feedback about residents’ frustration with LimeBike’s customer service. She asked that LimeBike share with the City the kinds of complaints they receive from residents and how they are responding. Alex responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that another comment she was hearing is that the bikes aren’t located in areas to help residents with the first mile of their commute. She asked if LimeBike was looking at usage and creating new hotspots for stocking purposes. Alex replied in the affirmative. He added that LimeBike retrieves bikes in neighborhoods to proactively combat complaints of bikes blocking sidewalks. However, he noted that they would look into additional locations. Councilmember Beach stated that she loved the idea of a community survey. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the feedback on the pilot project has been positive. He stated that he does have concerns about the electric scooters and didn’t want to see them in Burlingame at this time. Mayor Brownrigg asked if 4,000 rides a month in the City equates to success for LimeBike. Alex replied in the affirmative and added that the City has consistent usage. Mayor Brownrigg asked that LimeBike provide users with a message at the end of their rides, reminding them not to park on the sidewalk. Alex replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that after the pilot program ends, he would prefer a single operator for the City. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. A Burlingame resident asked how the City benefits from this pilot. Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that when the City was first looking at bike share programs, staff initially wanted a docking program. However, after reviewing San Mateo’s experience it was clear that the docking programs were more expensive. She stated that South San Francisco used LimeBike and based on their good reviews, staff chose this option for the pilot program. Mayor Brownrigg added that the City is not paying or being paid during the pilot program. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Beach asked about stocking LimeBikes at BART stations. Alex stated that LimeBike is in discussions with BART to identify locations at the stations. Councilmember Beach stated that she read articles that dock-less bike-sharing programs are starting to think about creative ways to incentivize parking in desirable locations. She asked if LimeBike was doing the same. Alex replied in the affirmative and stated that this was one of their top priorities. Vice Mayor Colson concurred with Councilmember Ortiz’s comments. She stated that she would like to receive statistics on community outreach events including helmets given away and education events. Additionally, she asked LimeBike to provide numbers at the end of the year concerning the City’s greenhouse gas reduction by using the bike-sharing program. She noted that she concurred with Mayor Brownrigg that if the City goes out for an RFP, they should follow the same model as Alameda. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to authorize the City Manager to extend the pilot program for six months with data reported back by request of the Council; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. REVIEW OF A USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME SERVICES; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2018-19 FISCAL YEAR; AND SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR JUNE 4, 2018 Finance Director Augustine stated that the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy was first brought to Council’s attention a few years ago after consultants undertook the Cost Allocation Plan and Cost Recovery Study. She explained that the intent of reviewing the policy and Master Fee Schedule was not to grow revenues but rather to lend some guidance to the establishment of fees. Mayor Brownrigg explained that the questions being considered were if the City provides a service should the individual pay for it, and if so, how much. Finance Director Augustine stated that there are three types of fees that are charged: 1) user fees –when the user receives all or some of the benefit including park/facility rental 2) regulatory fees – include planning review and permits 3) fines and penalties – not voluntary and are enacted to discourage illegal or undesirable activities She noted that user fees and regulatory fees are included in the Master Fee Schedule. Finance Director Augustine stated that the more the community as a whole benefits from a service, the more willing the City is to pay for those services out of the General Fund. She reviewed a list of things to consider when setting fees including: 1) user versus community-wide benefits; 2) effect of fees on service use; 3) feasibility of collection; 4) discounted rates; 5) cost allocation plan; and 6) making comparisons with other communities/private sector. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 Finance Director Augustine discussed the foundations of a good cost recovery policy. She explained that cost recovery should be based on the full cost of the service, including direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are the personnel and contracts associated with providing the service. Indirect costs include legal resources and use of the facility. She noted that the policy should be a living document that is periodically reviewed and updated. Additionally, the policy should include explanations of all the fees and factors considered. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the annual update to the Master Fee Schedule includes an annual review of costs associated with fees or does staff apply CPI to existing fees. Finance Director Augustine stated that staff applies CPI even though costs may have increased more than that. She added that a fee study is done every five to eight years to review the costs of all services. Councilmember Keighran asked about the storm water pollution prevention construction permit fee. She asked why the deposit has increased dramatically, while the fee has remained the same. DPW Murtuza stated staff noticed that after the permit is pulled, contractors are not following through with the requirement. Therefore, the deposit ensures that the work is being carried out. Councilmember Keighran asked about the doubling of the Planning noticing fees from $320 to $640 and the design review noticing fee from $445 to $890. CDD Meeker stated that this is because the City wasn’t capturing the double noticing requirement. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the potential ballot measure regarding fees. She asked how many of the City’s fees would be impacted by the passage of this measure. Finance Director Augustine stated that she needed to review the measure’s impact and noted that it would change from year to year. City Manager Goldman added that the measure would also limit future opportunities for jurisdictions to place taxes on the ballot. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fee covering the cost of inspecting industrial and commercial facilities for storm water discharge compliance. He explained that the County used to undertake this inspection but that recently the County cut this service. He asked if the City’s fee was comparable to what the County charged. DPW Murtuza stated that he would need to get back to Council with this information. He noted that the County’s fee didn’t cover the cost of inspections. Additionally, there were concerns from the Regional Water Board that the County’s inspections were inadequate. He explained that the City’s fee is based on the actual costs associated with the inspections. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the encroachment fee for sidewalk tables. He stated that staff was recommending increasing the fee from approximately $1200 to $1600. He explained that he wasn’t clear if this fee was by restaurant, by table, or by square foot. He noted that he believed that the community benefited from having sidewalk tables. DPW Murtuza stated that the encroachment fee covers the cost of inspections, reviewing layout, checking and clearing utilities, finalizing an agreement, and reviewing insurance. He added that while there is ongoing work (for example: code enforcement violations, meetings with the business, and annual insurance updates) related to encroachment permits, the City only charges a one-time fee. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed a lot of restaurants were scraping by and that the fee should not be increased. He stated his preference was for a more modest fee, and fines for those that don’t comply with the permit. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the annual cost to renew an encroachment permit. DPW Murtuza stated that it is a one-time fee, and while there are ongoing annual costs, the City doesn’t collect additional fees. Councilmember Beach stated that she previously brought up the same concerns. However, she was compelled by staff’s explanation of the different costs associated with this fee, that the fee is reasonable. She explained that because it is a one-time fee, businesses that are using the public right-of-way, for business purposes, are essentially getting an extension of their business for free. She noted that Council needed to be mindful of giving a benefit to some, when others don’t get the same benefit. Councilmember Keighran stated that it is a privilege for these businesses to be able to extend their business onto City property. Therefore, she believed that the fee was fair. She stated that on a future agenda she would like Council to address the issue of keeping Burlingame Avenue clean, as she was noticing that some businesses were not cleaning up in front of their stores. She explained that this results in the City needing to spend additional funds to keep Burlingame Avenue pristine. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked the idea of a penalty for businesses that don’t keep their portion of the sidewalk clean. He gave the example of a temporary suspension of a business’ encroachment permit. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would suggest that staff and Council think through this fee and what other ways it could be charged over the next year. He added that he didn’t support the fee increase. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring this item back for public hearing; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. UPDATE ON POST OFFICE PROJECT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT REGARDING PARKING LOT E City Attorney Kane discussed the background of the Post Office project. She stated that the City has had ongoing discussions with the owner about incorporating Lot E into the project. She explained that there are several requirements that must be met in order to allow Lot E to be incorporated into the project including replacing all existing parking onsite and providing a large public plaza. She noted that the City will need to undertake negotiations about the term and price of the conveyance of Lot E. City Attorney Kane explained that the Post Office itself is protected by the Historic Covenant. The Covenant ensures that certain aspects of the property, including the façade on Park Road, remain intact. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 City Attorney Kane stated that the City entered into exclusive negotiations shortly after the sale of the Post Office. The original term of the exclusive negotiation agreement (“ENA”) lapsed due to environmental and economic constraints of the project. She explained that staff is asking Council to extend this agreement in order to protect the City. She noted that the ENA extension does not bind the Council to any particular action, nor does it assume anything about the environmental analysis. She added that the extension also benefits the other party as they are assured that Lot E won’t be marketed to others. CDD Meeker proceeded to give a planning update on the project. He stated that staff released an RFP seeking consultant services to prepare the environmental documents for the project. He explained that because the project’s application has not been submitted, staff used the description of the last concept, with the understanding that when staff receives the formal application it may need to be tweaked. He stated that staff is in the process of reviewing the RFP responses. He noted that staff will require full funding from the applicant prior to the environmental review being undertaken. City Attorney Kane stated that because the Post Office is a historic structure, there are concerns about ensuring the property is maintained during this process. Therefore, City officials, along with members of the public and the applicants, did an inspection of the Post Office to make sure it is safe. Subsequently, there were minor repairs done to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Historic Covenant covers additional portions of the Post Office. City Attorney Kane stated that the Covenant goes into considerable detail. She explained that she highlighted the façade because it is the entire façade and its relationship to Park Road. However, there are also a number of architectural aspects of the building that need to be preserved. Vice Mayor Colson asked what happens if a member of the public doesn’t believe the Covenant is being followed and seeks recourse. City Attorney Kane noted that there is a timeframe in which concerns can be raised and that all of the documents will be available for review. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the ENA includes any language about affordable housing and whether it should be included. City Attorney Kane stated that the ENA quotes from the Downtown Specific Plan, which talks about having mixed income. However, affordable housing hasn’t been a focus of the project but is something that can be discussed during negotiations for Lot E. Councilmember Beach asked if there were any plans to have workshops for the public (outside of the public hearings on the project) concerning the Post Office project. CDD Meeker stated that once the application is received, staff will work with the applicant to encourage public meetings outside of the ordinary scope. Councilmember Keighran asked that the City continue to inspect the property as needed. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach discussed the parking requirements and the potential in-lieu fees for the project. She explained that she thought the radius for the in-lieu fees should be revisited. Burlingame City Council May 7, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a mandate concerning where the parking in-lieu fees can be used. CDD Meeker stated that parking in-lieu fees were adopted by resolution, and their usage is for the two downtown areas. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the number one complaint that he hears is not enough parking downtown. Therefore, he is happy with the radius as it is. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 63-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT c. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Mayor Colson asked that the Council discuss bee protection. The Council agreed to agendize. Mayor Brownrigg talked about a special impact fee for properties east of 101 because of the need to build a levee. He asked that this be talked about at a Council meeting. Council agreed to discuss this matter. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m. in memory of Nancy Ortiz, Bryce Nelson, and Donald Lloyd Huff. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk