Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.12.05 Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on December 5, 2016 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 five-time Mayor Rosalie O’Mahony. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. US HIGHWAY 101/ PENINSULA AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE DPW Murtuza introduced San Mateo Director of Public Works Underwood and explained that the City of San Mateo was here to provide Council and Burlingame community an update on the US Highway 101/ Peninsula Avenue Interchange Project. Mr. Underwood thanked the Council and introduced San Mateo Engineering Manager Gary Heap. Mr. Heap began the presentation by reviewing the background of the project. He explained that beginning in 2002, San Mateo heard from their citizens about traffic and safety concerns around the Poplar Avenue off- Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 ramp. He stated that in 2007, San Mateo staff identified the need for safety improvements at Poplar and Peninsula Avenue. However, in 2007, staff was unable to gain support for improvements on Peninsula Ave. In 2009, San Mateo decided to review the Peninsula Avenue Interchange again. However, this time, Mr. Heap stated that staff engaged the community more and utilized citizen input. As a result, staff gained San Mateo City Council approval to move forward with the short term solution of the Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project and were asked to look for long term solutions for southbound freeway ramps at Peninsula Avenue. Mr. Heap discussed the project team stating that it was composed of San Mateo staff, and individuals from SMCTA and AECOM (engineering consultants). As well, he explained that for this project to be successful, San Mateo was partnering with the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, California Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. Next, he reviewed the Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project. He stated that construction began on this project in August, 2016 and that San Mateo expected construction to end January, 2017. He reiterated that this project was for short term improvements. Mayor Keighran asked if a traffic study would be conducted after the completion of the Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project to study its effect on traffic. Mr. Heap replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran asked if San Mateo took into consideration the Broadway Interchange Project for their traffic study. Mr. Heap replied in the affirmative. Mr. Heap discussed the Peninsula Avenue Interchange Project. He stated that it was identified as the long term solution for the interchange ramps. The project would add ramps for southbound US 101 at Peninsula Avenue and close ramps at Poplar Avenue. In reviewing where San Mateo is in this project, he stated that currently the city is in the project approval and environmental document approval phase which is likely to be completed in July, 2018. He stated that after this phase, San Mateo estimates it will begin design in 2019, construction in 2022 and complete the project in 2024. He explained that a long term solution was needed at Peninsula Avenue to provide a standard interchange configuration and that San Mateo wanted to design the interchange to handle future traffic to and from the freeway. In reviewing the goals of the project he emphasized: 1) improving safety and access to and from US 101; 2) providing safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle circulation within project limits; 3) accommodating future traffic volumes; and 4) improving local traffic circulation. Next, Mr. Heap reviewed the project location and stated that there were two design alternatives. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that there were three design alternatives; the two that Mr. Heap would discuss and a no-build option. He discussed the fact that the no-build option is a valid option and would be reviewed by the consultants and the San Mateo City Council. Mr. Heap replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if it was ever considered to just do one ramp at Peninsula Avenue. Mr. Heap stated that they looked at 22 different neighborhood designs. However, he explained that when San Mateo talked Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 to Caltrans about the interchange, it was made clear to San Mateo that the city would need to do both an onramp and an off-ramp. Mr. Heap explained Alternative 1 – the Tight Diamond Configuration. He stated that it provides southbound ramps parallel to US 101. He explained that the benefit of Alternative 1 is that it creates a minimized right of way need and minimal utility and environmental impacts. He stated some localized roadway would need to be created and the Humboldt-Peninsula Interchange would need to be reconstructed. Alternative 2 is the Partially Spread Diamond Configuration. Mr. Heap explained that under this alternative, there is a 600 foot auxiliary exit lane prior to the southbound off-ramp to Peninsula Avenue. He stated that this alternative will require fewer design exceptions with regards to Caltrans process because of the spacing on Peninsula Avenue. Mayor Keighran asked how eminent domain works with the two alternatives. Mr. Heap stated that San Mateo would be determining what the necessary property acquisition is for both alternatives during the current phase of the project. However, he added that there is a larger footprint in Alternative 2. Mayor Keighran asked if he had a rough estimate. Mr. Heap replied in the negative. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what street the pink line was showing on the slides concerning the two alternatives. Mr. Heap replied that those are localized streets that will be constructed to replace Amphlett Boulevard. A discussion was had on how citizens would access the ramps under both alternatives. Mr. Heap explained that the furthest east street that individuals would be able to use would be Humboldt. Under both alternatives, Peninsula Avenue would be raised, preventing access to it from the further east streets. Councilmember Colson asked about the projected costs of both alternatives and if it included the costs for eminent domain. Mr. Heap stated that San Mateo didn’t have a complete breakdown for property acquisition but that a rough estimate was included in the projected costs. He stated that Alternative 1 is estimated to cost $56.3 million and that Alternative 2 is estimated to cost $70.8 million. However, neither of the estimated costs includes traffic calming measures that might be necessary in the area. Mayor Keighran asked if there was any discussion about widening Peninsula Avenue. Mr. Heap stated San Mateo and Burlingame share Peninsula Avenue and therefore if it was deemed necessary to widen the road they would need to work with Burlingame on this. Mayor Keighran asked if San Mateo’s review of the project took into consideration the potential increased density of housing. Mr. Heap replied in the affirmative. Mr. Heap continued by discussing the Caltrans process. He stated that currently, San Mateo is in the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase (“PA&ED”). In this phase, San Mateo will conduct traffic forecasting and operational analysis. This will be coordinated between Caltrans, San Mateo and Burlingame. The intersections and road segments that will be studied are based on the requests of the three participants. He stated that in total the project will be studying 22 intersections in both San Mateo and Burlingame. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 During the PA&ED phase, San Mateo will be conducting a number of technical studies and environmental studies. Included in the technical studies are: 1) evaluating design alternatives; 2) geotechnical (soils, geology, and foundations); 3) traffic management plan; 4) storm water data report. Included in the environmental studies are: 1) air quality; 2) biological resources; 3) floodplain and water quality; and 4) seal level rising. For a full list of the studies that will be conducted go to: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/index.aspx?NID=2792v. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the biggest concern for the Burlingame community was the impact on its neighborhoods. Accordingly, she asked what San Mateo would be doing to include and encourage Burlingame residents’ participation in this process. As well, she asked if any of the public outreach meetings would be held in Burlingame. Mr. Heap stated that future meetings had not been scheduled but that they are typically held at King Center. Councilmember Beach asked that Mr. Heap consider scheduling meetings in Burlingame. Mayor Keighran asked about the noticing for individuals who lived in the area of the project. DPW Murtuza stated that he would like to notice all citizens in the area. Mr. Heap stated that on the project website, individuals can sign up to be notified about future meetings. Here is the link: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/index.aspx?NID=2792v Mr. Heap stated that this project would be coordinated with other projects including: Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project, US 101 HOV/Managed Lane Project and the Burlingame Point Project. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if in both alternatives the construction would be completely within the boundaries of the City of San Mateo. Mr. Heap replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why San Mateo hadn’t considered Poplar Avenue for constructing on and off-ramps for US 101 instead of Peninsula Avenue. Mr. Heap stated that this was reviewed. However, when San Mateo discussed constructing a new interchange at Poplar, the city received negative feedback from the San Mateo citizens. As well, he stated that San Mateo was concerned about the amount of property acquisition that would be necessary if the interchange was on Poplar Avenue. Councilmember Colson asked DPW Murtuza how Burlingame citizens could be noticed about upcoming meetings for this project. He stated that staff will use the City website and enewsletter. As well, he put a sign-up sheet in the back of Council chambers. Mayor Keighran asked about posting on nextdoor.com about the project. City Manager Goldman stated staff would review this option and look into other methods of noticing. Director of Public Works Underwood commented on San Mateo’s commitment to public outreach and the willingness of San Mateo to work with Burlingame on this project. Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 Burlingame resident Richard Florio voiced his concerns stating that while the construction will be in San Mateo, the traffic will be in residential Burlingame. Burlingame resident Lynn Lenardon reviewed her concerns about the increased traffic and how it would affect the Burlingame neighborhoods near Peninsula Avenue. Burlingame resident Monika Froehlich discussed the increasing number of accidents on the roads around Peninsula Avenue and stated that she believed this project would only increase traffic and accidents in her neighborhood. Burlingame resident Annmarie Daniels explained that for the past 14 years, she attended meetings on the Peninsula Interchange and believed that the project would be detrimental to the Burlingame neighborhoods around Peninsula Avenue. Burlingame resident Laura Hesselgren stated that she opposed the project and believed it would turn the Lyon Hoag neighborhood into a traffic thoroughfare. Before continuing with public comment, Mayor Keighran addressed the public on their comments concerning neighborhood, traffic and other general plan concerns. She encouraged the community to attend the Tuesday, December 6, 2016 meeting concerning the update to the General Plan. She stated that their input was needed. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that she believed the project was extremely destructive with unclear benefits. Burlingame resident Juergen Pfaff discussed his belief that the Poplar Corridor project solved the traffic issues that existed and therefore the Peninsula Interchange was not necessary. Burlingame resident Lisa Happich asked the Council to be the community’s advocates in this project and voiced her concern that the Burlingame citizens were helpless in this matter as the construction was all in San Mateo. Peter Aiello discussed the no build option and the eminent domain concerns. Lyon Hoag residents Ann, David Harris, Kipson Z., Randy, and Lou R. all voiced their opposition to the project and their concerns about the future of their neighborhood. Burlingame resident Tim Smith discussed the fact that he had been going to the San Mateo meetings on this matter, and argued that the project would not go through if it was deeper in San Mateo, like Poplar Avenue. He stated it would be too disruptive to their citizens. As well, he asked the Council to oppose the project. Todd Weller asked that the intersections at Burlingame Ave and Victoria Rd and Howard Ave and Victoria Rd be included in the traffic study. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 Mayor Keighran asked that in San Mateo’s next presentation they include a slide that lists all intersections that are included in the traffic study. Burlingame resident Joe Galligan asked the Council to review whether the project would ease other intersections and congestion problems in the City. Burlingame resident Joan Constantino discussed the cost of the eminent domain arguing that she believed that the projected costs San Mateo gave were inaccurate. Councilmember Brownrigg asked for a show of hands from the audience of who was there to oppose the project. A large majority of the room raised their hands. Councilmember Colson thanked the community for coming out to the meeting. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he feared the Council didn’t have a lot of control on this project as it was not within the boundaries of Burlingame. He discussed the idea that the Peninsula Interchange is being studied by a city and state organization that are not putting the interests of Burlingame first. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his interest in the no-build option. Councilmember Brownrigg added that in listening to the publics’ comments about traffic and accidents in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood that these issues were created by the citizens of Burlingame. He explained that it is Burlingame residents that are cutting through the Lyon Hoag neighborhood to get to Peninsula Avenue. Therefore, he explained that staff needed to look at calming measures in this area. Councilmember Beach thanked the San Mateo representatives for coming to the meeting and listening to the concerns of the community. She discussed the Burlingame Point project and the added traffic that this will have on Peninsula Avenue. Councilmember Beach stated that the Peninsula Avenue Interchange project must be looked at in the context of the Burlingame Point project and other developments in the community. She stated that the Council and community need to remain vigilant on this matter and ensure that the concerns of Burlingame are addressed. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that Burlingame already has traffic and thoroughfare issues in the neighborhoods around Peninsula Avenue. He explained that these issues should be addressed now. As well, he discussed the Burlingame Point project and the need to address the future traffic that will be created by it. He stated that the community needs to remain open-minded to the information that will be gleaned from the traffic studies. Mayor Keighran asked that San Mateo review the number of accidents at the previously identified 22 intersections. She echoed the concerns of her colleagues about the Burlingame Point project. Mayor Keighran explained that the Council will need to review the studies once they are completed. She explained that from these studies, the Council will be able to make decisions about what traffic calming/mitigation options are available. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 As well, Mayor Keighran asked that San Mateo conduct more than two additional public meetings (as stated in their presentation) on this matter. She asked that multiple meetings be held in Burlingame. Director of Public Works Underwood thanked the Council and community for coming to the meeting. He stated he agreed with the Mayor that two meetings were not enough and that he would hold at least one meeting in Burlingame. Mayor Keighran asked him to consider holding at least one meeting during the day for senior citizens. Mayor Keighran reminded the public that there would be a meeting on December 6th about the general plan. She stated that she would like to see a similar size crowd show up to that meeting. b. PRESENTATION OF THE CITY BUILDING FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT STUDY AND MASTERPLAN DPW Murtuza introduced Senior Engineer Kevin Okada. Mr. Okada explained that the Public Works Department maintains over 275,000 gross square feet of City buildings. He stated that last fiscal year, Council approved of a Building Facilities Condition Assessment Study to identify maintenance and CIP needs to extend the lifespan of the existing facilities. Tom Lighthouse from Kitchell Facilities Management gave a presentation on the findings of the Building Facilities Condition Assessment Study. He reviewed the scope of the study stating that the consultants were asked to inspect 16 City-owned buildings, make staffing and maintenance budget recommendations, life cycle analysis and general conclusions concerning capital improvement recommendations. Mr. Li ghthouse reviewed the consultants’ findings on each building: 1. City Hall – he recommended $12 million in CIP improvements including replacing the roof and the HVAC. 2. Recreation Center - he recommended $900,000 in CIP improvements including retrofitting the Rec Center to meet current standards, replacing the roof and installing a new emergency generator. 3. Parks Corporation Yard - he recommended $1.75 million in CIP improvements including replacing the small motor shop, garage and attached workers’ break building with a “Butler” type structure. 4. Carriage House - he recommended $1.3 million in CIP improvements including reconstructing the entire building or relocating the historical society to a new City facility. 5. Fire Station 34 – he recommended $290,000 in CIP improvements including replacing the emergency generator and addressing HVAC control issues. 6. Fire Station 35- he recommended $3.4 million in CIP improvements stating that the fire station should be replaced. 7. Fire Station 36 – he recommended $340,000 in CIP improvements including replacing the HVAC systems and the building’s roof. 8. Police Station – he recommended $1.2 million in CIP improvements including performing parking lot repairs and removal of the existing underground storage tanks. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 9. Main Library – he recommended $840,000 in CIP improvements including replacing carpet and addressing site drainage issue. 10. Easton Library- he recommended $120,000 in CIP improvements including replacing HVAC system, and potential power upgrade. 11. Village Park Building – he recommended $25,000 in CIP improvements including realigning the existing down spout system to function as required. 12. Donnelly Parking Garage – he recommended $680,000 in CIP improvements including upgrading the lift station warning system. 13. Public Works Corporation Yard – he recommended $210,000 in CIP improvements including repairing roof and replacing carpet. 14. Golf Center, Bus Depot and Lions Den – he recommended a total of $915,000 in CIP improvements. Mayor Keighran asked about the recommendation of $840,000 in CIP improvements to the Main Library, which was recently remodeled, in comparison to the recommendation of $900,000 in CIP improvements for the Parks and Recreation Center. Mr. Lighthouse stated that the consultants looked at the use of both facilities and the number of visitors. DPW Murtuza stated that the library is not a high priority project like the Parks and Recreation Center. Mr. Lighthouse explained that Kitchell submitted a final Facility Condition Assessment Report for each City building. He stated that all costs are estimated utilizing a nationally recognized estimating organization and that costs are adjusted to reflect doing business in Burlingame. Mr. Lighthouse also discussed staffing and budget recommendations. He stated that the current city facility staffing includes a facilities manager and three full time employees for a total of 4 employees. He explained that Kitchell recommends the City have six employees which would include an HVAC mechanic and a certified electrician. In discussing the life cycle analysis, Mr. Lighthouse stated that each report analyzed critical infrastructure and determined the replacement cost of each asset. He stated that in many cases, equipment is operating beyond its useful service life and needs to be replaced. As well, he stated that the City should consider replacing older buildings as the life cycle cost escalates quickly as the buildings extend beyond their life expectancy. In summary, Mr. Lighthouse stated that the five year CIP recommendation is $17 million in improvements and that additional resources are needed to properly maintain the buildings and manage new CIP projects. Councilmember Beach asked if the $1.75 million for the Parks Corporation Yard was a full replacement cost. Mr. Lighthouse replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach discussed the Council and City’s need to prioritize improvements and facility needs of the City. She asked about the $94 million estimate to replace existing buildings. Mr. Lighthouse stated that this is based on the cost per square foot and that this was for the same footprint as the City already has and does not include upgrades. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 9 Mayor Keighran stated it would help if staff provided the Council with two figures: 1) the cost of improvements and 2) the cost of replacement. Councilmember Colson asked if Council and staff would be creating a strategic plan on how to fund the necessary improvements/replacements. DPW Murtuza explained that staff is working based on the priorities that Council previously established. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that on City Hall the recommendation is that $5 million in improvements is needed right away. Mr. Lighthouse replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that while this report may be helpful from staff what he would like to see in the future at Council is a list of priorities and the connection to the City’s budget. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the Council needs a list of recommended actions based on this report. DPW Murtuza stated that the purpose of this report is to have city staff be guided on improvements for the next five years. Staff will then prioritize these for the Council. Mayor Keighran stated that the report presented information that will help aid the Council’s decision during future budget meetings. She asked that in the future staff distinguish replacement from CIP. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident and President Elect of BCE Sari McConnell presented BCE’s annual report to the Council and stated that BCE raised $1.9 million for the Burlingame School District. She thanked the Council and the community for their support. Burlingame resident Laura Fanucchi from HIP Housing presented HIP Housing 2017 Calendar to Council. She discussed the new outreach strategies that HIP Housing has undertaken this year as a result of the support they received from the City. Father Michael Mahoney and Principal Amy Costa from Our Lady of Angels discussed their traffic and safety concerns around their school and church. They suggested their recommendations and stated that they would be bringing these issues to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. Millbrae City Councilmember Wayne Lee asked for the Council’s support in his interest in being appointed to a seat on ABAG. Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed pedestrian safety especially concerning senior citizens. She urged the Council to make changes to improve pedestrian safety in the community. Burlingame resident Leslie Beatty asked the Council to consider ways to reduce cars on the streets by encouraging public transportation and bicycling. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 10 Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach pulled items 8e and 8f. Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve items 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d from the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2016 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council’s approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2016. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOTT MACDONALD FOR THE EASTON ADDITION SUBDIVISION AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2, CITY PROJECT NO. 84191; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 109-2016. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND VB GOLF II TO CONDUCT GOLF OPERATIONS AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER P&R Director Glomstad asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 110-2016. d. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS City Clerk Hassel-Shearer asked Council to receive the Informational Report. e. APPROVAL OF A LETTER STATING THE CITY’S SUPPORT FOR THE BAY AREA: RESILENT BY DESIGN CHALLENGE Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council approve of a letter stating the City’s support for the Bay Area: Resilient by Design Challenge. Councilmember Beach thanked the Citizens Environmental Council and Sustainability Coordinator Michael who brought this opportunity to the Council’s attention. She explained that the letter will communicate the City’s interest and commitment to addressing sea level rise. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve of the letter stating the City’s support for the Bay Area: Resilient by Design Challenge; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 11 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGES TO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY HR Director Loomis asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 111-2016. Councilmember Beach asked the HR Director Loomis to address the statement in the staff report about administrative leave for all unrepresented classifications. HR Director Loomis stated that this paragraph should have one more sentence stating: With the exception of the Executive Assistant and the HR Technician who are not eligible for administrative leave. She explained that these two positions are eligible for overtime pay instead of administrative leave. HR Loomis stated that the attached compensation plan correctly identified this exception. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 111-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2017, 2018 AND 2019 DPW Murtuza asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 112-2016. DPW Murtuza stated that this was a continuation of a public hearing from the November 21, 2016 City Council meeting on establishing water rates for calendar years 2017, 2018 and 2019. He explained that during the last public hearing members of the public raised concerns about the proposed increase to the water rates. Furthermore, a few members of the public brought forth a spreadsheet that they believed showed that there was a significantly large surplus in the water enterprise funds. The spreadsheet was created by a member of the public using portions of the City’s CAFR. DPW Murtuza explained that in light of these assertions, Council continued the public hearing to allow staff time to review this information. DPW Murtuza explained that Finance Director Augustine, the consultants, staff and himself, reviewed the information that the public presented. Finance Director Augustine determined that the spreadsheet did not include the water capital improvements program and the debt service. Therefore the spreadsheet was not a comprehensive look at the water budget. DPW Murtuza stated that all monies in the water enterprise fund are accounted for. He stated that staff came to Council to request water rate increases because SFPUC has increased their rates over the last several years and has stated it will continue to increase rates. As well, the City has an $88 million backlog of identified improvements it needs to make to the water system. Accordingly, staff is asking for water rate increases to cover these costs. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 12 Mr. Murtuza went on to address a member of the public’s question about general fund transfers and the water enterprise funds and whether this complied with Proposition 218. He stated that a primary goal of fund accounting is that rate payers are kept separate from City funds. He explained that all utility funds are separate. He stated that transfers to the general fund are limited to the cost of the administration of the water enterprise like water billing. Accordingly, DPW Murtuza explained that the consultants, auditors and staff had all ensured that the City was in compliance with Proposition 218. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing for public comment. Burlingame resident Diane Condon Wirgler stated that she reviewed the last ten years of the City’s internal fund transfers and still had several questions. She asked that Finance Director Augustine answer her questions and allow the Council time to review these answers prior to making a decision. Burlingame resident Gene Condon stated that although the City needs to spend funds on infrastructure, the Council should reconsider the impact the increased water rates would have on the community. Burlingame resident Martha Laboissiere discussed what she believed to be a surplus (approximately $8 million) in the City’s water enterprise funds. She asked the Council to explain if there was a surplus in the water enterprise fund why the City needed to increase water rates. Mayor Keighran asked DPW Murtuza to address Ms. Laboissiere’s concern. DPW Murtuza explained that rising rates from SFPUC and the need to repair the City’s water infrastructure led to the need to increase water rates. He stated that if the City does not increase water rates, the cost of operation and purchasing water from SFPUC will eat away at the funds that would be directed to CIP improvements. DPW Murtuza presented a slide that showed the effects of the increase in SFPUC rates to the City’s water enterprise fund. Ms. Laboissiere asked if the fund wasn’t completely depleted until 2020 why were rates being increased now, why not in 2020. DPW Murtuza stated that the additional funds Ms. Laboissiere was pointing at are used for CIP improvements. As well, he stated that if the water rates were not increased, then in 2020, the fund wouldn’t be depleted, the fund would be bankrupt. Burlingame resident Annmarie Daniels discussed her concerns about the effect of the rising cost of water on families in the community. Mayor Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was glad the Council continued this public hearing. He stated that government accounting is very different from businesses. He welcomed the public to come to the Audit Committee meetings so that they could learn more. He stated the $8 million the City has is already down from $11 million in the previous year. He agreed with DPW Murtuza’s assertion that SFPUC’s rates were cutting into this reserve that was set up to cover CIP improvements. He discussed the $88 million backlog of improvements that are needed for the water system. He stated that the $8 million is used for that work and any emergency work that arises. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 13 Councilmember Brownrigg explained that the City’s government auditing firm consistently blesses the City’s reserves with the highest marks. He stated he didn’t believe the City should pay it down to zero. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed the proposed increase from $2.5 million annually in CIP improvements to $3.5 million (under the proposed water rate increases) was not enough and that more should be done. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed how government transfers between the different City funds work. He reviewed the transfers that had been made in the past five years and explained to the public how they had equaled up. Accordingly, he stated that after spending a lot of time reviewing the finances he is satisfied that the money is being invested properly. Councilmember Colson asked how many rate protest letters the City received. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that there were a total of 49 letters with five being received in the past two weeks. Councilmember Colson asked how many rate payers the City has. DPW Murtuza stated 7,904. Councilmember Colson stated that the 49 protest letters are well below the level for a majority protest (50% +1). As well, she discussed that originally the Council had looked at increasing water rates to allow the City an annual capital funding level of $4.5 million. However, the Council compromised and lowered this number to a gradual increase up to $3.5 million. She explained that this meant the Council softened the rate increase to about 2/3rds of what was originally proposed. Councilmember Colson reminded the community that there was a backlog of $88 million in necessary water improvements and that by only investing $3.5 million annually it would take a long time to complete the backlog. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 112-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ANNUAL REPORT OF SUSTAINABILITY ACTIVITIES Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael gave her annual report on the City’s sustainability activities. She explained that she set up her report to show what she has been doing with residents, business and municipal. For the residents, she discussed the City joining Peninsula Clean Energy (“PCE”). She stated that as of October, 2016, 20% of the City’s residents are part of PCE including Burlingame’s municipal accounts. She Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 14 explained that this means the municipal accounts are already using 50% renewable energy and saving 500 metric tons of CO2 emissions a year. She stated that the other programs the City is working on with residents are Bay Area Sunshares and PACE Programs. These programs promote renewable energy and other energy efficient programs for residents. She stated that participation has been low but the overall trend of solar energy in the City is growing. Lastly, she stated the free nozzle program continues and the City has given out over 1200 nozzles to households. For businesses, she stated that in June the City had a Hotel Sustainability Workshop. As well, she has reached out to the business development districts and the chamber of commerce. Lastly, she stated that the City is partnering with the Chamber of Commerce to give out the first Green Business Award. For the municipal, she stated that the Facilities Manager performed a toilet and sink audit of City buildings to help reduce the City’s water use. She also stated that staff is working towards zero waste using only composting and recycling bins at City events. Lastly, she explained how the Police Department replaced their lawn to reduce their water usage and her continued effort to promote Bike to Work and Shop Day. In reviewing the work on Climate Action she stated she received the City’s 2015 Municipal Inventory that will be included in the General Plan. She discussed the City’s work with San Mateo on the vulnerability study in reference to sea level rise. Lastly, she reviewed her 2017 Goals including working on green building and an electric vehicle strategic plan. As well, she discussed ECO100 an opt-up option for PCE. Under ECO100, the City would use 100% renewable energy. She stated it would make a big impact on the City’s greenhouse gas footprint. Mayor Keighran thanked Sigalle Michael for her work. Councilmember Colson stated that she appreciated Ms. Michael’s promotion of ECO100 and that it would only cost the City an additional $36,000 a year to opt-up. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed sea level rise and stated that the City and County should start working on dealing with the implications. As well, he stated that if the City creates a new area for housing, the City should think about creating a green neighborhood. Ms. Michael said this was a great idea for the General Plan. Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Mike McCord from the CEC thanked Ms. Michael for her hardwork and stated that he was excited that the City was working so hard on sustainability and environmental issues. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME) LOCAL 829 BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MID-MANAGEMENT UNIT AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY HR Director Loomis asked Council to adopt Resolution Number 113-2016. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 15 HR Director Loomis presented her staff report asking Council to approve a memorandum of understanding between AFSCME Local 829 BAMM and the City. She stated that this contract is retroactive to January 1, 2016, covers 4 years, and has annual increases of 3%. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comments. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 113-2016; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON SB 415 – THE CALIFORNIA VOTER PARTICIPATION RIGHTS ACT City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the Informational Report on SB 415 – the California Voter Participation Rights Act. She stated that in September, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law SB 415 which was proposed to address waning civic engagement. She stated that under SB 415, the City can continue to hold its council elections in an odd-year cycle if voter turnout doesn’t drop to more than 25% below the City’s voter turnout during the past 4 statewide elections. The City Clerk depicted this statement using charts. The first chart showed a breakdown of the voter turnout in the past 4 statewide elections. She stated that the average voter turnout in the past 4 statewide elections for Burlingame was 59.3%. Accordingly, for the City to continue holding odd-year elections, the City would have to have a voter turnout in their municipal elections of higher than 44.5%. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer showed a chart that depicted the voter turnout in Burlingame for its past 4 municipal elections. She stated that in none of the past 4 municipal elections were voter turnout rates higher than 44.5%. Therefore, the City would need to move their municipal elections to an even-year cycle. She explained that the City would have to have a plan in place by January 1, 2018 and have it fully implemented by 2022. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer discussed four options the Council could use to move their elections to an even- year cycle: 1. Council could extend all terms by a year; 2. Council could decrease all terms by a year (the 3 seats that are up for election in 2017 would run for three-year terms and the two seats up for election in 2019 would run in 2018); 3. Council could extend all terms by a year but wait until election years to do so (the elections in 2017 and 2019 would still occur but interested individuals would run for five-year terms). 4. Council could create a hybrid of the above options. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that once Council chose an option, staff would introduce a proposed ordinance. After the ordinance was adopted, moving Burlingame’s municipal elections to an even-year cycle, the ordinance would be sent to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. Lastly, the City Clerk would send notices to all registered voters in Burlingame notifying them of the change in election year. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 16 Lastly, she showed the Council a slide depicting what actions the other municipalities took in San Mateo County to comply with SB415. She stated that where action was necessary and was taken the city councils decided to extend their terms by a year, except for the City of San Mateo. San Mateo as a charter city has to have an election in 2017 to put forth a measure to amend their election cycle. Councilmember Colson asked if Burlingame School District had taken action on SB 415. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer replied in the negative. Councilmember Colson asked if the other municipalities had the same issue of not meeting the threshold for minimum voter participation. City Clerk Hassel Shearer replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if he was right in thinking that as more municipalities choose to extend their terms, that the cost of an election in 2017 and if necessary 2019 would increase for the City. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked what it would cost the City to hold an election with San Mateo in 2017, if they were the only two jurisdictions. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer discussed that she had been told by the County Elections Office it could range from $150,000 to $250,000. She added that previously when Coastside Fire Protection District had a recall election it had cost them a similar amount but with a voting population twice the size of Burlingame. She added that if the City has an election in 2017 and possibly 2019, the City could talk to the County Elections Office about holding the election as an all-mailed ballot. This would save the City money but still provide a polling place for the residents in Burlingame. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the idea of placing a measure on the 2017 ballot and that if the City felt it had the support of the community he thought they should hold an election in 2017. Councilmember Colson discussed discomfort with extending Council terms. She stated that she was in favor of Option 3 (extending terms during an election year) so that the power stayed with the public to determine who should be in office and for how long they should serve. Councilmember Beach stated that she was against the Council extending their terms as the voters had voted each of them in for four-year terms. However, she stated that there was a need to balance the voter will with their fiduciary duty when it comes to the increasing cost of continuing to hold odd-year elections. Councilmember Beach stated that because of this she was in favor of Option 2 (decreasing terms by a year). Vice Mayor Ortiz stated his discomfort with extending terms. He stated he wasn’t in favor of Option 3 as he believed an election in 2019 would be too expensive. Accordingly, he stated he wanted to see the Council choose an option where the City wouldn’t have an election in 2019. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed a five-year term was too long and that Council needed a chance to check in with voters. Mayor Keighran stated that she believed a three-year term was too short. She stated new councilmembers need a year to learn the position and that the three-year term wouldn’t allow them time to invest and implement new projects. She stated that she was in favor of Option 3. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 17 Councilmember Brownrigg suggested looking at a hybrid where the three seats up in 2017 would be for five- year terms and the two seats up in 2019 would be extended until 2020. Council thoroughly discussed all four options. Vice Mayor Ortiz voiced his support for Councilmember Brownrigg’s hybrid model. Councilmember Beach stated her discomfort with all five councilmembers not being treated the same under the hybrid model. City Attorney stated that she was not hearing a majority opinion. She stated that staff needed direction on what ordinance to introduce. She explained that it sounded like there were two votes for Option 3 and two votes for a hybrid. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed tabling this item until a later date when the Council had more time to think about how to best move their elections to an even-year cycle. Councilmember Colson asked when other municipalities were going to discuss SB 415. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer stated that the remaining municipalities would be discussed this item in early 2017. Councilmember Colson asked if any other municipality was recommending decreasing their terms to comply with SB 415. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the negative for San Mateo County municipalities. City Attorney Kane stated that staff had done a survey of San Mateo County and could not speak to what actions municipalities outside of San Mateo County had taken. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed that the Council should table the discussion. City Manager Goldman and City Attorney Kane discussed bringing this item back in the second meeting in January, 2017. Councilmember Beach made a motion to continue this item; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS As a result of the late hour, the Mayor continued this item until the next City Council meeting with the approval of her colleagues. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were no acknowledgements. Burlingame City Council December 5, 2016 Approved Minutes 18 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at11:19pm. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk