1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on September 6, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Ortiz.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER AS SUCIDE PREVENTION MONTH
Mayor Ortiz read the proclamation.
Sheila Brar accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Behavioral Health Commission of San Mateo County.
b. UPATE FROM CALTRANS ON EL CAMINO REAL RENEWAL PROJECT
Caltrans representative Rebecca Krawiec introduced the team: Senior Project Manager Rommel Pardo, Senior Environmental Planner for Cultural Resources Frances Schierenbeck, Senior Landscape Architect Kimberly White, and Senior Transportation Engineer Marc Wong.
2 Mr. Pardo gave an overview of the El Camino Real Renewal Project. He stated that the overarching goals are to retain the character and health of the tree grove and improve the safety of the roadway and sidewalks.
He outlined the five scoping items of the project:
1. Poor pavement condition – settlement and heaving compromise the road base, repair becomes more complex, and layers must be dug up and recompacted
2. Sidewalks that do not meet ADA standards – uneven sidewalks create tripping hazards, five-foot minimum width required by Caltrans, maximum 2% cross-slope allowed, and vertical step is limited to a maximum of ¼ inch
3. Local drainage/flooding issues – old drainage system is causing problems and needs to be replaced, flow line disruption, water flowing up from storm drains, and aged clay pipes
4. Crosswalks that need upgrades – 16 intersections in the project area need pedestrian crossing improvements and highly visible markings; yield signs will be installed
5. Visibility (sight distance)
Mr. Pardo reviewed the work that had been completed on the project:
• Community Task Force Study Completed - Spring 2017
• Educational Meeting - January 2020
• CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping period - May 26, 2020 through July 6, 2020 • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scoping period - November 16, 2020 through January 8, 2021
• Draft EIR/EIS with Individual 4(f) Evaluation - June 10, 2021through August 2, 2021 • Draft Environmental Document period - July 14, 2021 through July 16, 2021 • Final Environmental Document Release - April 2022
Mr. Pardo reviewed ongoing and upcoming work related to the project:
• Project Design – current through 2024
• Tree Workshop - early 2023
• Project Construction – 2024 through 2026
Mr. Wong stated that Caltrans is underway with design work, which includes electrical, environmental, environmental engineering, corridor management, hydraulics, landscape architecture, materials, right-of- way, traffic signing, and utilities. He highlighted a few notable key tasks that have been done or are underway:
• Lidar mapping and photogrammetry completed
• Survey alignments have been generated
• Tree locations and types have all been inventoried
• Sidewalk and planter layout is underway
• Coordination with PG&E is ongoing
Mr. Wong reviewed the upcoming milestones:
• Winter 2022 – 65% PS&E
o Determine sidewalk, crosswalk, and planter layout
o Identify trees to be removed
3 o Identify properties that will need Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) to rebuild driveways and retaining walls
• Summer 2023 – 95% PS&E
o Finalize sidewalk design and planter locations and design o Finalize trees to be removed (pending design)
• Fall 2023
o Final design complete
o Project is advertised and bid opening takes place
• Winter 2023
o Contract is awarded and construction begins
Mr. Wong outlined the preferred design option. He stated that Caltrans will coordinate with the City and PG&E to relocate utilities underground. He highlighted that the roadway width varies but will typically be between 44-feet and 46-feet, with new 5-foot to 6-foot sidewalks, and that replacement trees may reach 35 to 75-feet at maturity depending on species and conditions.
Ms. White reviewed Caltrans’ vision for the future of El Camino Real. She showed the Council simulations that were prepared for the environmental impact assessment. She noted that they picked three intersections on El Camino Real: Hillside Drive, Forest View Avenue, and Carol Avenue. This is because these three intersections represent both the variability of the project and the areas Caltrans anticipates more substantial impacts. She explained that there are two views of each location, one view that shows the existing condition, and another view that shows the design option and 20 years post construction.
Ms. White reviewed the design for the intersection of El Camino Real and Hillside Drive:
• Hillside Drive will require substantial excavation to replace drainage pipes • There will be substantial tree removal
• The sidewalk will be moved adjacent to the street in order to maximize the number of street trees while maintaining visibility
Ms. White reviewed the design for the intersection of El Camino Real and Forest View Avenue:
• Many of the eucalyptus trees are in poor health and will need to be removed • The trees have impacted the retaining walls, which will need to be replaced • The reconstruction of the retaining wall allows for more flexibility on where new trees can be planted
Ms. White reviewed the design for the intersection of El Camino Real and Carol Avenue:
• This is an area where some eucalyptus trees might be retained • Most of the replaced trees are eucalyptus
Ms. White explained that sight distance is a primary concern for Caltrans in figuring out how many trees can be replaced. She stated that this had to be done on a block by block basis. She explained that the two-block segment from Palm Drive to Sanchez Avenue made up the Task Force pilot study area. She noted that this area was picked because it captures the variety of conditions along the corridor and demonstrated the project’s challenges. She defined sight distance as the distance that the driver has a clear and unobstructed
4 view of the road ahead while going at the road’s designed speed. She added that greater visibility is shown to reduce accidents and that Caltrans has specific safety guidelines that dictate sight distances.
Ms. Schierenbeck stated that the project will have an adverse effect on the Howard Avenue and Ralston Avenue eucalyptus tree rows. The tree rows are listed on the National Register of Historic Properties. She stated that since the project will have an adverse effect, Caltrans has a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office for the resolution of the effects. She commented that they have been working closely with the Burlingame Historical Society, and one of the goals is to keep the trees on the National Register. She went over some of the mitigation measures:
• Public Tree Workshop
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
• Historic American Landscape Surveys (HALS) and Historic American Building Surveys (HABS) of affected properties
• Photo documentation of Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows before, during ,and after project • Long term maintenance plan for the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows • El Camino Real Historic Resource Management Plan
• Walking tour through the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows and installation of plaques • Time Capsule
• Bench
• Retag and GPS Trees
• National Register of Historic Places Update for Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
Ms. White explained that the tree workshop is planned for early next year. She listed the topics of the tree workshop:
• Function of Street Trees
• Historic Tree Rows
• Tree Health
• Street Trees and Safety
• Replacement Trees
• Sustainability
Councilmember Colson asked about the project’s engagement with indigenous people. Ms. Schierenbeck replied that Caltrans always engages with local tribes on projects. She stated that there are no archeological sites located along the project corridor. She added that because the project will include a historical walk, Caltrans felt it needed to get the local tribes’ input on the area and incorporate it in the project.
Councilmember Colson asked which tribes Caltrans reached out to. Ms. Schierenbeck responded that Caltrans works with the State to get a list of tribes that are in the project’s scope.
Councilmember Colson asked if the Tree Workshop will be Brown Act noticed or will it be a community event without Council participation. City Manager Goldman responded that she is unsure and will get back to Council at a later date. She noted that she assumed it would be noticed in order to ensure that the Council could participate.
5 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if the health of all the trees was tested. Ms. White replied that Caltrans had an independent arborist evaluate 211 of the 600 trees. She explained that the trees that were reviewed were selected because they were outside the area of serious construction impact. She added that they continue to work with the arborist in order to save as many trees as possible.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if Caltrans knows how many properties are affected by the wall construction. Additionally, she asked how these properties were being notified. Mr. Wong replied that Caltrans has compiled a preliminary temporary construct easement list. He explained that Caltrans will directly communicate with the impacted properties.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked Caltrans for the update. He also thanked Jennifer Pfaff and the Burlingame Historical Society for their guidance in helping preserve the tree canopy.
Councilmember Beach thanked Caltrans for their hard work on the project. She asked what Caltrans’ critical dates are in relation to utility undergrounding and when they need to know about funding. Mr. Pardo replied that when the design phase is at 65%, roughly spring 2023, Caltrans will need to know about undergrounding the utilities.
Councilmember Beach asked about the bus stops. Mr. Wong replied that Caltrans is working with SamTrans. He added that SamTrans has provided their preferred design for both the bus stops and the bus pads.
Mayor Ortiz asked about root damage mitigation when digging the trenches for undergrounding the utility lines. Ms. White replied that Caltrans talked with PG&E about trenching the utility lines under the roadway rather than the sidewalk.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to public comment.
Genie thanked the City and Caltrans for their work to preserve the tree canopy and thanked the traffic engineers for their work on trying to maintain the 10-foot road lanes.
Joyce expressed gratitude for the preservation of the tree canopy. She worried about the need for easement work and was concerned that the sidewalk would be moved closer to her house. She wanted to know when the list of potentially impacted properties would be released.
Mr. Wong replied that the list would be finalized in spring 2023.
Joyce asked if there will be a point person assigned to neighborhoods in order to answer the public’s questions.
Mr. Pardo replied that the Caltrans project website will have information on who can best answer potential questions.
6 Lynn Israelite voiced appreciation for the sight line improvements. She asked about the potential for flashing pedestrian crosswalk beacons at vital crossings and about where easement lines are in order to protect private residents from removing trees.
Jennifer Pfaff stated that there is a critical need to underground the utility lines in order to allow for taller trees to be planted. She worried that the City won’t have enough credits to underground the utilities.
Manito Velasco urged Council to continue being involved in the design process as it is going into the critical design phase. He pointed out some troubled intersections that he wanted addressed. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Councilmember Colson asked how much additional funding is needed to underground the utilities. DPW Murtuza replied that initial funding estimated a budget of roughly $25 to $30 million and the City currently has roughly $17 million. He noted that until there is a more detailed design, staff won’t know exactly what the funding gap is. However, he noted that a more detailed design should be completed by the end of the year.
Mr. Pardo stated that Caltrans continues to meet with the City and PG&E and has shared some very preliminary design elements.
Councilmember Beach thanked Caltrans for all their work on preserving the aesthetics of the grove and working with the City and PG&E on the project. She stated her hope that the final design improves the livability of the city.
Mayor Ortiz echoed Councilmember Beach’s sentiments. He thanked Caltrans for listening and working with the City to complete such a crucial project.
c. NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE BOULEVARDS PROJECT UPDATE
DPW Murtuza gave an overview of the project. He commented that this report is specifically on bike boulevards throughout the city.
Senior Civil Engineer Wong explained that a bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway intended to prioritize bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. He stated that they are typically situated:
• on streets without large truck or transit vehicles
• where traffic volumes and speeds are already low
• or can be further reduced through traffic calming.
Senior Civil Engineer Wong stated that Class III lanes will:
• Provide routes between the neighborhoods to parks/schools/commercial areas • Add connectivity to the City’s existing bicycle network
7 Senior Civil Engineer Wong gave an overview of the existing bicycle network. He noted that the City has a lot of north/south corridors, but not a lot of connectivity. He reviewed the timeline and public outreach process:
• 2020 Bike/Pedestrian Plan provided a framework and vision for bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure citywide
o Provided locations and priorities for Class III facilities o Carmelita, Paloma, Capuchino, Mills, and Grove were identified as one of the higher priority networks (provides alternative north-south route, connects residential neighborhoods and downtowns)
• Staff presented concepts to TSPC in February and May 2022 • 2022 Bike to Work Day ride with community BPAC for additional feedback • Follow-up meeting with TSPC in July 2022 and comments from BPAC o Presented revised concepts and received further input o TSPC and community BPAC supported the revised concepts • City Council meeting on September 6, 2022
Senior Civil Engineer Wong reviewed the initially studied project concepts from the TSPC meetings in February and May 2022. He summarized the public feedback from these initial concepts:
• Improvements such as these should be considered “quick-build” projects • Concerns with the “triple-four’ crosswalks
• Support for “speed-cushions” from neighborhoods
• Concerns from bicycling community at the intersections • Try to maintain on-street parking and not include any new restrictions • Concerns regarding the striped bulb outs
• Consistent facilities throughout the network
Senior Civil Engineer Wong explained that based on the feedback received at the TSPC meetings and input from BPAC, the project has been revised to include a phased approach for implementation of Bicycle Boulevards (Class IIIB bike facilities):
Initial Phase:
• Install “green-back” sharrows, generally four per block, two on each side of the street. • Review red-curbing at certain intersections and the need for any additional signage (including possible stop-signs).
• Install speed cushions on Carmelita Ave.
• If Class IIIB facility is on a street where a CIP project is under design, the process would allow for improvements to be included in the plans, shortening the implementation project’s schedule. • Review before and after installation traffic data using Streetlight Data system (monitoring period of at least one year before considering Phase 2).
Secondary Phase 2: (If Necessary)
• Identify locations of other roadway improvements, including but not limited to: speed cushions, edge line striping, traffic circles, channelizers, bulb outs, triple-four crosswalks, splitter islands, etc.
8 Senior Civil Engineer Wong explained the revised concepts:
• Mills Avenue between California and Capuchino improvements include a new continental crosswalk and green-sharrows
• Grove Avenue improvements include an enhanced sidewalk • Capuchino Avenue will have additional improvements such as enhanced pedestrian visibility by converting to ladder crosswalk, painting curb red to enhance bike visibility, and adding green sharrows
• Paloma Avenue will be similar to Capuchino, adding all-way stop control signage and striping, ladder crosswalks, red painted curb, and modified sharrow treatment every 25 feet • Carmelita Avenue will be similar to Paloma and Capuchino, with added rubberized speed cushions
Senior Civil Engineer Wong summarized the proposed project:
Initial Phase:
• Install “green-back” sharrows, generally four per block, two on each side of the street. • Review red-curbing at certain intersections and the need for any additional signage (including possible stop-signs).
• Install speed cushions on Carmelita Ave.
• If Class IIIB facility is on a street where a CIP project is under design, the process would allow for improvements to be included in the plans, shortening the implementation project’s schedule. • Review before and after installation traffic data using Streetlight Data system (monitoring period of at least one year before considering Phase 2).
Secondary Phase 2: (If Necessary)
• Identify locations of other roadway improvements, including but not limited to: speed cushions, edge line striping, traffic circles, channelizers, bulb outs, triple-four crosswalks, splitter islands, etc.
Senior Civil Engineer Wong stated that the estimated project cost for the Initial Project Phase is approximately $300,000. He noted that both TSPC and BPAC supported the “phased approach” concept to implement Class IIIB bike facilities.
Senior Civil Engineer Wong asked for Council feedback on the project. He noted that staff will pursue grant opportunities and will explore other opportunities to incorporate the improvements as part of other projects.
Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Wong for the presentation. She asked if in Phase I the only change to stop signs is at Paloma and Carmelita. Mr. Wong replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was any consideration for a bike signal crossing at Broadway. Mr.
Wong replied in the affirmative. However, he noted that staff has concerns as the lights are on the ground and vehicles might not see the bicyclist and could cause a collision. He stated that staff reached out to other agencies that have implemented similar ideas and is looking for additional feedback.
9 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked how it was determined that speed cushions are needed on Carmelita Avenue. Mr. Wong replied that when speed cushions were proposed, the community members were in favor of them being installed. He added that vehicle speed has always been a concern on Carmelita Avenue.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked where the speed cushions would be located on Carmelita Avenue.
Mr. Wong replied that the locations were still being determined.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if there were any surprises among the various speed reduction implementations done in Lyon Hoag. DPW Murtuza replied that staff will be bringing public feedback on the Lyon Hoag implementations to Council at a later date. Mr. Wong added that Lyon Hoag residents have asked for additional speed cushions.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Manito Velasco voiced disappointment with the consultant. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Mayor Ortiz voiced appreciation for the improvements. He noted that he has received many complaints about vehicle speed on Carmelita Avenue and that the speed cushions will be a welcome addition.
Councilmember Beach stated that she hoped the City can obtain grants to fund the project. She added that she believed Phase II would be needed in order to see results. She noted that she hoped this project would encourage people to utilize biking as a form of transportation in the city.
Councilmember Colson voiced her support for the project.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is in favor of anything that slows traffic as he believes car speed is what drives bicycle usage.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran discussed the need to slow cars in order to increase bicycle usage.
Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for the presentation and all their hard work.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
John Scopazzi discussed the water leak on his property.
Peter Stevenson thanked Council and City staff for all they do in the City.
Kevin Wu wanted Council to review the guest limit at the Burlingame Aquatic Center. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
10 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice-Mayor Brownrigg removed item 8d.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A $318,745 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE NORTH BURLINGAME TERRACE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 86440, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 105-2022.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A MASTICATOR
TO IMPROVE WILDFIRE PREVENTION MEASURES IN MILLS CANYON IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $140,000
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 106-2022.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADDITION OF ONE PARKS
SUPERVISOR IN THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATING $119,400 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES
Interim HR Director Benitez requested Council adopt Resolution Number 107-2022. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT EXTENSION WITH AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. TO PROVIDE BODY WORN CAMERAS AND TASERS TO THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $418,573.75 Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the price tag on the contract and why it was sole sourced. Police Chief Matteucci replied that when the City first looked to adopt body worn cameras, the department did a large study and determined Axon was the best. He added that since then, the City has adopted infrastructure around these body worn cameras and that the department will periodically look at other vendors, but Axon continues to provide the best services.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 108-2022; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EATON AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,854.65 TO PURCHASE AND REPLACE NETWORK SWITCHING
11 EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATING $209,000 IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
INTERNAL SERVICES FUND
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 109-2022.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF
AN APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR PROPOSED
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1345 VANCOUVER AVENUE
CDD Gardiner explained that the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, on October 28, 2019. He stated that the building permit for the project was issued on November 19, 2020, and the project is currently under construction.
CDD Gardiner stated that in April 2022, the applicant submitted revisions to the existing building permit to request permission to change materials from the approved plans. He explained that such a revision requires review by the Planning Commission. He noted that staff prepared an “FYI” memorandum for review at the June 13, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission called the FYI up for review and requested that the project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a subsequent public hearing. He stated that in calling up the FYI, Commissioners expressed a concern with proposed changes to the exterior and balcony and noted that there was no explanation given of why the changes were being proposed.
CDD Gardiner stated in response to concerns raised when the Commission called up the FYI, the applicant submitted a letter indicating that the revisions were due to a supply shortage. He explained that the applicant reported that they could no longer obtain the materials that were needed so had to change the plans to accommodate the supply issue.
CDD Gardiner explained that on July 11, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed changes to the project. The applicant was not in attendance. He noted that after opening and closing the public hearing, the Commission deliberated, and a motion was made to deny the request for amendment. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 (one Commissioner absent). He added that the Commissioners indicated that they preferred that the project be built as originally approved.
CDD Gardiner stated that the property owner submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s action.
CDD Gardiner reviewed the plans for the project. He showed the changes that were requested by the property owner versus what was approved by the Planning Commission.
CDD Gardiner stated that after conducting a public hearing and considering all testimony received, the Council should deliberate and take one of the following actions:
• Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application;
12 • Grant the appeal and approve the application; or
• Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Mayor Ortiz asked if he was correct that the issue was that the Planning Commission approved stucco, and the property owner is using wood siding. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that the applicant was requesting approval of the wood siding instead of the stucco but had already made the change. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer clarified that the applicant is given ten-minutes.
Milo Trauss, representing the applicant, asked the City Council to grant approval of the design change. He explained that the Planning Commission mainly considered the aesthetics of the change. However, he stated that the design change was based on supply chain shortages, bad weather, and a desire to be a good neighbor.
He reviewed the issues that led to the applicant deciding to switch to wood siding versus stucco.
Jason Wong, the applicant, stated that as a result of COVID, the construction phase for the project faced many challenges. He discussed working with his neighbors to ensure that the construction did not cause undue harm to them.
Planning Commissioner Jennifer Pfaff stated that the project’s designer was aware of the appropriate process to make amendments. She noted that for her the bigger issue is that staff and the Commission spent an enormous amount of time reviewing the plans only for the change to be made without permission. She added that it isn’t fair to those who follow the rules.
Mayor Ortiz asked what typically happens when a change is made prior to obtaining approval from the Planning Commission. CDD Gardiner explained that the Planning Commission faces difficult choices when things like this happen. He stated that sometimes, if there are reasons for the change, the Planning Commission approves some of the changes. He added that it is a case-by-case issue.
Mayor Ortiz asked if CDD Gardiner’s sense is that the outcome would have been different if the applicant had attended the Planning Commission meeting. CDD Gardiner replied that he was unsure.
Jason Wong stated that he was just trying to get the project done and navigate through the City’s process.
Milo Trauss added that there were extenuating circumstances due to COVID and supply chain issues that led to the need to put up wood siding instead of stucco.
Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she went by the site, and she understands the extenuating circumstances. However, she explained that everyone else who was building during the pandemic
13 experienced the same issues. She noted the applicant should have first sought approval for the change prior to making the change.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with the Planning Commission’s decision and did not want to grant the appeal.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is a difficult decision. He explained that he appreciated the homeowner being at the Council meeting to further understand why the change was made. He stated that he would remand this issue back to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember O’Brien Keighran that the magnitude of the change was large. She asked if the City Council approved of the applicant’s change, could it create issues for future projects. City Attorney Guina stated that any decision that the City Council makes on this matter will not set a precedent for future decisions.
Councilmember Colson stated that she would feel uncomfortable approving the change. She thought that the changes were not consistent with the neighborhood. She added that the applicant should have gone back to the Planning Commission for approval prior to making the change.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought the Planning Commission made the correct decision. She explained that when she reviewed the approved design versus what was built, she thought it looked great.
However, she noted that this was her opinion. She added that while the siding is changing, it is not changing the scale of the project. She explained that while she sees this as something that shouldn’t have happened, she would be comfortable with either approving the change or remanding it to the Planning Commission.
She noted that she wasn’t comfortable with telling the homeowner to rip off the siding and put it in the landfill.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he was offended by the applicant’s decision to not ask permission first. He noted that the applicant flaunted the rules. He explained that he thought it should be remanded to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ortiz made a motion to remand the application back to the Planning Commission; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-1. (Councilmember O’Brien Keighran voted against).
Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that if the Planning Commission denied the change (after it is remanded), that this item could end up at the City Council again. City Attorney Guina replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the applicant would have to pay another appeal fee. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City Council could remand it again to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Guina replied in the affirmative.
14 Councilmember Colson asked if a decision was made that the applicant had to remove the siding, how long would they have to do that. City Attorney Guina stated that they would be given a reasonable amount of time.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.04.100 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD JUNETEENTH AS A PARKING METER HOLIDAY. CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15061(B)(3)
City Attorney Guina stated that the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that parking meters are enforced every day except for Sundays and specified holidays. He noted that the list of specified holidays is included in the Code. He explained that in 2021, President Biden made Juneteenth a Federal Holiday.
City Attorney Guina stated that the proposed ordinance adds Juneteenth as a parking meter holiday.
Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg 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.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
There were no staff reports.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
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.burlingame.org
.
15 14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk