1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on September 19, 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 Generation Voter Representative Ava Giere.
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 HIGH SCHOOL VOTER REGISTRATION WEEK
Mayor Ortiz read the proclamation recognizing September 19 through September 23, 2022, as High School Voter Registration Week.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer introduced Sylvie Olson and Ava Giere from Generation Voter to talk about the importance of voting.
2 Ms. Giere discussed the importance of voting, especially in local elections. She noted that every vote counts and that whether or not you have an impact on politics, politics has an impact on you. She urged her fellow students to pre-register to vote when they turn 16.
Ms. Olson discussed the need for the City of Burlingame to be leaders in youth voter registration and engagement. She noted the importance of voting and expressed her excitement for turning 18 and being able to vote.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that young people are notoriously bad at showing up at the polls. He asked what is the best argument to get young people to vote. Ms. Giere stated that she thought most of her fellow students didn’t know how to tackle the process and noted that it is important to make it more accessible. Ms.
Olson stated that it was educating students on the history of the right to vote. She noted that her history teacher inspired her to be passionate about voting.
Councilmember Colson asked that the students put their speeches together and submit them to the San Mateo Daily Journal as an op-ed piece.
Councilmember Beach thanked Generation Voter for their efforts to make voter registration more accessible.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran thanked Ms. Giere and Ms. Olson for their enthusiasm for voting. She hoped their enthusiasm was contagious.
Mayor Ortiz thanked both students for their speeches.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Sandra Lang requested that the City revisit its Cooling Center Policy. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Colson pulled item 8g.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, 8h, 8i, and 8j; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2022
CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the August 15, 2022 Closed Session.
3 b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2022
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the August 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the September 6, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.
d. ADOPTION 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 requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2007.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH VHN BUILDERS FOR THE ALPINE PARK PLAYGROUND PROJECT, CITY PROJECT #86270, IN THE AMOUNT O F$373,313.56
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 110-2022.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECTNO. 84890 AND BAYSIDE WATER VALVE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85260, BY CRATUS, INC.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 111-2022.
g. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LOCATED AT 1669/1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY & 810/821 MALCOLM ROAD AND 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
DPW Murtuza stated that water supply assessments are required by the State. He explained that the primary purpose of the water supply assessment is to evaluate whether a project has a sufficient water supply to meet all future demands during both normal and dry years. He noted that the projects before the Council meet the State threshold. He added that the approval of the water supply assessment should not be seen as an approval of the project. Instead, it is a document that the State requires to ensure that the City has reviewed the project’s water needs.
4 DPW Murtuza discussed the Bay Delta Plan. He noted that based on recent assumptions, the City will have a significant water shortage during dry years. However, the shortage is addressed by the City’s recent adoption of a water shortage contingency plan.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if the purple piping is self-contained and how it links up with the City’s system. DPW Murtuza stated that the reason purple piping is included is so that when the City is able to provide recycled water in the future, the building will be able to tap into it. He discussed other projects that have already installed purple piping.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran discussed future droughts. She asked how much more the City will be able to conserve. DPW Murtuza stated that the biggest way to save water is outdoor irrigation. He added that the City’s water efficiency is increasing.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if BAWSCA can provide the City with data on the amount of water saved per city instead of by region. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He added that he will let Council know when the BAWSCA report is released.
Councilmember Colson stated that the information about the Bay Delta Plan and diversion of water opened her eyes as to how susceptible the City is to State policy. She explained that she wanted to see the City focus on water recycling and conservation. She thanked Councilmember O’Brien Keighran for her work on the BAWSCA Board.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the item before the Council was whether the two large projects trip any wires in terms of water usage. He noted that the conclusion is that they don’t because the City already budgeted for them.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is increasingly uncomfortable that the City only listens to SFPUC about the impacts of the Bay Delta Plan. He explained that his understanding is that the Bay Delta Plan has a lot of off ramps when dry years continue one year after another. He stated that there is another side to this topic, and he would like to get a better picture of the issue.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 112-2022 and Resolution Number 113- 2022; seconded by Councilmember Beach.
Councilmember Beach commented on the motion, stating that it was important for future discussions to have as much balance as possible in the report.
The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
5 h. 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 Council adopt Resolution Number 114-2022.
i. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2022
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council approval of the Quarterly Investment Report, period ending March 31, 2022.
j. APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S ATTENDANCE AT
AN OUT-OF-STATE CONFERENCE (NATIONAL ADAPTATION FORUM)
CDD Gardiner requested Council approval of the Community Development Director’s attendance at an out- of-state conference (National Adaptation Forum).
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING
THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Finance Director Yu-Scott stated that the assessment value for the entire district is approximately $80,000.
She added that these funds are used to enhance and publicize the businesses in the district.
Finance Director Yu-Scott asked how many protests the City received. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the City only received one protest.
Finance Director Yu-Scott stated that because the one protest doesn’t constitute a majority, staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 115-2022; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 6.25 TO THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM TO REGULATE AND PERMIT SIDEWALK VENDING: AMENDING CHAPTER 6.24, “PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS”:
AMENDING SECTION 10.32.030, “OBSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS BY OBJECTS – EXCEPTIONS”: AND AMENDING SECTION 25.42.020(C), “EXEMPT SIGNS – SIGNS
6 INTEGRATED INTO CERTAIN DEVICES”: CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(b)(3)
ACA Spansail stated that the proposed ordinance would set up a program to regulate sidewalk vendors within the city limits.
ACA Spansail discussed the “Safe Sidewalk Vending Act” (SB 946). He explained that SB 946 prohibits a city from regulating sidewalk vending, except when the restriction is directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. He added that cities are allowed only to place restrictions on sidewalk vending regarding time, place, and manner.
ACA Spansail discussed the four key goals of the proposed ordinance:
• No interference with police, firefighter, and emergency medical personnel or the flow of traffic on sidewalks around residences, public buildings, and public parks • Ensure that the City continues to provide reasonable access to sidewalks and pathways including pathways in public parks, traffic signs and signals, fire hydrants, restrooms, trash cans, firefighting equipment, and more
• Trying to maximize public access to and among the main commercial districts in the city • Reduce the City’s exposure to personal injury or property damage claims
ACA Spansail discussed who would be regulated under the proposed ordinance. He explained that under Government Code 51036, a sidewalk vendor is a “person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack or other nonmotorized conveyance, or from one’s person, upon a public sidewalk or other pedestrian path.” He noted that this definition includes vendors operating a hot-dog or ice cream cart, those selling produce on a public path, and even vendors selling merchandise like t-shirts or jewelry from a small showcase. However, he stated that it does not include motorized mobile food vending, which is covered by BMC Section 25.48.180.
ACA Spansail explained that the ordinance would require sidewalk vendors to:
• Apply for and obtain a sidewalk vending permit and business license • Agree to obtain insurance and indemnify the City for any potential claim • If food vendor – obtain necessary permits from San Mateo County Environmental Health Services
ACA Spansail discussed the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services responsibilities. He noted that they are responsible for the inspection/regulation of “Mobile Food Facilities” including:
• Mobile food preparation units
• Hot dog/espresso carts
• Push carts
• Food trucks (not subject to this proposed ordinance)
ACA Spansail noted that when preparing the proposed ordinance, he spoke with the County Mobile Food Inspection Team to understand their process. He added that the County also conducts annual inspections,
7 and gives food vendors “Health Grades”, which are displayed via sticker system. However, the County does not regulate vendors of non-food items.
ACA Spansail reviewed the proposed regulations under the ordinance in regard to time, place, and manner:
Time
• Permits vending in non-residential areas of the city between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. • Permits vending in residential areas of the city between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. • Vending not permitted in any areas between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
Place
Prohibits sidewalk vending in the following locations:
• Main portions of Burlingame Avenue and Broadway (due to vehicle and pedestrian traffic) • Near critical infrastructure (police and fire stations) • Where sidewalk width would not allow safe passage (eight feet+) Limits sidewalk vending in the following locations (not exhaustive):
• Public parks
• Near schools and public playgrounds
• Near intersections, or near entrances to structures and/or parking facilities
Manner
All sidewalk vendors would be required to operate safely and food vendors would need to have their vending receptacle(s) inspected and approved by San Mateo County Environmental Health
ACA Spansail discussed enforcement under the proposed ordinance. He explained that SB 946 specifically decriminalized sidewalk vending. He stated that this means that the City cannot enforce this ordinance through criminal means (infractions, misdemeanors, and arrests). He added that the primary enforcement tool would be education.
ACA Spansail stated that under the proposed ordinance, the City would impose fines on those who violate the ordinance. He explained that the fine structure is defined in SB 946. He added that the City is also able to revoke a sidewalk vendor’s permit.
ACA Spansail discussed SB 972, a new bill that passed both the Senate and Assembly. SB 972 would ease county health regulations on sidewalk vendors. He stated that this law proposes to allow vendors to sell prepackaged or temperature-regulated goods like ice cream or espresso without some of the county health procedures.
Councilmember Colson stated that there is nothing in the proposed ordinance that regulates noise. ACA Spansail stated that there is a section in the proposed ordinance that requires sidewalk vendors to comply with all the noise standards provided in Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. He added that the proposed ordinance also specifies that no amplified music or loudspeakers are permitted.
8 Councilmember Colson stated that she was reading that some cities are enacting what is called a “Clear and Safe Sidewalk Ordinance.” She explained that this type of ordinance restricts people from blocking the ingress or egress to stores and businesses. She noted that she didn’t think Burlingame had this problem but wanted to know how this is addressed in the proposed ordinance. ACA Spansail stated that the City has a sidewalk ordinance that says that access can’t be blocked.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that under the proposed ordinance, sidewalk vendors are only permitted on sidewalks that are wider than eight feet. He noted that he didn’t think many of the sidewalks in Burlingame were this wide. ACA Spansail stated that roaming vendors can use sidewalks that are narrower. He noted that vendors aren’t allowed on sidewalks that are less than eight-feet wide when they are stationary.
Councilmember Beach asked if she was correct that food-related vendors are regulated by the County. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if sidewalk vendors would need to obtain a business license under the proposed ordinance. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing.
Doug stated that he would like to see the City support sidewalk vendors. He suggested closing Burlingame Avenue and Broadway to cars to allow for these small businesses to flourish. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Athan Rebelos asked that City to support small businesses like sidewalk vendors. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Beach asked staff to clarify what the proposed ordinance states about street vending in parks and public plazas. ACA Spansail stated that in parks, roaming street vendors are allowed. However, he noted that in active parks or where the City has an agreement with a concessioner, it would not be allowed.
Councilmember Beach asked if an individual sets up a table to sell jewelry in the park, would that be considered roaming. ACA Spansail stated that roaming is defined as an individual that only stops to make a transaction. He gave the example of an ice cream cart.
9 Councilmember Beach asked what the staff concern was about allowing stationary vendors in the parks.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that a lot of the pathways in the parks are not very wide.
Therefore, staff wouldn’t want street vendors set up for an extended period of time on the lawn that could block other activities.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if there was a cap on the number of street vendors that are allowed in an area at a time. ACA Spansail stated that the proposed ordinance requires street vendors to be 100-feet apart.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading.
Councilmember Beach stated that she didn’t see street vending as a problem in Burlingame. She explained that she hoped that the City wasn’t making it too onerous on individuals. She asked that the City conduct outreach and education in order to inform street vendors of the process. She discussed setting aside space for vendors in the parks if that becomes a need moving forward.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the City has to comply with State law, and that is why this proposed ordinance is before the Council. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the two issues that concern him are where vendors are going to set up and the clean up from food vendors.
Councilmember Colson asked if Council can receive a report in approximately a year about the street vending program.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she would like to see a yearly evaluation of the program. She noted that there could be unintended consequences that the Council hadn’t considered.
The motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading was seconded by Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. DISCUSSION OF AN EXTENSION TO THE PILOT PARKLET PROGRAM OR A
TRANSITION TO A LONG-TERM PARKLET PROGRAM
CDD Gardiner explained that the parklet program was originally initiated as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he noted that parklets have become more of an economic development tool and/or an amenity.
CDD Gardiner stated that last year, the City Council approved extending the parklet program through December 31, 2022, with the provision that rent be charged for use of publicly-owned space, and that sidewalk cleaning fees be assessed. He noted that the rent has been set at $1,500 per year, which is based on
10 an analysis of downtown commercial rents. He added that cleaning fees were set at $250 per month for parklet owners based on an analysis of costs to the City.
CDD Gardiner stated that the program is currently slated to sunset at the end of this year, and staff is seeking Council input on whether to extend the program and whether it should be long term.
CDD Gardiner stated that there are 34 parklets in the Broadway and Downtown District totaling 74 displaced parking spaces.
CDD Gardiner, stated that if the City Council decides to extend the program on a long-term basis, staff has a number of recommended modifications to the program:
• The City should increase enforcement of safety concerns based on program guidelines. These concerns include: obstacles in the pedestrian pathway, ADA accessibility of parklets and parking spaces, and motor/parklet user conflict because of close proximity and parklet extension into the travel way. Additional analysis to ensure parking accessibility should also be explored. Both of these initiatives would require increased staffing.
• Any future parklets should be restricted within 25 feet of a controlled intersection. This assists with providing visibility to existing crosswalks, stop signs, or stop bars. • Any future parklets should be required to have access points to Trash Capture Devices (“TCDs”) and storm inlets, such as a floor hatch or removable flooring. This could help with concerns over maintenance access to underground utilities and catch basins over which parklets have been installed, as well as with rodent/trash cleanup.
• Parklet owners should be required to perform pro-active preventative maintenance and repairs of the parklet structures to keep them in good condition, independent of staff cleaning measures.
CDD Gardiner stated that the City conducted a community survey to gauge thoughts on the parklets. He explained that the City received 507 responses, with the following breakdown:
• 16 restaurants with parklets
• 4 restaurants with no parklets
• 57 general non-restaurant businesses
• 32 retail businesses
• 397 residents
CDD Gardiner stated that the main question was whether individuals would like the parklet program to be extended/become more permanent. He stated that staff broke the question down to whether individuals favored extending the current pilot program or making it more permanent. He reviewed the breakdown of the responses that were in favor of extending the program:
• 31% of restaurants with parklets
• 0% of restaurants with no parklets
• 32% of general non-restaurant businesses
• 29% of retail businesses
• 24% of residents
11 CDD Gardiner reviewed the breakdown of the responses that were in favor of making the program permanent:
• 63% of restaurants with parklets
• 25% of restaurants with no parklets
• 46% of general non-restaurant businesses
• 6% of retail businesses
• 61% of residents
CDD Gardiner reviewed the following table:
Extend Current
Program
More Permanent
Program
End Program
Restaurant with
Parklet
31% 63% 6%
Restaurant with No
Parklet
0% 25% 75%
General Non-
Restaurant Business
32% 46% 22%
Retail Business 29% 6% 65%
Resident 24% 61% 15%
CDD Gardiner stated that staff talked to the Economic Development Subcommittee about whether to extend the parklet program. He explained that the subcommittee recommended an 18-month extension of the program. Additionally, the subcommittee recommended a review of the rent and fee structure to ensure that rents reflect current market rates.
Mayor Ortiz asked how many parklets were eliminated when the City imposed the fee. City Manager Goldman replied that the net loss was nine parklets.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the 18-month time frame that the subcommittee recommended.
Councilmember Colson stated that this timeframe was suggested in order not to disband the program during the winter.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the subcommittee considered having an on-going program until further notice.
Councilmember Colson stated that the subcommittee received significant feedback from non-restaurant businesses that they wouldn’t be happy if this program was permanent.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked about ten parklet owners who haven’t paid their fees for three months. She asked if their permits could be revoked. City Manager Goldman stated that the City has sent out a reminder about their bill. She noted that the next step would be to send the businesses to collections.
She added that the City does have the ability to revoke a business’ parklet permit.
12 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if businesses are billed quarterly. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff received any complaints about parklets that are not being actively used.
She also asked if staff was monitoring parklets to ensure that they are being used. DPW Murtuza stated that there are some parklets that are not being used for the minimum required days. He added that staff hasn’t received many complaints about parklet usage.
Councilmember Colson asked if staff considered implementing requirements regarding general upkeep and cleanliness of parklets. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He added that staff has included recommendations in the staff report for cleanliness requirements if Council extends the program.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that the longer the City allows for parklets, it might be beneficial to discuss three or four designs that the parklet owners must abide by.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked DPW Murtuza to review the cleaning schedule. DPW Murtuza stated that he would need to get back to Council with this information. However, his understanding was that staff cleans seven-days a week on the two main streets.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she thought cleaning needed to be done more often. She suggested working with the merchants to have them do spot cleaning.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran discussed creating a pilot program to close Burlingame Avenue a day or two each week. She added that she thought if the program was extended, then a larger conversation was need over the next 18 months about potentially implementing temporary street closures.
Mayor Ortiz asked about access to utilities under the parklets. DPW Murtuza stated that access is necessary and that the requirements are present in the conditions of the parklet application.
Councilmember Colson stated that a lot of people commented that they like to bring their dogs to the parklets. However, she voiced concern about dogs doing their business in the parklets. She wondered if the City needed to think about whether dogs should be allowed in parklets. DPW Murtuza stated that signs are posted on Burlingame Avenue alerting the public to pick up after their dogs. He added that staff responds to calls regarding dog poop on the Avenue.
Councilmember Colson stated that if the program continues, she would like to see a cost escalator included for parklet rent. She thought it would be reasonable to increase the cost of the program by CPI.
Mayor Ortiz asked if any of the restaurants had been encroaching on rights-of-ways. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. However, he noted that staff had gone out at the beginning of the program to work with restaurants in order to bring them into compliance.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
13 John Kevranian voiced support for continuing the program. (Comment submitted via [email protected]).
Doug voiced support for continuing the program. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Peter Stevenson asked if the study looked into how businesses with and without parklets were economically affected by parklets.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the parklet program has been good for restaurants.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he thought the 18-month extension was reasonable.
Councilmember Beach stated that she liked the program and concurred with Councilmember Colson about implementing a cost escalator.
Councilmember Beach suggested scheduling a discussion for next spring about street closures in order to create pedestrian thoroughfares in the business districts.
Councilmember Colson discussed the El Camino Real work and thought it might be an opportune time to conduct a pilot street closure program on Burlingame Avenue.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran supported extending the program. She noted that if the City considers street closures, she was concerned about the community’s older citizens being able to access businesses. She discussed a program in Ireland that creates age-friendly parking.
b. DISCUSSION OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES POLICY AND CITY ART LIAISONS
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the City has an existing art policy that was created in 2007. Since the policy was established, the different departments, including Community Development and the Library, have accepted public art.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the process involved with the Anson Burlingame art installation in Washington Park.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the North Rollins Road Specific Plan. She explained that a part of the plan includes consideration of an “Art in Public Places Program” that would apply to new development within the North Rollins planning area. The proposed process included in the Plan entails the appointment of two City Arts Liaisons who would perform a preliminary advisory review for any proposed art that would be required to be installed as part of commercial development either in the property being
14 developed or a public area in that part of town. She explained that the City Council would appoint the Liaisons, who would have experience in the arts industry and live and/or work in Burlingame.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that under the draft North Rollins Road Specific Plan, if the developer chooses to pay in-lieu fees, the Parks and Recreation Commission would approve art located in a City park, while Public Works staff would approve art located in the public right-of-way. The City Council would grant final approval.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that while this process was initially developed for the North Rollins Specific Plan area, the concept could be used for public art in other areas of the city, including proposed art inside City buildings.
City Librarian McCulley stated that he didn’t think the City needed a standing public art committee; instead, he liked the idea of having flexibility by appointing liaisons.
CDD Gardiner concurred with City Librarian McCulley.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that to update the City’s Art in Public Places policy, all changes must be reviewed by a committee of two Commissioners from the Beautification Commission, the Library Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. She noted that after review, the updated policy would be brought back to City Council for approval.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that public art is a great way to promote pedestrian interest and make a city feel younger. He asked how does the City promote art as he felt that the policy was only set up to vet art.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the liaisons wouldn’t be soliciting individuals to donate art to the City.
Mayor Ortiz asked if he was correct that the Vice Mayor wanted to see a master plan for public art.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it wasn’t a master plan. However, he wanted to see an emphasis placed on installing public art in the community.
Councilmember Colson stated that last year she cataloged art in the city. She noted that she found approximately 45 pieces of art in the city not including the Anson Burlingame installation or the pieces in the Community Center. She stated that she would like to see the Chamber of Commerce catalog City art and create an art walk.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought public art was a great way to create pedestrian traffic. He added that he thought the City should go beyond vetting art and instead think about how to promote art in the city.
15 Councilmember Beach stated that she supported staff’s recommendation for two liaisons and expanding the North Rollins Plan citywide. She added that she thought the 2007 art policy should be updated.
Councilmember Beach stated that there was a need to create a revenue stream for future public art projects.
She suggested looking at impact fees.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Beach.
Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for their report.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Beach asked to agendize a pilot program for partial street closures on Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. The Council agreed to agendize the discussion.
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
.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk