HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.02.04City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 4, 2019
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on
any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Conference with Real Property Negotiators (California Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property: City of Burlingame Parking Lots F (APN 029 224 270) and N (APN 029 231
240 and 029-231-060)
Agency Negotiators: City Attorney Kathleen Kane, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman,
Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Finance Director Carol Augustine
Negotiating Parties: Pacific West Communities, Inc.
Under Negotiation: Price and terms
d.
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/31/2019
February 4, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
6. PRESENTATIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M .
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion .
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar.
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 22, 2019a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 26, 2019b.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill One Vacancy on the Planning Commissionc.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending December 31, 2018d.
Staff Report
Portfolio Holdings
CERBT - Strategy 1
PARS Statement
Attachments:
Adoption of Resolutions Memorializing the City Council's January 22, 2019 Action
Granting the Appeal, Overruling the Planning Commission ’s Denial Without Prejudice, and
Approving Project Entitlements to Install New Wireless Facilities (Antenna and Equipment)
on Existing Wood Utility Poles Located Within the Right -of-Ways Adjacent to 1800 Hillside
Drive and 701 Winchester Drive
e.
Staff Report
Resolution - 1800 Hillside Dr
Resolution - 701 Winchester Dr
Exhibit A
Attachments:
Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter in Support of AB 213f.
Staff Report
Letter of Support for AB 213
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/31/2019
February 4, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Establish No Parking Along North Carolan Avenue from Edwards Road
to Approximately 150 Feet North of Whitehorn Way between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
a.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Revised Draft BMC Chapter 13.36.020
Area Map
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb.
Committee ReportAttachments:
12. 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.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/31/2019
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on January 22, 2019
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 Alexandra Kromelow.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
a. REVIEW OF PENSION LIABILITIES BY DOUG PRYOR, VICE PRESIDENT OF BARTEL
ASSOCIATES, LLC
Bartel Associates, LLC Vice President Doug Pryor gave a presentation to the City Council on the City’s
pension liabilities. Mr. Pryor showed a graph that depicted the annual return on investments for CalPERS
over a 20-year period. He noted that because the annual return line spikes and dips, it is not easy to
determine the average. Therefore, another line was inserted on the graph to depict the ten-year rolling
average. He explained that the ten-year rolling average line shows that that the returns have been below the
discount rate assumed by CalPERS.
Mr. Pryor explained that the City has two groups in CalPERS: miscellaneous and safety. Miscellaneous has
two tiers: 1) 2.5% at 55 years, and 2) 2% at 62 years. Safety also has two tiers: 1) 3% at 50 years, and 2)
2.7% at 57 years.
Mr. Pryor stated that over the next five years, the discount rate will be decreased from 7.5% to 7%. He noted
that this would be done gradually but that each decrease would not be fully realized for five years. For
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
example, the decrease of the discount rate to 7.35% is initially realized in FY 2018/19, but it isn’t fully
realized until FY 2022/23.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the mortality improvement assumption is. Mr. Pryor stated that it is
about one to three years.
Councilmember Brownrigg thought this was underestimating future gains on mortality improvement.
Mr. Pryor discussed CalPERS’ risk mitigation strategy. He stated that after reviewing the portfolio,
CalPERS realized they were paying out more in benefits then they were collecting in contributions. He
explained that the CalPERS system is mature and is moving towards more conservative investments. He
gave the example of how you invest in your youth versus when you are older. He explained that under the
new strategy, when returns are better than expected, CalPERS will lower the discount rate. Therefore, he
predicted the discount rate to get to 6% in the next 20-year period because CalPERS will become less
aggressive with their investment portfolio.
Mr. Pryor discussed the City’s miscellaneous plan. He noted that in the most recent evaluation, there are 179
active employees and 269 retirees in the program.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that what surprised him about the demographics of the miscellaneous plan
was the rise in the number of retirees per worker. He asked if the growth would plateau, or would the
number of retirees continue to dramatically increase. Mr. Pryor stated that he believed the City was close to
plateauing.
Mr. Pryor reviewed the funded status of the miscellaneous plan. He noted that as of June 30, 2017, the City
had $37 million in unfunded liability for miscellaneous, and that 74% of the plan was funded. He explained
that if the discount rate decreased to 7%, unfunded liability would increase to $41 million, and if the discount
rate decreased to 6%, unfunded liability would increase to $60 million.
Mr. Pryor reviewed the historical funded ratio for the miscellaneous plan. He explained that at the height of
the plan in the late 90s, it was well funded, but in FY 2008-2009, the funded status dropped down to 65%,
and it hasn’t really improved.
Mayor Colson stated that the funded status also changes over time based on the benefits given. Mr. Pryor
replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Colson discussed how the City’s funded status changed when the City sold pension obligation bonds
and put those into the portfolio. She explained that the funded status of pension plans fluctuates for a variety
of reasons, and it isn’t solely the result of return on investments. Mr. Pryor replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Pryor reviewed contribution projections for the miscellaneous plan. He explained that they expect rates
to be about 38.5% of payroll in fiscal year 2029-30. However, if things go well, it could be 26.3% of
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
payroll; if things go poorly, it could be 49.8% of payroll. He noted that in dollar amounts the expected rate
for FY 2029-30 is $5.6 million, good is $2.59 million, and poorly is $8.18 million.
Mr. Pryor next discussed the safety plan. He stated that as of 2017, there are 38 active employees and 75
retired. He stated that the unfunded liability is about $27 million and that when the discount rate drops to
6%, the unfunded liability will be about $41.5 million.
Mr. Pryor reviewed contribution projections for the safety plan. He explained that they expect rates to be
about 82.7% of payroll in fiscal year 2029-30. However, if things go well, it could be 58% of payroll; if
things go poorly, it could be 105.55% of payroll. He noted that in dollar amounts, the expected rate for FY
2029-30 is $4.1 million, good is $1.59 million, and poorly is $5.7 million.
Mr. Pryor explained that the City has set aside about $8.1 million in the Section 115 Trust. He reviewed a
slide that depicted what would happen if the City made an extra contribution to CalPERS instead of creating
the Section 115 Trust. He explained that making an extra one-time contribution would still result in a “peak”
to required contributions. However, with the Section 115 Trust, the City will be able to avoid the peak. This
is because once contributions go above 37.5% for miscellaneous and 76.9% for safety, the City can utilize
the Section 115 Trust to avoid increased contribution requirements.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that if the City made a one-time contribution to CalPERS, would
that give the City more cash flow but also result in a peak of contribution rates. Whereas, if the City
maintains the Section 115 Trust, the City will get a good return on investment and avoid the peak. Mr. Pryor
replied that the City will earn less in the Section 115 Trust, but from a budget standpoint, it’s better to
control the peak.
Mayor Colson stated that there is also risk around choosing a one-time contribution to CalPERS. This is
because you aren’t dollar cost averaging over time. Instead, you are putting the funds into the market, and if
the market declines, CalPERS will recalculate your contribution rate. Therefore, it might erase the one-time
contribution.
Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that there is a heavy penalty if the City chooses to
terminate their plan with CalPERS. Mr. Pryor replied in the affirmative. He explained that CalPERS takes
the position that if a jurisdiction terminates their contract with CalPERS, they can never come back to collect
another dime. As a result, CalPERS can’t afford to invest the way they have been investing, so they will
invest the funds in high quality bonds to ensure they can pay everyone out. This means the discount rate
drops.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the presentation. However, in the future he would like
to see actionable data. He explained that he wanted to know how much the City has to put away and how to
do it. Additionally, he added that he found it more informative to put the data in dollar figures over
percentages.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
Mayor Colson discussed the importance of educating City employees and residents to understand what the
pension liability is and what the City is doing to manage it. She noted that when she talks to union
representatives, she always stresses that pensions are guaranteed but jobs aren’t. Therefore, pensions can
cannibalize an active workforce.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that right now when the times are good, the City needs to do what it can to pay
down the pension liability because the economy will go down. He noted that the problem is daunting but
that the City is in good shape to manage this problem.
Vice Mayor Beach asked what CalPERS’ actual rate of return is. Mr. Pryor stated that he didn’t have the
numbers for this year, but he knows that it isn’t looking good. He noted that the ten-year average (which
includes FY 2008-09) is 5.8%.
Mayor Colson discussed the State’s decision to change the amortization from 30 years to 20 years. She
noted that she doesn’t understand the State’s rationale for this change and that it has been incredibly difficult
for the schools to manage. She explained that if an individual pays off their mortgage in 15 years versus 30
years, they would pay it off quicker, but would pay a lot more per month. However, unlike a mortgage, these
are not closed plans. She stated the City is always going to have a workforce with 30 years of work ahead of
them to continue to pay for the plan.
Mayor Colson noted that as interest rates change and market rates change, the plan becomes dynamic, and to
look at this today doesn’t mean it will be the same conversation in the future.
Mayor C olson stated that CalPERS is moving to more conservative investments. She asked if it is a more
conservative asset allocation or are they taking risk off the table at the money management level. Mr. Pryor
stated that it is the asset allocation.
Mayor Colson discussed the conversation of whether jurisdictions need to be 100% funded. She noted that
the City is an ongoing continuing entity. She stated that the funded status doesn’t matter; it is whether the
City can keep up with the necessary contribution scheme.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked for more information about the next ten-year dollar contributions that the
City is looking at building to hit the 50% targets. This is so that when the City is looking at whether to
expand the capital budget, there is a sense of what the pension budget is.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2019
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT
WITH WEIMAN SYNDICATE FOR PROVISIONS RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
BETWEEN 1490 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 010-2019.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY, AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND
RANGES
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 011-2019.
d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTION 9.08.040 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING BEES
City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1958.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATIO OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE (CONTINUED FROM
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE
(EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) AND
CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 704 WINCHESTER DRIVE (EXISTING UTILITY
POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER
4, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
City Attorney Kane introduced two experts that have assisted staff on this matter. The first was Gail Karish,
who is a nationally recognized attorney in this field and represents a number of agencies. She noted that Ms.
Karish is also co-counsel on the national litigation involving FCC’s recent order. The second was Lee
Afflerbach from CTC, who has 50 years of experience working with local government entities on analyzing
infrastructure buildout for telephone and wireless.
Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the public hearing is for two locations
1. Utility pole located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue,
adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive.
2. Utility pole located within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove
Avenue, adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive.
Mr. Hurin stated that at the September 4, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council voted to continue the
hearing for three months. During that three-month period, AT&T would work with staff to address the
community and the Council’s concerns. He noted that since the September 4 meeting, AT&T has made
some changes to their application including:
• The size of the radio remote units was reduced from 11 feet to 9 feet 4 inches;
• AT&T added shields in order to conceal the equipment; and
• AT&T investigated alternative sites including utilizing 704 Winchester Drive instead of the proposed
701 Winchester Drive.
•
He noted that the alternative site, 704 Winchester, would require replacing an existing utility pole, owned by
AT&T, with a new utility pole. Additionally, PG&E would need to install an above-ground meter. The
above-ground meter would be stored in a cabinet measuring 4 feet 6 inches in height.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
Vice Mayor Beach asked staff to discuss why PG&E would need a separate meter for the alternative site at
704 Winchester. DPW Murtuza stated that the AT&T pole doesn’t have any electric utility on it. Therefore,
in order to provide power, PG&E would have to run a line from their closest facility to the pole.
Mayor Colson introduced CTC Principal Engineer Lee Afflerbach. She explained that Mr. Afflerbach was
hired because at the September 4, 2018 meeting, Councilmember Keighran asked for an independent
consultant to review the applications.
Mr. Afflerbach began by reviewing the history of cell towers. He stated that early on, telecom companies
utilized towers that, if tall enough, could shoot out a three to four mile long signal. He explained that while
this technology covered phone calls, once cell phones were utilized for video and data, the tower’s capacity
couldn’t keep up. As a result, the macro towers began utilizing additional bands that could expand coverage.
However, these bands don’t have the same coverage as macro towers. He explained that this resulted in the
development of small cell facilities. Small cell facilities are put in neighborhoods and cover service areas of
500-1000 feet.
Mr. Afflerbach stated that there is nothing unusual about the system that AT&T has chosen for Burlingame.
He noted that AT&T has made the equipment and antenna smaller than what is allowed under FCC
regulations.
Mr. Afflerbach discussed RF (radio frequency) exposure. He stated that the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 required the federal government to evaluate and set standards. The FCC was assigned the
responsibility to set the standards for human exposure to RF energy emitted by FCC-regulated equipment.
He noted that the standards were developed with input from expert agencies such as the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, American National
Standards Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Afflerbach stated that practically every device in one’s home emits RF energy such as microwaves, Wi-
Fi, cell phones, etc. He stated that he reviews applications to ensure that the cell towers are compliant with
the FCC’s RF emission standards. He explained that the standard considers the cumulative effect of RF
emissions in the area. Therefore, nearby towers and other small cell facilities would be taken into
consideration when ensuring an application is compliant. He stated that after review, CTC found AT&T’s
applications compliant.
Mr. Afflerbach reviewed CTC’s findings on the AT&T applications. He explained that the proposed
technical equipment is suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications. CTC’s onsite testing of
AT&T’s current network performance in the vicinity of the two sites found that most of AT&T’s network
delivers wireless throughout the area examined, but data transfer rates vary greatly. In most cases, CTC’s
measurements recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient amplitude to support in-vehicle 4G high-speed
transfer of data, but user demand exhibited significant impact on network throughput. He noted that the RF
emissions impact studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by the independent contract engineering
consultant firm of Hammett & Edison) and the independent analysis of CTC confirm that at each site, the
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
total calculated RF emissions would not exceed the FCC’s emission guidelines at ground level or at adjacent
elevated locations in multi-story locations.
Councilmember Keighran asked how the RF emissions from the small cell facilities compare to other
devices. Mr. Afflerbach stated that it depends where you are. He noted that a typical cell phone has a
radiating power in the range of 100 milliwatts. He stated that the RF emissions from Wi-Fi devices can be
up to one watt in power. He noted that there is quite a bit of exposure around one’s home.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the cumulative effect will need to be measured for each small cell application.
Mr. Afflerbach replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked in Mr. Afflerbach’s experience, do cities develop master plans so that they
can see where everything is. Mr. Afflerbach stated that most communities have databases.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked why telecom companies wanted to move from macro towers to micro
sites. He added that the City has an ordinance that states that they would much prefer telecom companies to
build macro sites. Mr. Afflerbach stated because there is not enough capacity on the macro tower for the
number of users.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that one of the questions they all received was whether there is really a
gap in service. He stated that CTC went out and determined that there is a gap in service. He asked if he
was correct that when a cell phone has a poor signal, the way it tries to connect is to pump more power
through the phone. Mr. Afflerbach replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this is a highly dangerous situation for the user. He added that if one
of the outcomes of allowing small cell facilities is that it reduces the amount of power that is needed for a
cellphone to connect, this would be good for the community.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the legal parameters are that the City has for deciding on the AT&T
applications. Ms. Karish explained that generally, you start with the assumption that local governments
control development within their jurisdictions. However, in the telecommunications industry there are
several layers of federal and state laws that limit the City’s authority. She noted that small wireless facilities
are usually seeking to place their equipment in the public right-of-way, and under State law they have a
franchise right to use the right-of-way. The franchise right is limited by local government’s ability to
consider if the installation incommodes the public’s use of the public right-of-way. She explained that this
has been interpreted to include safety, the primary use of the right-of-way, and aesthetics.
Ms. Karish discussed the federal parameters concerning the City’s decision. She stated that federal law has
preempted a lot of local authority. She gave the example of RF emissions, which are regulated by FCC
standards. She stated that the local government can only ask an applicant to demonstrate that their facility
will meet the FCC standards. She added that federal law has also taken away the ability of local or state
authority to regulate terms of service or entry (service conditions or rates). She noted that local government
has authority on placement of facilities, but if the city denies an application, it must be in writing and based
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
on substantial evidence. Therefore, the city can’t have regulations or decisions that would result in an
effective prohibition of service.
City Attorney Kane added that what is before the Council tonight is the limited question of the two appeals
for the two sites. She noted that there are broader policy questions that the community cares about including
establishing citywide aesthetic standards. She explained that these will have to be discussed in a separate
public process.
Councilmember Ortiz asked the City Attorney to comment on where the City is with the shot clock. City
Attorney Kane stated that the applications have taken a considerable amount of time. However, the City and
AT&T have entered into a tolling agreement through tonight’s hearing. This means that AT&T is not raising
the issue of the City acting too slow.
Mayor Colson asked in general what the shot clock is. City Attorney Kane replied that it depends on the
nature of the installation. She added that the trend over time is that the shot clocks are getting shorter and
that local processes have to become increasingly streamlined.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that in the months ahead, the City will need to have public policy discussions on
small cell sites and what they should look like in Burlingame. She asked about the potential preference for
smart poles in the future, where everything is hidden inside. Additionally, she asked if the Council could
require AT&T to utilize smart poles for the two applications in front of the Council. City Attorney Kane
stated that because the application dealt with utility poles, the City Council needed to rule on the applicant’s
ability to utilize the utility poles. Ms. Karish added that the smart poles are used to replace street lights and
not utility poles.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City would have to enter into contracts with the carriers if the City
chose to use smart poles in the future. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He discussed the expense
and logistics of switching from utility poles to smart poles.
Councilmember Keighran stated that San Jose is currently undertaking a pilot program with smart poles and
asked staff to keep tabs on the program.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing.
AT&T Vice President of External Affairs Tedi Vriheas stated that the two small cell sites are needed to help
AT&T improve wireless service and signal quality in Burlingame. She noted that the cells are needed to
address significant problems caused by constrained macro facilities.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed the timeline of the two applications. She stated that AT&T has worked extensively
with the City in order to address the community’s concerns. She noted that AT&T submitted several
applications to the City for small cell sites in September 2018.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
Ms. Vriheas stated that during the September 4, 2018 Council meeting, the Council and community asked
questions about alternative sites and the design of the small cells. After that meeting, AT&T worked to find
alternative sites and designs. She stated that AT&T received the okay from the national office to deviate
from set standards of what the small cell should look like. She explained that these standards are in place so
that during an emergency, staff from other states will understand the equipment and be able to maintain it.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed AT&T’s proposed design for the small cells. She noted that AT&T created two
designs where either the small cells are kept in one box or in three boxes. In both options, the boxes are
covered to make it a sleeker design. She reviewed pictures of what the small cell would look like at 1800
Hillside Drive. She explained that the Planning Commission asked if AT&T could work with Our Lady of
Angels as an alternative site. However, she explained that this site couldn’t be used because AT&T would
have to make structural changes to the steeple.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed other proposed sites near 1800 Hillside Drive. However, each of the other sites had
issues including: 1) located on private property; 2) didn’t meet the CPUC General Order 95 requirements;
and 3) pole was not structurally sound to support the proposed equipment.
Ms. Vriheas next discussed the 701 Winchester Drive site. She showed pictures that depicted what the
equipment would look like at this site.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the equipment has to be so far away from the pole. AT&T
representative Mark Garbish explained that it is a CPUC General Order 95 requirement. He stated that
individuals who climb poles with belts need to be able to put the belt around the pole.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed the alternative sites for 701 Winchester Drive. She stated that AT&T found that they
could put the small cell at 704 Winchester Drive, but they would need to put a separate pedestal across the
street. She explained that the other alternatives for 701 Winchester wouldn’t work for various reasons
including: 1) didn’t meet the CPUC General Order 95 requirements; 2) licensed to another carrier; and 3)
four poles were rejected by the AT&T Radio Frequency engineer. She noted that AT&T would like to put
the small cell in Washington Park, but they hadn’t heard from the City whether this was possible.
Mayor Colson stated that Washington Park is about to be renovated for the new Community Center, which
would make it more difficult to develop this as a small site. However, she noted that the City is very
amenable to utilizing their own property in these cases. She gave the example of the City working with
Caltrain for their paralleling station.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that the wires from the small cells go straight down the pole
and underground. Ms. Vriheas replied that most do, but some go up and attach to existing wires.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed small cells are all 4G related. Ms. Vriheas replied in the
affirmative. She added that AT&T is not yet deploying 5G on small cells.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if AT&T cared about the orientation of the equipment on the poles. Mr.
Garbish stated that under General Order 95, the boxes must allow for a climbing quadrant.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked AT&T that there are no fans with the small cells. He added that the
higher AT&T can place the equipment on the utility pole, the better.
Councilmember Keighran asked if in the future AT&T would be using the existing equipment for 5G. Ms.
Vriheas stated that AT&T is currently finalizing their prototypes for 5G. She stated that the prototypes are
not at the top of the pole, that it is all enclosed, and is about 23 inches long and 9 inches wide. She added
that this would be deployed later this year.
Councilmember Keighran asked that as soon as equipment isn’t used, that it be taken off the poles. Ms.
Vriheas stated that AT&T removes out-of-service equipment on a regular basis.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if there are an y additional supporting wires that aren’t shown in the renderings.
Ms. Vriheas replied in the negative.
Mayor Colson stated that she appreciated that AT&T took the fans out and went the extra mile on these
installations to make them sleeker. She discussed the importance of establishing a standard for the small
cells in Burlingame. Ms. Vriheas stated that the best solution is to convene a working group of the different
carriers to understand what each needs and then what could be implemented throughout the city.
Mayor Colson thanked Ms. Vriheas and opened public comment.
Burlingame resident Tom Santoro stated that he lives in direct view of the requested small cell at 1800
Hillside Drive and doesn’t want the small cell approved.
Burlingame resident Peter Jaunich voiced concern that the weight of the equipment on the poles could lead to
a safety hazard.
Burlingame resident Tatyana Shmygol voiced her concern about the small cells being deployed in
Burlingame. She asked if the City plans to conduct thorough reviews of future sites.
Burlingame resident Alexandra Kromelow voiced her support for the deployment of small cells in
Burlingame because of bad cell service in her neighborhood.
Burlingame resident Catherine Huston asked the Council not to approve the small cells and asked about the
legal ramifications if a drone hits one of the sites. She also asked when the FCC developed the standards that
were referenced in the presentation. Ms. Karish stated that the FCC standards were adopted in 1995.
Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commissioner Ian Milne thanked AT&T for addressing the public’s
concerns and voiced his support for approving the small cells.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
Burlingame resident Debby Burn asked the Council to vote against the small cells as they aren’t aesthetically
pleasing.
Burlingame resident Jan Robertson asked if the City would conduct hearings with the other carriers who
submit applications for small cells.
Burlingame resident Erica Drabik asked how many people in the community have AT&T as a carrier and
voiced concern about RF emissions from small cells.
Mayor Colson reviewed the questions that the public asked with AT&T representative Tedi Vriheas.
Mayor Colson asked Ms. Vriheas to comment on the public question about what the coverage gap is in
Burlingame. Ms. Vriheas stated that the coverage gap is set out in the application and that it has been
confirmed that there is a coverage capacity gap.
Councilmember Keighran expanded the public’s question and asked if studies are done each time an
application is made with the City to determine the coverage gap. Ms. Vriheas replied in the affirmative and
added that it is a legal standard.
Mayor Colson stated that the next public question was about pole liability and viability. Mr. Grabisch stated
that there are CPUC regulations on how often the poles need to be visited and inspected. He added that the
application forces a re-inspection of the pole to make sure it is safe for their facilities.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how heavy the antenna is. Mr. Grabish stated that the antenna is roughly
20 pounds.
Ms. Vriheas noted that AT&T’s equipment is in the public right-of-way, and if individuals are using drones
that damage the equipment, the individuals are liable for that damage.
Mayor Colson stated that the next public question concerned whether cell service is critical to the City’s
infrastructure including hospitals and emergency services. Ms. Vriheas replied in the affirmative. She noted
that between 70-80% of all emergency calls are made on cell phones. She explained that under FCC
spectrum regulations, AT&T has an obligation to ensure they provide coverage within their footprint.
Mayor Colson stated that another question concerned the alternative Washington Park location that is quite a
bit away from 701 Winchester Drive. Ms. Vriheas stated that in September 2018, AT&T discussed how they
find their coverage gap. She noted that AT&T’s radio access network engineers issue a ring that shows
where the small cell needs to be located. She noted that the park was within the vicinity of the macro.
Mayor Colson asked how many AT&T customers they have in Burlingame. Ms. Vriheas stated that this was
proprietary information.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
Councilmember Keighran asked about the distance of the macro to the Winchester site. Ms. Vriheas stated it
is about a mile.
Mayor Colson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and participating in the discussion.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City can utilize CTC to review future applications. City Attorney
Kane replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City approves these applications for 4G deployments, would a 5G
upgrade need to come back to the City Council for approval. Ms. Karish explained that a 2012 federal law
states that if there is an existing wireless facility, some changes to the facility have to be approved by the
local government. She stated that the concept of the law was that because the local government had already
approved the wireless facility, if the changes were relatively insignificant, they would also be approved.
Councilmember Keighran asked about weight constraints if the equipment is changed out for 5G. Ms.
Karish stated that any changes to the utility pole have to go through an approval process with the pole owner.
Mayor Colson asked the Council to discuss the appeal of 1800 Hillside Drive.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the two applications before the Council are just the beginning and that
several applications have been submitted to the City for wireless facilities. He discussed that after reading
the rules and talking to the attorneys, the City’s hands are practically tied when it comes to allowing telecom
companies into the community. He stated that he doesn’t want to have 500 or 1000 poles with antennas but
he doesn’t believe he can stop it. He added that he doesn’t want to have the City take on a challenge,
spending taxpayers’ money, if the City doesn’t believe it can win the case. He noted that six years ago the
City did go to court on a telecom matter and won. He added the City joined the national lawsuit to challenge
the FCC’s practice of taking away local control.
Councilmember Brownrigg explained that both of the applications have to be approved. He stated that he
didn’t believe the Council’s decision had to be a precedent for the design of future wireless facilities. He
noted that he appreciated that AT&T got rid of the fan and voiced support for the single sleek box. He added
that he thought the smart poles might be the way to go, but that this would require a working group. He
asked in the future that the carriers bring in physical mock ups of the wireless facilities.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she hoped the community heard loud and clear that the Council hears their
concerns. She noted that emissions, clutter, and proliferation are all concerns and that the Council
understands. She stated that the Council and community will have to discuss potentially creating a master
plan that establishes the design and placement of small cells in the city. She stated that AT&T’s current
design is a better version than the original. She stressed the importance of a constant review of the
cumulative effect of the cells.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she would prefer the single sleek box.
Councilmember Keighran stated that her comments were similar to Councilmember Brownrigg and Vice
Mayor Beach. She discussed the fact that the Council’s hands are tied but appreciated the discourse that has
occurred on this matter. She stated that she was interested in using smart poles and was looking forward to
the San Jose pilot project. She discussed creating a working group to help plan out the design and location of
wireless facilities. She agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the carriers should bring physical mock
ups to the Council and Planning Commission meetings. She stated that under the circumstances, she would
vote for going forward and voiced support for the one box design versus 3 boxes.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked the three boxes over one.
Mayor Colson stated that she liked the idea of a working group. She thought it should be comprised of
Council, Planning Commission, and Beautification Commission members. Additionally, she suggested that
the City allow the homeowner to select if they would rather have the three box design or the one box design.
City Attorney Kane suggested that the Council make a motion, and then at the next meeting, staff will bring
back a resolution that lists the conditions of approval.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve AT&T’s application for a small cell facility at 1800
Hillside Drive, thereby overruling the Planning Commission’s decision. He noted that the Council is
approving the application, in part, because AT&T has made upgrades to their design so that the small cell
facility is sleeker, smaller, the color of the pole, and doesn’t have fans. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Colson directed the Council’s attention to 701 Winchester Drive or the alternative site at 704
Winchester Drive.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the alternative site with the separate pedestal was a nonstarter for him.
Therefore, he recommended the 701 Winchester Drive site.
Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz and stated that she didn’t want to see unnecessary
additional clutter in the public’s right-of-way.
Councilmember Keighran agreed with her colleagues.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed that
he didn’t want the separate box. However, the 704 Winchester site was on the non-residential side of the
street. He explained that he believed the community would be happier not having the antenna on the
residential side of the street.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
15
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues had any additional thoughts given Councilmember Brownrigg’s
commentary.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that one thing he liked about the original site at 701 Winchester Drive is that
there are more trees, so it is hidden.
Mayor Colson stated that she concurred with Councilmember Ortiz.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to grant the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission’s denial. She
stated that she approved the application with the changes suggested and that the small cell would be placed at
701 Winchester Drive. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. PROPOSITION 2018 PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
INCREASING SOLID WASTE RATES BY 6% FOR ALL ACCOUNTS FOR EACH OF
CALENDAR YEARS 2019, 2020, AND 2021
Finance Director Augustine noted that each year staff takes a look at the various cost components associated
with the solid waste services. This is done to determine the amount of revenue needed from customers to
fund the services for the following year. She noted that Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste
services at the rates prescribed by Council. She added that rates were last raised in 2012. She stated that the
Rate Stabilization Reserve has leveled off and been drawn down from.
Finance Director Augustine stated that staff reviewed the costs associated with solid waste with Council in
2018. Therefore, in order to prevent further depletion of the Rate Stabilization Reserve, a 6% raise was
determined to be needed for each of the next three years.
Finance Director Augustine asked the City Clerk if there had been protests filed. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
stated that there were five.
Finance Director Augustine recommended that because this wasn’t a majority, Council should approve
Resolution Number 012-2019.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked staff for how they communicated to the residences about the upcoming rate
increases. She discussed the green waste regulations and asked if the rates took these changes into account.
Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the new regulations are dramatic and the County has started a pilot
program to pull out more of the organic waste. He noted that if the pilot program works, they will need to
undertake a significant upgrade to the facility, which will increase costs.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
16
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 012-2019; seconded by Councilmember
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
There were no staff reports.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. VICE MAYOR BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Brownrigg requested information about CASA.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting in memory of Bob Giorni at 10:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Annual Goal Setting Session January 26, 2019
1. WELCOME
Mayor Colson welcomed the community to the City’s Annual Goal Setting Session.
2. DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
City Manager Goldman began the meeting by asking each Department Head to discuss one project they are
excited about in their department. She asked that each Councilmember discuss one project they are excited
about in the City.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer discussed the electronic records management system that will assist staff in
finding information and increasing transparency.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the records would be accessible online. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer
replied that some of the documents would be available online to the public, but others, like building plans,
would not because of copyright restrictions.
City Attorney Kane discussed the risk management program and explained that the City recently created and
filled a Senior Risk Analyst position.
City Librarian McCulley stated that the Library is looking to create a committee to discuss implicit bias and
equity issues.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the new Community Center and how the space would
allow staff to conduct more programming and that the Community Center would provide meeting space for
the community.
Police Chief Matteucci discussed the continued development of the Crisis Response Team (“CRT”). He
stated that CRT conducts targeted policing and gave the example of the work that is being done in Lyon
Hoag to assist the community. He noted that CRT’s work in the city has led to a decrease in crime.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
2
DPW Murtuza stated that the Broadway Grade Separation is highly important for the City as Caltrain is
preparing to double the number of trains that will be going through Burlingame in the next ten to 20 years.
CDD Gardiner stated that he believes this will be the year that affordable housing takes off in Burlingame.
He stated that there are 30 new units under construction, 147 have been approved, and 66 are in the pipeline.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the long-needed new finance system for the City and how it will assist
all of the departments.
CCFD Chief Kammeyer stated that CCFD is turning 15 in April. He stated that because of significant
turnover in the past five years, most of the staff has now only served CCFD and not the individual cities.
Therefore, CFFD is working to create a new mission statement.
Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow Pappajohn discussed the “Sea Change Burlingame” project
that will be looking at the Bayfront and how the City can protect assets from sea level rise and flooding.
City Manager Goldman discussed the Burlingame Aquatic Center and the decision to reconstruct the pool.
She stated that they are hoping to open the pool by the summer of 2020.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the work that needs to be done in Lyon Hoag. He explained that if San
Mateo goes ahead with the Peninsula Interchange, it will be important to assist Lyon Hoag with traffic
calming and other measures.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that while he is excited about the new Community Center and the Lots F&N
project, the number one project for him is Broadway Grade Separation.
Councilmember Keighran discussed housing in general. She discussed the importance of communicating the
issue in a multitude of ways and embracing differences in order to find a middle ground.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed Broadway Grade Separation and El Camino Real. Additionally, she voiced her
excitement about the upcoming Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. She explained that this plan will look at the
City holistically and determine how best to integrate alternative modes of transportation.
Mayor Colson discussed the evolution of the relationship between the school districts and the City. She
stated that everything the City discusses impacts the schools and that it is important that the City and districts
work together and communicate in order to better the community.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
3
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh discussed the importance of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan. She asked that the City hire a part-time grant coordinator to assist the City in acquiring grants for
bicycle and pedestrian projects.
TSPC Commissioner Chris Bush discussed the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission’s priorities for the
year including the importance of downtown parking as the Lots F&N project gets underway; bicycle access
throughout the city; and school safety.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed the importance of the work that the El Camino Real Task Force
accomplished with Caltrans. She asked that the City ensure that Caltrans move forward with its
improvements for El Camino Real.
Burlingame resident JoAnneh Nagler discussed the importance of the Lots F&N project and asked that the
City hire a project manager to oversee the development.
Burlingame resident Desiree Thayer discussed the work that Peninsula Clean Energy is doing in the coming
year, including drafting reach codes.
4. BRIEF UPDATES ON HOUSING, SUSTAINABILITY, AND TRANSPORTATION
PRIORITIES
a. HOUSING
City Manager Goldman asked CDD Gardiner to review the 2018 Housing Initiatives.
CDD Gardiner gave a brief review of seven initiatives:
1. General Plan Update: CDD Gardiner stated that the City has been working for several years to update the
City’s General Plan. He noted that the General Plan was adopted at the January 7, 2019 Council meeting
and that this was the first step in the process. He explained that from this document, staff will be
working to create specific plans and update the Zoning Ordinance.
2. F&N: CDD Gardiner stated that the developers are in the process of obtaining building permits. He
explained that multi-family projects are time consuming but that the project was moving forward.
3. Thousand Days, Thousand Units: CDD Gardiner explained that in December 2018, the City hit 1000
units in the pipeline. He noted that this number has increased since then and handed the Council a list of
the projects that are moving forward. He explained that the community and Council spent a lot of time
discussing where housing should be located in the city and that they are starting to see these discussions
come to fruition.
4. Home for All: CDD Gardiner stated that the Home for All initiative changed the nature of the housing
conversation. He explained that through this initiative the community was able to discuss the different
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
4
facets of housing including: jobs, transportation, and education. He stated that next staff will be creating
a new website to make resources surrounding this topic more accessible.
5. Accessory Dwelling Legislation: CDD Gardiner discussed the State’s mandate and noted that the City
amended its ordinance to ensure it was compliant.
6. Commercial Linkage Fees: CDD Gardiner stated that the Council approved commercial linkage fees and
while the City has not yet collected any, there are a few projects in the pipeline that the fees will apply to.
7. Residential Linkage Fees: CDD Gardiner discussed the work that staff and the Council have done to draft
an ordinance for residential linkage fees. He noted that pursuant to Council’s direction staff was drafting
an ordinance that would allow a developer to either pay the fee or build in lieu units. He added that the
proposed ordinance would be coming to the Council in the near future.
City Manager Goldman asked the Council if they had any comments or questions.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the updated General Plan was really a housing plan update. He stated
that since 1970, the City has added approximately 2,500 people. But with the updated General Plan, the City
is predicted to add 6,000 people in the next ten to 20 years. He noted that the State is proposing awarding
funds to cities to hire additional staffing to handle housing matters.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the work the City was doing with HIP Housing in advertising the home
sharing program in the city.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that staff has done an incredible job getting a number of housing-related
projects off the ground. He discussed the need to hire additional staff to assist with the projects.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed how the City had re-tooled their goals a few years back and that from that
discussion housing emerged as the biggest priority. She stated that she was excited to see this priority move
forward.
Mayor Colson explained that while it takes a while for the “pen and ink” work to be reflected in the
community, she expects to see the brick and mortar go up over the next few years.
b. TRANSPORTATION
City Manager Goldman asked DPW Murtuza to review the 2018 transportation initiatives.
DPW Murtuza gave a brief review of four initiatives:
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
5
1. Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan: DPW Murtuza explained that the City hired a consultant that would be
working with staff, TSPC, BPAC, and the community on this plan. He stated that from this plan, the
City would be able to prioritize projects and seek funding from outside sources.
2. Traffic Calming in Lyon Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity: DPW Murtuza stated that an advisory group
has been created of three TSP Commissioners and community members to discuss the needs of the Lyon
Hoag neighborhood. He noted that staff would be holding meetings in Lyon Hoag this year to discuss
the issues and identify solutions.
3. El Camino Real Rehabilitation: DPW Murtuza stated that the El Camino Real Task Force is moving
forward on getting improvements prioritized and implemented. He stressed the importance of working
with Caltrans on this matter.
4. California Drive Roundabout: DPW Murtuza stated that this was a major project and that it is near
completion. He explained that the roundabout will significantly improve traffic, by slowing down
motorists and creating safe passage for bicyclists and pedestrians. He noted that staff would be looking
at where else a roundabout could be implemented in the city to assist with traffic.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the work that was done to improve safety at Hoover Elementary
School. He stated that staff’s assistance on improving the traffic and parking safety around Hoover helped to
defuse a lawsuit that was preventing the school from opening. He added that a priority for him was that the
City needed to start thinking of how to make Rollins Road feel like a neighborhood. He discussed how this
was one of the new neighborhoods that is being created out of the updated General Plan.
CDD Gardiner stated that one of the implementation actions out of the General Plan is to create a specific
plan for Rollins Road which will include not only design qualities for new developments but also public
sphere topics like open space and street design.
Vice Mayor Beach discussed the impact that San Mateo’s Peninsula Interchange project would have on the
City and especially Lyon Hoag. She noted that City will need to stay informed on this project in order to
assist the community.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the Lots F&N project and how when this project is undertaken, parking
in the downtown area will become an issue. She asked staff to look into ways to mitigate this issue while the
project is underway.
Mayor Colson discussed her recent meetings with Facebook’s Oculus team and the need to mitigate the
impact of an additional 3500 employees on the city’s traffic. She stated that they discussed using shuttles to
get employees to the office.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
6
Councilmember Keighran stated that in addition to Facebook’s new office, Topgolf would be opening on the
Bayfront. She stressed the importance of a shuttle system.
c. SUSTAINABILITY
City Manager Goldman asked Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow Pappajohn to review the 2018
Sustainability Initiatives.
Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow (“SCMF”) Pappajohn gave a brief review of the six
initiatives:
1. Energy Efficiency Upgrades: SCMF Pappajohn explained that a cost-effective way to save energy is
upgrading all the lights to LED in City facilities. She stated that this results in an annual savings of
$40,000.
2. Green Business Certification: SCMF Pappajohn stated that both the Main Library and the Corp Yard
have received Green Business Certification. She noted that she met with CCFD Chief Kammeyer to get
Fire Stations 34 and 36 certified and would like Easton Library and City Hall to be certified.
3. Portfolio Prioritization for Zero Net Energy: SCMF Pappajohn explained that zero net energy is when a
building produces enough renewable energy to meet its own annual energy consumptions. She stated
that the Council plans to make the Community Center a zero net energy building with the addition of
solar panels.
4. Bike Share Pilot and RFP: SCMF Pappajohn discussed the City’s pilot program with Lime Bike. She
noted that the City is looking to release an RFP to secure a long term bike sharing program.
5. Community Resilience Grant Project: SCMF Pappajohn explained that this relates to “Sea Change
Burlingame,” which will be conducting an assessment of the structures on the Bayfront to determine how
best to protect the Bayfront from sea level rise and flooding. She noted that staff would be working first
with property owners and then conducting community outreach to find structural, nonstructural, and
nature based responses.
6. 2030 Climate Action Plan: SCMF Pappajohn stated that the last Climate Action Plan for the City was
completed in 2009. She stated that she is working with former Sustainability Coordinator Michael to
update the City’s Climate Action Plan with the State’s new targets. She explained that the purpose of the
plan is to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked the previous Council for the creation of the sustainability position in the City.
She asked if the Climate Action Plan also discusses the effects of natural disasters. Chief Kammeyer
explained that CCFD is conducting a fire hazard assessment of all open space areas in their jurisdiction. He
stated that it is expected to take six to eight months to complete.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
7
Vice Mayor Beach asked that when it is ready Chief Kammeyer give a presentation to the Council. Chief
Kammeyer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the timetable and the public’s involvement in “Sea Change
Burlingame.” SCMG Pappajohn explained that it is expected to be a 12-month assessment and that they are
modeling the public process after the Home for All initiative and calling it “Burlingame Talks Together”.
CDD Gardiner added that staff will first talk with property owners on the Bayfront before opening the
discussion up to the community. City Manager Goldman noted that there is an initiative to have sea level
rise be included in the County Flood Control Agency’s purview.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was glad that the City is conducting its own study and asked that
the City publicize “Burlingame Talks Together” so that the community is aware and can attend.
Mayor Colson discussed the work that Peninsula Clean Energy is doing on funding EV charging stations in
communities and drafting reach codes for the County.
Councilmember Keighran asked if there are any challenge areas for the City in the Climate Action Plan.
SCMF Pappajohn stated that the City is working with MIG consultants to address the more difficult areas.
She added that the City is on target to meet its goals.
5. BREAK
The City Council took a 10 minute break.
6. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITY DISCUSSION
City Manager Goldman explained that years ago, the Council created a list of infrastructure projects for the
City. She explained that the list wasn’t comprehensive, nor did it cover all the costs. Accordingly, she stated
that the remainder of the Goal Setting Session would be used to reset the City’s infrastructure priorities, and
from that list Council would pick five projects to focus on for the year.
To begin the discussion, City Manager Goldman showed a slide of “Off the Table” projects. These projects
were divided into three categories: 1) ongoing, 2) in progress, and 3) completed.
The list of ongoing projects included:
• Citywide Sidewalk & ADA Improvements
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
8
• Citywide Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation
• Potable Water System Infrastructure Upgrades
• Storm Drainage System Infrastructure Upgrades
• Sanitary Sewer System Infrastructure Upgrades
• Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
The list of in progress projects included:
• Burlingame Community Center
• Washington Park Playground and Sports Court Renovation
• Downtown Parking Garage
• Parking Lot Resurfacing
• Hoover School Pedestrian and Traffic Improvements
• Broadway Pedestrian Lighting Improvements
• Ray Park Playground Renovations
• Murray Playground Renovations
• Construction of Skyline Park
The list of completed projects included:
• New Bayview Park (withdrawn) – State lands project
• Carriage House Improvements
• Synthetic Turf at Murray Field
• Police Station Improvements
• N-S Bicycle Improvements (Carolan and California North of Broadway)
• Broadway Improvements
• Carolan Avenue Road Diet
• Paloma Park Playground Renovation
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that with respect to Bayview Park, because it is owned by the State Lands
Commission, the City won’t end up spending money on the project and therefore the City doesn’t have to
identify a funding source. However, he explained that this project wasn’t completed. City Manager
Goldman replied in the affirmative and added that the City is closely following the matter.
City Manager Goldman explained that staff created a list of unfunded infrastructure projects. She noted that
the list wasn’t comprehensive and that the Council could add to the list. She asked that the Council review
the list and determine which are “must haves” versus “nice to haves” and determine which five priorities the
City should work on. Additionally, she asked that the Council keep in mind the impending financial
uncertainty, as many believe the economy will take a downturn, and the City’s staffing level. She utilized
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
9
the picture of the iceberg to show what staff does on a daily basis (the large base of the iceberg under the
water), versus what the community sees and the projects they want done (the small tip of the iceberg).
City Manager Goldman asked DPW Murtuza to take the Council through the list of 17 unfunded
infrastructure projects. She noted that the estimated total cost of the 17 projects is between $637 million and
$786 million.
1. Railroad Safety: Broadway Grade Separation
DPW Murtuza explained that this project will cost an estimated $274 million and is currently in the
environmental phase. He noted that the next step for this project is a detailed design that will allow for grade
separation of the railway tracks by lowering the roadway and raising the tracks. He noted that this will also
require the creation of a new station platform.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked when San Mateo and San Bruno undertook grade separations, how much
each city had to pay of the total cost. DPW Murtuza stated that San Mateo paid approximately $15 million,
and San Bruno obtained a variety of funding sources.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the cost of projects would be a factor in prioritizing them, and
therefore it was important for the Council to understand what the City’s share would be for the Broadway
Grade Separation. DPW Murtuza stated that it would probably be between $15 million to $20 million.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that based on the discussions she was hearing at the Transportation Authority, the
City would need approximately $27 million. She noted that the City needed to have the plans ready in order
to obtain grants from different organizations to fund the project.
2. Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements
DPW Murtuza explained that while this project is not of immediate need, the City needs to be prepared. He
explained that this project will cost an estimated $200 million to $300 million and could include construction
of a sea wall, levees, pump station, and other improvements to protect the low lying areas from future sea
level rise. He stated that potential funding sources for this project are the City’s General Funds, grants
assessment district, and a ballot measure.
3. Old Bayshore Highway Complete Streets and Beautification
DPW Murtuza stated that this project entailed reconfiguring the street to provide enhanced pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular facilities with streetscape improvements. He noted that the estimated cost of this
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
10
project is $35 million. He stated that the potential funding sources for this project are the City’s General
Funds, private development, and grants.
4. Downtown Streetscape Improvements
DPW Murtuza explained that this project entailed expanding the downtown streetscape improvements for the
remaining streets in the downtown area from Chapin to Howard, and between El Camino Real and
California. He stated that the estimated cost of this project is $30 million to $40 million and that the
potential funding sources are the City’s General Funds and downtown property owners.
5. El Camino Real Overhead Power Lines Undergrounding
DPW Murtuza explained that this project entailed moving three miles of power lines and other utility lines
such as AT&T and cable tv underground. He noted that the estimated cost of the project is $25 million to
$30 million and that the potential funding sources are the City’s General Funds and Rule 20A.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed the estimated cost is not the true cost. This is because if
the City times the project with Caltrans’ planned improvements for El Camino Real, it will be considerably
less. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
6. City Hall Safety Improvements for Reconstruction
DPW Murtuza stated that City Hall was constructed in 1969 and is beyond its design life expectancy. He
explained that the low cost solution would include seismic safety, asbestos abatement, and HVAC
improvements, and the high end cost would be a new building. He explained that the estimated cost of the
project is $13 million to $35 million, and the potential funding source is the City’s General Funds.
7. Bayfront Trail
DPW Murtuza stated that this project entails addressing the gaps in the Bayfront Trail by fixing the
approximately .8 mile stretch of trail in Burlingame. He explained that this would require acquisition of
rights-of-way, environmental clearances, and permitting. He stated that the estimated cost of this project is
$11 million to $15 million, and the potential funding sources are the City’s General Fund, private
development, grants, and a Bayfront fee.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
11
8. Railroad: Quiet Zone
DPW Murtuza explained that there are approximately 92 trains going through Burlingame’s six crossings a
day. He stated that federal law requires the trains to sound their horn through the crossings and that Council
looked at different ways to address this requirement. He explained that one solution is quiet zones where the
City installs safety improvements along each of the crossings that allow operators not to sound their horns.
However, the City would then have to assume the operational and safety liability, which is currently assumed
by the rail operators. The estimated cost of the project is $10 million to $12 million.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that the Broadway intersection wouldn’t need a quiet zone if
the City moves forward with grade separation. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
9. Railroad Safety: Automated Wayside Horns
DPW Murtuza explained that wayside horns are an alternative to quiet zones. He stated that these are
mounted horns that are louder and sound for longer. However, the horns stop when the train reaches the
crossing. He noted that the City would need to assume a significant amount of operational and safety
liability that is currently assumed by the rail operators. He explained that the estimated cost of this project is
$5 million to $7 million.
10. Green Infrastructure Implementation
DPW Murtuza explained that the Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring cities to implement
projects throughout their jurisdictions (public right-of-way and private properties) to prevent PCBs and other
pollutants from entering waterways. He stated that the estimated cost of this project is $7 million.
Councilmember Keighran asked if this was a mandate and therefore something the City was required to do.
DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
11. Athletic Field Renovations
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that currently, all of their fields are usable but not in great
condition. She explained that this project could be phased in over multiple years to put new irrigation and
sod on Ray, Cuernavaca, Village, and Washington. She explained that the estimated cost of this project is $7
million.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
12
12. Aquatic Center Improvements
City Manager Goldman stated that the school district has decided to construct a new pool instead of repairing
the existing pool. She stated that the current estimated cost of the project is $6.4 million. She explained that
while the City’s share for repairs is $1.27 million, the school district is looking for additional funding from
the City.
13. Airport Boulevard Improvements
DPW Murtuza stated that this project consists of widening Airport Boulevard to address planned growth in
traffic and development. He explained that this is needed because of companies such as Topgolf and
Facebook opening facilities on the Bayfront. He noted that the estimated cost of this project is $6 million to
$8 million and that the potential funding sources are the City’s General Fund, private development, and
grants.
14. New Parks Yard
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that a new Parks Yard is needed for the maintenance staff.
She explained that the currently facility has served beyond its intended lifecycle and that it doesn’t have
female restroom facilities. She noted that the estimated cost of this project is $5 million to $7 million.
15. Fire Station Improvements
DPW Murtuza stated that staff is working on upgrades to Fire Station 35 but that upgrades are needed to Fire
Stations 34 and 36. He noted that the estimated cost of the project is $5 million.
16. Synthetic Turf at Bayside
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that this project entails installing synthetic turf at Bayside on
fields 3, 4, and 5. She noted that because the Parks Master Plan is currently in progress, the costs for this
project are not yet known.
17. Parks Master Plan Improvements
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that currently, staff is undertaking the creation of a Parks
Master Plan so that they can identify future projects and priorities. Accordingly, it is not yet known what
needs to be done, but these are projects that can be phased in over time.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
13
*****
City Manager Goldman asked the Council after listening to the list of unfunded infrastructure projects what
did they think was missing. She stated that the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan was not on the list but should
be added.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the creation of a specific plan for Rollins Road should be added.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need to create a pedestrian bridge over the tracks to integrate the
new Rollins Road neighborhood with the rest of Burlingame.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Improvements should be added.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the gateway features at either end of the City should be added.
Mayor Colson suggested entitling an item “Beautification” and then under that would fall public art, the
gateways, and the gathering area in front of the train station.
Next, City Manager Goldman asked the Council to prioritize the list of infrastructure projects.
The Council discussed the best way to group the items. They determined that some of the projects were
mandates and therefore these could be removed from the list as they are required.
Councilmember Keighran stated that Green Infrastructure is a mandate and Councilmember Brownrigg
stated that the Fire Station Improvements are a mandate.
Mayor Colson stated that Downtown Streetscape Improvements is a nice to have.
Mayor Colson directed the Council’s attention to the first five infrastructure projects: 1)Railroad Safety:
Broadway Grade Separation, 2) Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements, 3) Old Bayshore
Highway Complete Streets and Beautification, 4) Downtown Streetscape Improvements. She asked if any of
those items were must haves.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Railroad Safety: Broadway Grade Separation and Sea Level Rise
Shoreline Protection Improvements are both high priorities for planning purposes. He added that in his
opinion, the Old Bayshore Highway Complete Streets and Beautification and Downtown Streetscape
Improvements were low priority.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
14
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed that the City didn’t need to focus on the Sea Level Rise
Shoreline Protection Improvements project yet. He explained that the City did need to start putting funds
aside for the Broadway Grade Separation.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that a tax assessment district might be created that would fund the Sea
Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements project.
Vice Mayor Beach said that Broadway Grade Separation and the El Camino Real Overhead Power Lines
Undergrounding were both of high priority to her. She emphasized the El Camino Real project because she
noted that as Caltrans moves forward with improvements, the City has to be ready to underground the power
lines.
Mayor Colson directed her colleagues’ attention to the next seven infrastructure projects: 6) City Hall Safety
Improvements or Reconstruction, 7) Bayfront Trail, 8) Railroad: Quiet Zone, 9) Railroad Safety: Automated
Wayside Horns, 10) Green Infrastructure Implementation, 11) Athletic Field Renovations, and 12) Aquatic
Center Improvements.
Mayor Colson stated that City Hall Safety Improvements or Reconstruction project is of high priority. She
discussed the City’s need to hire additional staff but that there is no place to put them in City Hall.
Vice Mayor Beach and Councilmembers Brownrigg and Ortiz concurred.
Councilmember Keighran concurred if the property was used for mixed use.
Mayor Colson stated that the Aquatic Center Improvements is a mandate and it should be removed from the
list.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn’t think the Bayfront Trail was of high priority. However, he
stated it would be good to fix the portion where Broadway hits the trail. Additionally, he advocated for
Railroad: Quiet Zones. He stated that the residents near the tracks would gain a lot in terms of quality of life.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that Caltrain was currently engaged in the creation of its master plan. She noted
that as part of that process, Caltrain was discussing its impacts on communities and the potential to create
quiet zones. Therefore, she stated that the City should wait on this matter until Caltrain has finalized its
master plan. She added that the City should ask Caltrain to attend a Council meeting so that they could
discuss Caltrain’s future plans.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
15
Councilmember Keighran stated that for her Railroad Quiet Zones was at the bottom of her list of priorities.
She noted that even with the establishment of quiet zones, the trains could still use their horns. Therefore,
she didn’t want the City to spend money on a project when the problem could still occur.
Mayor Colson agreed and stated that they should wait to hear what Caltrain has in mind.
Mayor Colson suggested that in reference to the Athletic Field Renovations, the City should discuss the cost
of this project with San Mateo Union High School District, as they utilize the field for their teams. She
stated that if the City is assisting SMUHSD with paying for the new pool, the district should assist in the cost
of the field renovations.
Councilmember Brownrigg agreed.
Mayor Colson stated that the City could also use the Parks and Recreation Foundation to raise funds for
some of the Parks and Recreation infrastructure priorities.
Mayor Colson directed the Council’s attention to the last five, listed, priorities: 13) Airport Boulevard
Improvements, 14) New Parks Yard, 15) Fire Station Improvements, 16) Synthetic Turf at Bayside, and 17)
Parks Master Plan Improvements.
City Manager Goldman reminded the Council that number 15) Fire Stations Improvements was marked as
high priority.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was not persuaded that the Airport Boulevard Improvements
project was necessary. He discussed how if San Mateo went ahead with the Peninsula Interchange, it could
change how the community accesses the Bayfront.
City Manager Goldman stated that what she was hearing was that the projects of high priority were: 1) Green
Infrastructure Improvements, 2) Fire Station Improvements, 3) Broadway Grade Separation, 4) Sea Level
Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements, 5) Underground Power Lines on El Camino Real, and 6) City Hall.
City Manager Goldman reviewed the projects that were not on the initial infrastructure priority list but were
added: 1) Specific Plan for Rollins Road, 2) Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, 3) Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming,
and 4) Beautification.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that while the Parks Yard was no one’s favorite project it was a necessity.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
16
Mayor Colson discussed the major facility infrastructure projects the City has had and undertaken. She
stated that the City first built a new Corp Yard, next the City is working on a Community Center, after which
will be City Hall and then Parks Yard.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that City Hall and Parks Yard might be combined for budgetary purposes.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the Carriage House should be moved onto the priority
infrastructure projects.
Former Mayor Terry Nagel stated that she concurred with the Council’s priorities. She discussed the
importance of putting the power lines underground on El Camino Real and protecting the Bayfront from sea
level rise.
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh discussed the importance of the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.
Burlingame resident Tom Payne asked the Council what it is doing to push back against the State’s desire to
remove R-1 zoning.
TSP Commissioner Chris Bush stated that the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan will help the City obtain grants
to fund projects.
8. COUNCIL WRAP-UP
Mayor Colson discussed the top infrastructure projects that came out of the Council’s discussion: Sea Level
Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements, El Camino Real Overhead Power Lines Undergrounding,
Broadway Grade Separation, and City Hall.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the Rollins Road specific plan. CDD Gardiner stated that this plan
would be in next year’s budget.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there was a need to move on this now as development was coming.
City Manager Goldman asked if CDD Gardiner’s staff had time if the Rollins Road specific plan’s budget
was added to the Mid-Year. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 02/04/19
Burlingame City Council January 26, 2019
Unapproved Minutes
17
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that one of his main concerns with the Rollins Road specific plan was
ensuring that there was open space for a park.
Mayor Colson stated that what she wanted to do was create working groups for the projects that the Council
determined were the infrastructure priorities for the year.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues agreed that the Broadway Grade Separation was a high priority.
Council agreed.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues agreed that figuring out what to do with City Hall and working out
plan to potential include housing was a priority. Council agreed.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues agreed that a Specific Plan for Rollins Road was a priority. Council
agreed.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues agreed that Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements was a
priority. She added that the City should work with neighboring cities and the County on long-term funding
for this matter. Council agreed.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues agreed that the El Camino Real Overhead Power Lines
Undergrounding was a priority. Council agreed.
Mayor Colson stated that she would sit down with each councilmember in the coming weeks to determine
what everyone was interested in. She explained that each councilmember would be put on two or more
subcommittees.
Mayor Colson thanked the community for their input.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 11:56 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill One Vacancy on the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill one vacancy on the Planning
Commission. The pending vacancy is due to the expiring term of Commissioner Michael Gaul.
The recommended deadline is Friday, March 1, 2019. This will allow applicants two opportunities
to attend a Planning Commission meeting (February 11 and February 25, 2019).
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-
year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director—(650) 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending December 31, 2018
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report through
December 31, 2018.
BACKGROUND
This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2018. The report includes
all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree
medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services
(PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in
compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy.
DISCUSSION
The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is
reviewed and approved by the Council annually The Policy was last approved by the City Council
on June 18, 2018. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety,
liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also
allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of
investments managed by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also
maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California
Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
In contrast to the relative calm that defined the financial markets throughout most of 2018, the
fourth quarter was dominated by trade war worries, fears of a slowdown in global growth, and
political uncertainties, all of which led to increased market volatility and a sharp sell-off in the stock
market. All three major U.S. equity indices stumbled during the quarter, ending the year in the red.
In particular, the S&P 500 equity index plummeted 14.0% over the quarter, nearing bear market
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
2
territory and erasing gains for the year. International indices did not fare better, as they were not
exempt from rising rates, rising protectionism, falling oil, and growing policy uncertainties.
While the domestic economy remains generally on solid footing, bolstered by a robust labor market
and slow, steady economic expansion, global growth concerns weighed heavily on investors’ minds
as international news grabbed headlines. Top concerns included a global trade war, ongoing
wrangling over Brexit details, Italian debt concerns, violent protests in France over labor unrest,
and the end of the European Central Bank’s massive quantitative easing program.
As was widely expected, the Federal Reserve (Fed) raised the federal funds’ target to a new range
of 2.25% to 2.50% at its meeting in December, holding true to its stated intentions of four rate hikes
in 2018. However, unlike the well-choreographed rate hikes of 2017 and 2018, the future pace of
overnight monetary policy is unclear. The Fed’s most recent estimates called for two rate hikes in
2019, while the market’s expectation (as measured by fed funds futures) calls for zero hikes in
2019. Moreover, Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell noted that the Fed is “prepared to adjust policy
quickly and flexibly” if necessary, adding greater uncertainty to the path of future rate hikes.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. grew at an annualized rate of 3.4% in the third
quarter (Q3), making Q2 and Q3 the best back-to-back quarters since 2014. The American
consumer continued to drive strong Q3 growth, which more than offset moderation in business
investment and an outright contraction in trade.
The U.S. labor market continues to be a shining star of the U.S. economy, as the domestic labor
market added 312,000 jobs in December. The overall unemployment rate ticked up just slightly to
3.9% in December as the labor force participation rate edged upward, suggesting that potential job-
seekers are feeling more optimistic about job prospects and are coming off of the sidelines.
Domestic inflation remained in the Fed’s comfort range throughout the quarter as the most recent
reading of Core PCE, the Fed’s preferred gauge of inflation, registered at 1.9% year-over-year
through November. While wage growth has risen to match the expansion high, it has yet to
translate into higher inflation. Moreover, weakening investor sentiment led to a drop in future
inflation expectations. As of year-end, investor expectations of average inflation over the next five
years fell to just 1.5%.
Equity market volatility during the fourth quarter sparked a flight to quality, as investors sought the
safety of U.S. Treasury obligations, resulting in a quarter-over-quarter decline in intermediate-and
longer-term U.S. Treasury yields for the first time in several years. For example, the yield on the 2-
year U.S. Treasury note dropped by 33 basis points (0.33%) during the quarter.
Perhaps even more noteworthy, the U.S. Treasury yield curve inverted between 1- and 5-year
maturities for the first time since 2007. Short-term yields, bolstered by increases to the federal funds
target rate, continued their upward ascent, while intermediate- and longer-term yields fell in
response to souring investor sentiment on future growth prospects. This continues the trend of
flattening of the yield curve that has remained in play for the better part of the last two years. While
this modest inversion in the belly of the yield curve may be explained away due to market anomalies
(Central Bank intervention and increased foreign demand for intermediate- and longer-term U.S.
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
3
Treasuries), investors will be closely watching for any inversion in the 10-year tenor – historically a
more meaningful and market-adopted warning signal.
Yield Curve History
The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of December 31,
2018, invested funds totaled $170,087,803.37. These investments are assets of the City of
Burlingame and include the General Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid
Waste), as well as various non-major funds. Note that the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical
obligations, is not included in the City’s managed portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the City’s
§115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization
Program are not part of the City’s investment portfolio.
City’s Investments
Market Value as of December 30, 2018
Main Investment Portfolio
$109,200,496.06.87
Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account $127,169.99
CAMP Balance $26,401,167.20
LAIF Balance $34,358,970.12
$170,087,803.37
As has been the case for most of 2018, the portfolio’s duration was kept slightly short of the
benchmark's duration in order to hedge against the negative impacts of rising interest rates. At the
end of the quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.33 years, short of the benchmark’s duration
of 2.56 years. Factoring in additional liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the effective
duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.50 years.
Given the recent market volatility, the City’s portfolio was managed with a more conservative stance
during the quarter, as purchases were focused in the U.S. Treasury and federal agency sectors.
Maturity 12/31/18 9/30/18 Change
3-Mo. 2.35% 2.20% +0.15%
6-Mo. 2.48% 2.36% +0.12%
1-Yr. 2.60% 2.56% +0.04%
2-Yr. 2.49% 2.82% -0.33%
3-Yr. 2.46% 2.88% -0.42%
5-Yr. 2.51% 2.95% -0.44%
10-Yr. 2.68% 3.06% -0.38%
30-Yr. 3.01% 3.21% -0.20%
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
4
In early December, PFM recommended the sale of shorter-dated Fannie Mae notes in exchange
for the purchase of longer-dated notes issued by the same agency. This purchase enabled the City
to take advantage of one of the widest yield spreads (the difference in yields) between the federal
agency and U.S. Treasury obligations with less than five years to maturity.
Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended December 31, 2018:
Trade Date Settlement
Date Transaction CUSIP Issuers Term
(Mths) Yield Principal
10/02/2018 10/03/2018 Sale 06427KRC3
Bank of
Montreal
Chicago Neg.
CD
4 2.10% 200,000
10/02/2018 10/04/2018 Sale 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Notes 16 2.74% 1,500,000
10/02/2018 10/04/2018 Purchase 912828P38 U.S. Treasury
Notes 53 2.93% 2,000,000
12/03/2018 12/06/2018 Purchase 3135G0U43 FNMA Notes 58 2.92% 3,550,000
12/03/2018 12/06/2018 Sale 3135G0A78 FNMA Notes 14 2.79% 3,150,000
While the path of future Fed rate hikes is less clear than in recent years, PFM expects future
tightening (additional Fed rate hikes) to be modest. Further, political gridlock adds additional
uncertainty. As a result, PFM will seek to increase portfolio duration to be more in line with (neutral
to) the benchmark.
PFM continues to monitor the markets and recommend relative-value trades as appropriate in order
to safely enhance the City’s portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
5
safety and liquidity of the City’s investments. Since some of the market volatility that dominated the
markets at year-end seems to have dissipated, PFM may increase the portfolio’s allocation to non-
government sectors in coming months, provided that all issuers continue to meet PFM’s stringent
credit quality guidelines. Because yield spreads (the difference in yields) between the federal
agency and U.S. Treasury obligations remain low by historic standards, PFM generally prefers the
use of U.S. Treasuries over federal agencies, unless a particular federal agency issue offers
significant value. Supranationals continue to provide a high-quality alternative to federal agency
debt. The portfolio’s holdings in these instruments may increase in coming months, as
Supranational debt issuance is expected to increase in the first few months of the year.
As noted in the following pie charts, the City’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2018, was
heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm-rated CAMP
Fund, and high-quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the
focus on safety and liquidity.
*The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating
criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy.
** The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset-backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody’s
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
6
As of December 31, 2018, 36% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid
investments; 23% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years; and
41% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives
the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing
returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City’s aggregate investments maintain
an effective duration of 1.50 years and currently generate annual interest income of 2.33% before
investment expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue
to meet the City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return.
As of December 31, 2018, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.27%.
Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the
City’s aggregate investments was 2.33%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated
amortized cost basis earnings (which includes interest earnings and realized gains and losses) of
$550,813.
City's Investments
Statistical Information
Market Value $170,087,803.37
Effective Duration 1.50 Years
Average Credit Quality* AA
Yield to Maturity** 2.33%
* Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities.
** Yield to maturity at cost.
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
7
The chart below compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S.
Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of December 31, 2018, the gross yield
on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.27%; net of PFM’s investment advisory fees, the yield on the
City’s managed portfolio was 2.19%.
Below is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of December 31, 2018,
which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts,
the City’s main checking account, and other operating funds:
As of 12/31/18 As of 09/30/18 Change $
General Fund 25,201,062$ 24,406,509$ 794,554$
Capital Project Funds 57,318,451 49,919,157 7,399,293
Internal Service Funds 19,999,768 19,643,006 356,762
Water Fund 17,894,026 17,798,494 95,532
Sewer Fund 18,859,507 17,595,672 1,263,835
Solid Waste Fund 4,681,611 4,697,898 (16,288)
Parking Fund 9,581,059 9,410,216 170,843
Building Fund 10,895,961 10,877,970 17,991
Landfill Fund 1,640,452 1,579,939 60,513
Debt Service Fund 14,331,679 8,284,679 6,047,000
Subtotal, Operating Funds 180,403,576 164,213,541 16,190,035
Other Funds 11,858,749 13,557,134 (1,698,385)
Total Cash and Investments 192,262,325$ 177,770,675$ 14,491,650$
Cash and Investments by Fund
2.27%
2.40%
2.22%
249%
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
8
Cash holdings in the General Fund increased slightly in the second quarter of the 2018-19 fiscal
year. Although major property tax receipts of over $8.5 million were received in December,
transfers in/out of the General Fund were also posted during the quarter. In accordance with the
adopted budget, the General Fund received $1.9 million from other funds, largely to reimburse the
cost of administration of the utility funds. Transfers out of the General Fund totaled $15.1 million,
including $4.2 million for debt service, $7.8 million for authorized capital improvement projects, and
$3 million for the Capital Investment Reserve within the Capital Projects Fund.
The $7.4 million increase in Capital Project Funds is due to the large transfers from the General
Fund, offset by $4.3 million in capital spending. The largest spending for the quarter includes the
El Portal Creek, Trousdale Channel, and Gilbreth Creek Improvements ($961,000); the California
Drive Roundabout ($702,000); the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #10 ($465,000); the 2018
Sidewalk Repair Program ($439,000); and the Murray Field Renovations ($380,000). Capital
expenditures in the Sewer Fund have been less robust this quarter, so that cash balance is
temporarily higher. And the Debt Service Fund received transfers in for the entire fiscal year’s debt
service payments, as well as transfers from the General Fund and Measure I funds to provide
funding for the eventual bond financing of the Community Center project.
As for the performance of the City’s trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected
in the City’s Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this
staff report. Because the City’s funding of its retiree medical obligations is still relatively low (<30%),
the City’s trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the
California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The average annualized internal rate
of return since the initial contribution (in October 2013) for the portfolio as of December 31st (five
years) was approximately 3.78%. The PARS §115 trust account for funding the City’s pension
liabilities was established in October 2017, and the December 2018 statement attached is the most
current information available for the City’s account.
CONCLUSION
All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy, with
an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City’s investment strategy of
balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate, given current market
conditions.
Due to the ease of access of the City’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City
has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next
six months.
Staff and the City’s investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City’s investments to
ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City’s investment goals while being able to
respond to changes in market conditions.
Investment Report, December 31, 2018 February 4, 2019
9
FISCAL IMPACT
Quarterly reporting of the City’s Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City
resources.
Exhibits:
• Portfolio Holdings as of December 31, 2018
• CERBT Monthly Statement for December 31, 2018
• PARS Monthly Statement for December 31, 2018
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 04/01/2013 1.125% 03/31/2020
982,617.00 995,881.14 2,874.31 984,140.63 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828UV0 1.46
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/17/2010 3.500% 05/15/2020
202,492.20 205,421.79 908.84 219,125.00 05/29/1505/29/15AaaAA+ 200,000.00 912828ND8 1.49
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 11/30/2015 1.625% 11/30/2020
137,692.24 140,582.71 200.00 141,214.06 11/14/1611/10/16AaaAA+ 140,000.00 912828M98 1.40
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020
147,861.30 150,155.89 7.25 150,304.69 01/10/1701/05/17AaaAA+ 150,000.00 912828N48 1.70
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 12/31/2013 2.375% 12/31/2020
838,129.32 859,596.02 55.11 880,654.69 10/19/1610/18/16AaaAA+ 840,000.00 912828A83 1.19
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021
1,113,310.13 1,142,690.03 7,645.03 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26
US TREASURY N/B
DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021
1,874,286.69 1,906,187.64 7,377.45 1,892,832.42 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 1,930,000.00 912828P87 1.71
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021
604,064.14 613,856.95 749.45 610,215.63 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 620,000.00 912828R77 1.80
US TREASURY N/B
DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021
522,087.83 539,012.29 4,943.27 550,819.34 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 525,000.00 912828WY2 1.20
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021
1,446,801.77 1,467,174.21 9,955.52 1,468,776.95 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 1,465,000.00 912828D72 1.94
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021
992,083.74 1,009,471.60 3,442.54 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
981,250.00 993,771.64 4,790.52 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
1,128,437.50 1,116,366.93 5,509.10 1,112,265.63 08/03/1808/01/18AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 912828W89 2.82
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
2,148,937.50 2,131,003.35 10,491.24 2,125,412.11 09/06/1809/04/18AaaAA+ 2,190,000.00 912828W89 2.75
Page 1
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
2,649,375.00 2,674,478.90 12,934.41 2,666,988.28 01/04/1801/03/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828W89 2.18
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022
1,199,591.05 1,219,564.42 9,611.92 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022
2,409,614.20 2,472,941.46 20,505.43 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
1,460,391.00 1,446,508.17 6,706.73 1,438,769.53 06/06/1806/04/18AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L57 2.76
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
1,640,505.89 1,670,435.30 7,533.89 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
2,190,586.50 2,217,628.17 10,060.10 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/01/2016 1.750% 01/31/2023
1,942,110.00 1,909,586.50 14,646.74 1,904,531.25 10/04/1810/02/18AaaAA+ 2,000,000.00 912828P38 2.93
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023
1,815,802.38 1,798,175.47 9,632.73 1,787,895.70 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,890,000.00 912828P79 2.74
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023
2,594,003.40 2,562,924.24 13,761.05 2,542,113.28 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828P79 2.80
US TREASURY N/B NOTES
DTD 05/02/2016 1.625% 04/30/2023
1,817,626.33 1,798,979.99 5,246.24 1,789,792.77 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,885,000.00 912828R28 2.75
169,588.87 32,839,657.11 33,042,394.81 2.21 33,007,486.54 33,625,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Supra-National Agency Bond / Note
INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV
NOTE
DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020
1,835,734.12 1,867,417.03 8,838.30 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020
1,852,547.29 1,880,560.62 5,739.86 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81
Page 2
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Supra-National Agency Bond / Note
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
NOTE
DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021
789,782.42 793,372.63 7,751.25 792,662.70 01/25/1801/18/18AaaAAA 795,000.00 45950KCM0 2.35
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
NOTE
DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021
1,548,243.85 1,549,133.98 12,706.56 1,548,837.50 03/16/1803/09/18AaaAAA 1,550,000.00 45950VLQ7 2.66
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
NOTE
DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021
895,886.05 893,476.87 4,698.75 893,031.00 04/19/1804/12/18AaaAAA 895,000.00 4581X0DB1 2.70
INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV
NOTE
DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021
1,214,921.07 1,207,563.13 14,419.17 1,207,168.60 07/25/1807/18/18AaaAAA 1,210,000.00 459058GH0 2.83
54,153.89 8,137,114.80 8,191,524.26 2.24 8,194,545.02 8,190,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation
FNA 2018-M5 A2
DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021
563,549.74 566,271.86 1,653.29 568,375.38 04/30/1804/11/18AaaAA+ 557,290.31 3136B1XP4 2.27
1,653.29 563,549.74 566,271.86 2.27 568,375.38 557,290.31 Security Type Sub-Total
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 01/17/2017 1.500% 01/17/2020
988,783.00 999,538.10 6,833.33 998,720.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3137EAEE5 1.54
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/01/2017 1.500% 07/30/2020
1,489,949.48 1,512,552.17 9,531.88 1,510,409.55 08/01/1707/28/17AaaAA+ 1,515,000.00 3135G0T60 1.60
FHLB NOTES
DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020
612,362.50 623,114.01 2,220.05 621,756.25 09/19/1709/13/17AaaAA+ 625,000.00 3130ACE26 1.55
FHLMC NOTES
DTD 09/29/2017 1.625% 09/29/2020
1,643,856.15 1,665,291.33 6,935.14 1,662,267.90 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,670,000.00 3137EAEJ4 1.79
Page 3
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FHLMC NOTES
DTD 11/15/2017 1.875% 11/17/2020
987,548.00 998,076.58 2,291.67 997,010.00 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3137EAEK1 1.98
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 02/16/2018 2.375% 02/16/2021
597,916.80 596,144.47 5,343.75 595,518.00 08/23/1808/22/18AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137EAEL9 2.69
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
227,568.36 234,570.46 1,093.40 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
740,807.64 763,344.36 3,559.38 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
1,525,192.20 1,569,811.56 7,328.13 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
1,561,546.76 1,591,846.76 15,497.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
2,463,007.50 2,501,670.50 24,444.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
1,572,699.38 1,604,843.72 7,189.06 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
2,449,687.50 2,489,977.58 11,197.92 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00
FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES
DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022
2,585,187.96 2,555,518.94 12,589.44 2,542,195.30 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,635,000.00 3135G0T78 2.85
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 09/14/2018 2.875% 09/12/2023
3,591,797.70 3,542,948.42 30,335.24 3,542,829.00 12/06/1812/03/18AaaAA+ 3,550,000.00 3135G0U43 2.92
146,390.61 23,037,910.93 23,249,248.96 2.09 23,219,852.22 23,360,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Corporate Note
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES
DTD 10/28/2013 2.150% 01/15/2019
1,769,486.70 1,770,145.85 17,547.58 1,785,345.90 10/16/1410/10/14A2A- 1,770,000.00 94974BFQ8 1.94
JP MORGAN SECURITIES
DTD 04/23/2009 6.300% 04/23/2019
1,009,776.00 1,012,459.91 11,900.00 1,188,900.00 05/09/1405/09/14A2A- 1,000,000.00 46625HHL7 2.25
Page 4
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Corporate Note
US BANCORP (CALLABLE) CORPORATE
NOTES
DTD 04/24/2014 2.200% 04/25/2019
1,756,149.12 1,760,980.88 7,098.67 1,777,952.00 10/16/1410/10/14A1A+ 1,760,000.00 91159HHH6 1.96
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019
1,775,721.57 1,786,114.27 12,544.58 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20
AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE)
NOTE
DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020
1,286,023.70 1,305,377.01 9,374.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83
JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES
DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020
216,568.22 219,933.04 107.25 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020
959,468.62 976,191.38 589.72 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92
WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE
DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020
1,820,977.20 1,848,305.75 1,562.22 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95
WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES
DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021
949,147.95 976,453.67 7,840.63 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES
DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021
925,138.75 924,715.55 5,912.29 924,630.00 04/13/1804/10/18Aa3AA- 925,000.00 89236TEU5 2.96
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP
(CALLABLE)
DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021
1,975,372.00 2,021,960.86 10,555.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00
BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE
DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021
907,487.08 924,600.95 4,830.00 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A3A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40
MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES
DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021
900,492.32 921,619.76 4,472.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42
GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021
896,040.44 923,106.58 4,427.50 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47
Page 5
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Corporate Note
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE)
NOTE
DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021
1,460,595.00 1,498,936.89 4,356.25 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08
CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE
DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021
905,121.76 924,600.69 1,704.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17Baa1BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72
IBM CORP BONDS
DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022
1,947,242.00 2,008,666.00 21,388.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35
WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES
DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022
1,044,050.75 1,046,528.25 2,105.21 1,041,503.00 04/05/1804/03/18A2A+ 1,075,000.00 25468PCW4 3.07
HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES
DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023
1,063,879.13 1,057,503.63 7,256.25 1,054,682.50 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 437076AZ5 3.11
135,573.82 23,568,738.31 23,908,200.92 2.25 24,174,340.15 23,870,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Certificate of Deposit
SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD
DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019
1,695,996.50 1,700,000.00 5,517.92 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17P-1A-1 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05
SKANDINAV ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD
DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019
1,789,943.40 1,799,794.60 13,984.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17P-1A-1 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85
MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS
DTD 09/27/2017 2.070% 09/25/2019
923,511.39 930,000.00 5,240.55 930,000.00 09/27/1709/25/17P-1A-1 930,000.00 06539RGM3 2.07
CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT DEPOS
DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020
1,028,237.67 1,030,000.00 24,674.51 1,030,000.00 02/08/1802/07/18A1A 1,030,000.00 22549LFR1 2.67
NORDEA BANK AB NY CD
DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020
1,499,088.00 1,500,000.00 14,846.67 1,500,000.00 02/22/1802/20/18Aa3AA- 1,500,000.00 65590ASN7 2.72
UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD
DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020
1,500,849.00 1,500,000.00 14,379.17 1,500,000.00 03/06/1803/02/18Aa2A+ 1,500,000.00 90275DHG8 2.93
CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS
DTD 04/10/2018 2.884% 04/10/2020
900,225.00 900,000.00 5,984.82 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A+ 900,000.00 22532XHT8 2.85
Page 6
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Certificate of Deposit
CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT
DEPOS
DTD 04/10/2018 2.814% 04/10/2020
901,672.20 900,000.00 5,839.57 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18Aa2A+ 900,000.00 13606BVF0 2.78
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD
DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020
1,704,970.80 1,699,532.11 3,781.56 1,699,354.00 06/07/1806/05/18Aa2A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GU22 3.10
WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD
DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020
1,593,094.14 1,615,000.00 13,243.00 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05
BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS
DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020
1,797,903.00 1,800,000.00 24,084.50 1,800,000.00 08/03/1808/01/18Aa2A+ 1,800,000.00 06370REU9 3.23
SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS
DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020
1,824,730.68 1,860,000.00 5,395.03 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa2AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30
136,971.30 17,160,221.78 17,234,326.71 2.54 17,233,652.00 17,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation
NAROT 2017-C A3
DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022
335,759.52 339,960.48 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13
HART 2018-A A3
DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022
329,735.93 329,958.23 409.20 329,950.30 04/18/1804/10/18AaaAAA 330,000.00 44891KAD7 2.80
TAOT 2018-B A3
DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022
910,220.22 909,988.40 1,197.16 909,986.44 05/16/1805/09/18AaaAAA 910,000.00 89238TAD5 2.96
MBART 2018-1 A3
DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023
641,153.98 639,978.00 861.87 639,975.42 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 640,000.00 58772RAD6 3.03
ALLYA 2018-3 A3
DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023
1,074,117.86 1,074,934.69 1,433.33 1,074,926.47 06/27/1806/19/18AaaAAA 1,075,000.00 02007JAC1 3.09
NAROT 2018-B A3
DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023
602,315.88 599,982.61 816.00 599,980.56 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 600,000.00 65479GAD1 3.06
5,037.92 3,893,303.39 3,894,802.41 2.94 3,894,761.70 3,895,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Page 7
For the Month Ending December 31, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
110,732,290.31 110,293,013.01 2.27 649,369.70 110,086,769.93 109,200,496.06 Managed Account Sub-Total
$110,732,290.31 $110,293,013.01 $649,369.70 $110,086,769.93 $109,200,496.06 2.27%
$109,849,865.76
$649,369.70
Total Investments
Accrued Interest
Securities Sub-Total
Page 8
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
December 31, 2018
Objective
The objective of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is to seek returns that
reflect the broad investment performance of the financial markets
through capital appreciation and investment income. There is no
guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objective.
Strategy
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is invested in various asset classes in
percentages approved by the CalPERS Board. The specific percentages
of portfolio assets allocated to each asset class are shown under
“Composition.” Generally, equities are intended to help build the value of
the employer’s portfolio over the long term while bonds are intended to
help provide income and stability of principal. Also, strategies invested in
a higher percentage of equities seek higher investment returns (but
assume more risk) compared with strategies invested in a higher
percentage of bonds.
Compared with CERBT Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, this portfolio consists
of a higher percentage of equities than bonds and other assets.
Historically, equities have displayed greater price volatility and therefore
this portfolio may experience greater fluctuation of value. Employers that
seek higher investment returns, and are able to accept greater risk and
tolerate more fluctuation in returns, may wish to consider this portfolio.
CalPERS Board may change the list of approved asset classes, in
composition as well as targeted allocation percentages and ranges at
any time.
Assets Under Management
As of the specified reporting month-end, the aggregate total of assets
under management for all CERBT Strategies was
$8,247,552,108.
Composition
Asset Class Allocations and Benchmarks
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of the following asset classes and
corresponding benchmarks:
Asset Class Target
1Allocation
Target
Range Benchmark
Global Equity 59%± 5%MSCI All Country World Index IMI (net)
Fixed Income 25%±5%Bloomberg Barclays
Index
Long Liability
Treasury Inflation-
Protected Securities
("TIPS")
5%± 3%Bloomberg Barclays US TIPS Index
Real Estate Investment
Trusts ("REITs")8%± 5%FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed
Liquid Index (net)
Commodities 3%± 3%S&P GSCI Total Return Index
Cash -+2%91 Day Treasury Bill
Portfolio Benchmark
The CERBT Strategy 1 benchmark is a composite of underlying asset class
market indices, each assigned the target weight for the asset class it
represents.
Target vs. Actual Asset Class Allocations
The following chart shows policy target allocations compared with actual asset
allocations as of the specified reporting month-end. CalPERS may overweight
or underweight an allocation to a particular asset class based on market,
economic, or CalPERS policy considerations.
1 Allocations approved by the Board at the May 2018 Investment Committee meeting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Global Equity Fixed Income TIPS REITs Commodities Cash
Target Actual
CERBT Strategy 1 Performance as of December 31, 2018
1 Month 3 Months Fiscal YTD 1 Year 3 Years*5 Years*10 Years*Since Inception*
(June 1, 2007)
1,3Gross Return -4.21%-8.59%-6.64%-6.91%5.35%3.78%8.50%3.97%
2,3Net Return -4.22%-8.61%-6.68%-6.99%5.26%3.68%8.41%3.90%
Benchmark returns -4.28%-8.70%-6.83%-7.22%4.83%3.37%8.24%3.52%
4Standard Deviation ----7.32%7.41%11.27%12.65%
Performance quoted represents past performance, which is no guarantee of future results that may be achieved by the fund.
* Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.
1 Gross performance figures are provided net of SSGA operating expenses.
2 Net Performance figures deduct all expenses to the fund, including investment management, administrative and recordkeeping fees.
3 See the Expense section of this document.
4 Standard Deviation is from gross return.
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
December 31, 2018
General Information
Information Accessibility
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of assets managed internally
by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Since it is not a mutual fund, a
prospectus is not available nor is information available from a
newspaper source. This summary is designed to provide descriptive
information. CalPERS provides a quarterly statement of the employer’s
account and other information about the CERBT. For total market
value, detailed asset allocation, investment policy and current
performance information, including performance to the most recent
month-end, please visit our website at: www.calpers.ca.gov.
Portfolio Manager Information
The CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration
directs the investment strategy and investments of the CERBT. State
Street Global Advisors (SSGA) manages all asset classes for CERBT,
which includes: Global Equity, Fixed Income, Real Estate Investment
Trusts, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, and Commodities.1
Custodian and Record Keeper
State Street Bank serves as custodian for the CERBT. Northeast
Retirement Services serves as record keeper.
Expenses
CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all
administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross
investment return by the fee amount. The larger the fee, the greater the
reduction of investment return. Currently, CERBT expenses are 0.10%
which consist of administrative expenses borne by CalPERS to
administer and oversee the Trust assets, investment management and
administrative fees paid to SSGA to manage all asset classes, and
recordkeeping fees paid to Northeast Retirement Services to administer
individual employer accounts. The expenses described herein are
reflected in the net asset value per share. CERBT’s actual expenses
may differ from the amount currently being accrued due to factors such
as changes in average fund assets or market conditions. The expense
accrual rate may change without notice in order to reflect changes in
average portfolio assets or in expense amounts. The CalPERS Board
annually reviews the operating expenses and changes may be made as
appropriate. Even if the po
still charged.
rtfolio loses money during a period, the fee is
What Employers Own
Each employer choosing CERBT Strategy 1 owns a percentage of this
portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS
and/or external advisors. Employers do not have direct ownership of the
securities in the portfolio.
Price
The value of the portfolio changes daily, based upon the market value of the
underlying securities. Just as prices of individual securities fluctuate, the
portfolio’s value also changes with market conditions.
Principal Risks of the Portfolio
The CalPERS CERBT Fund provides California government employers with
a trust through which they may prefund retiree medical costs and other post-
employment benefits. CERBT is not, however, a defined benefit plan. There
is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objectives nor
provide sufficient funding to meet these employer obligations. Further,
CalPERS will not make up the difference between the employer's CERBT
assets and the actual cost of Other Post Employment Benefits provided to
employer's plan members.
An investment in the portfolio is not a bank deposit, and it is not insured nor
guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
CalPERS, the State of California or any other government agency.
There are risks associated with investing, including possible loss of
principal. The portfolio’s risk depends in part on the portfolio’s asset class
allocations and the selection, weighting and risks of the underlying
investments. For more information about investment risks, please see the
document entitled “CERBT Principal Investment Risks” located at www.calpers.ca.gov.
Fund Performance
Performance data shown on page 1 represents past performance and is no
guarantee of future results. The investment return and principal value of an
investment will fluctuate so that an employer’s units, when redeemed, may
be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be
higher or lower than historical performance data shown. For current
performance information, please visit www.calpers.ca.gov and follow the
links to California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust.
CERBT Strategy Risk Levels
CalPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class
allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities.
Asset Class Target Allocations Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Global Equity 59%40%24%
Fixed Income 27%39%39%
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities 5%10%26%
Real Estate Investment Trusts 8%8%8%
Commodities 3%3%3%
1 Since June 2018 SSGA has managed passively all CERBT asset classes. Previously Fixed Income, TIPS and Commodity asset classes were internally managed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 12/1/2018 to 12/31/2018
Carol Augustine
Finance Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Source 12/1/2018 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 12/31/2018
PENSION 1002 $8,132,465.02 $0.00 -$319,860.52 $1,694.26 $0.00 $0.00 $7,810,910.24
Totals $8,132,465.02 $0.00 -$319,860.52 $1,694.26 $0.00 $0.00 $7,810,910.24
Source
PENSION
Source
PENSION
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years
PENSION -3.93%-6.23%-3.57%---10/3/2017
Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value
Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org
The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a
significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between
equity and fixed income investments.
Plan's Inception Date
Investment Objective
Account Report for the Period
Beginning Balance as
of
Investment Selection
Account Summary
Moderate HighMark PLUS
Ending
Balance as of
Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees
Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.
Investment Return
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256
Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Memorializing the City Council's January 22, 2019
Action Granting the Appeal, Overruling the Planning Commission’s Denial
Without Prejudice, and Approving Project Entitlements to Install New
Wireless Facilities (Antenna and Equipment) on Existing Wood Utility Poles
Located Within the Right-of-Ways Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701
Winchester Drive
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the following Resolution:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving an
Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility
(Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within
the Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive (Existing Utility Pole is
Located Along Hillside Drive)
2. Adopt the following Resolution:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving an
Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility
(Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within
the Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (Existing Utility Pole is
Located Along Oak Grove Avenue)
BACKGROUND
At its September 4, 2018 and January 22, 2019 meetings, the City Council conducted a noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal of Talin Aghazarian, an agent for AT&T, of the Planning
Commission’s June 11, 2018 denial without prejudice of entitlements related to installation of new
wireless facilities (antenna and equipment) on existing wood utility poles located within right-of-
ways adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. During the hearing on the appeal,
1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive February 4, 2019
2
the applicant offered modifications to the proposed installations in order to minimize their aesthetic
impact. Following conclusion of the public hearing, and consideration of all public testimony (both
written and oral), the Council voted 5-0 to grant the appeal, overrule the Planning Commission’s
denial without prejudice, and approve both applications as modified by the applicant. As part of its
action, the City Council requested that the following additional condition be added to the conditions
of approval for each project and is highlighted in the attached resolutions:
that the equipment mounted on the side of the utility pole shall be concealed with solar
shrouding as suggested by the applicant at the January 22, 2019 hearing; that prior to
issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of the new wireless communication
facility, the City shall work with the abutting property owner(s) to select one of two
options for the solar shrouding, Option 1 or Option 2, as shown on the attached Exhibit
A, provided by the applicant to Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
Resolution – Conditional Use Permit for Right-Of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive
Resolution – Conditional Use Permit for Right-Of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive
Exhibit A – Options for Solar Shrouding
RESOLUTION NO.
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE (EXISTING
UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG HILLSIDE DRIVE)
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2017, Abigail Reed, an agent for AT&T, filed an application
with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division requesting
approval of the following request:
Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an
existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive
(existing utility pole is located along Hillside Drive); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (study session) to review and comment upon the proposed project. At that time the
Commission requested additional information and provided direction regarding the design of the
wireless facility; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (action meeting). Following consideration of all information contained in the June 11,
2018 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence,
and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Commission denied without prejudice
the application for a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 action, Talin
Aghazarian, an agent for AT&T, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s actions denying the
project without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018 the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal, and continued action on the project until additional information was provided
by the applicant and staff; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019 the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal and the refinements to the project made during the appeal process to address
issues related to the aesthetics of the wireless facility, and following conclusion of the public
hearing and in consideration of all oral and written testimony provided at the hearing, the City
Council granted the appeal, overruled the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 denial without
prejudice, and approved the application as modified by the applicant.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that:
A. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and
evaluated, the Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth
above will have a significant effect on the environment. The Council further finds that
categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303, which states that construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new
equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures
from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
structure, is applicable to this project and is approved.
B. A Conditional Use Permit is approved for the project subject to the following conditions of
approval. Findings for the Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes,
and recordings of the two Council hearings held on the project. Conditions of approval:
1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility on an
existing PG&E wood utility pole, located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside
Drive, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, one (1)
smartpole meter, two (2) radio remote units, two (2) twin diplexers, one (1) ground bar,
and one (1) electric load center, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval.
At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year
term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community
Development Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 27, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-4, E-1 and E-2;
3. that the equipment mounted on the side of the utility pole shall be concealed with solar
shrouding as suggested by the applicant at the January 22, 2019 hearing; that prior to
issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of the new wireless communication
facility, the City shall work with the abutting property owner(s) to select one of two options
for the solar shrouding, Option 1 or Option 2, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, provided
by the applicant to Council;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018
memos shall be met;
5. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the
applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction
Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department
of Public Works – Engineering Division;
6. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished
grade, no exceptions shall be allowed;
3
7. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable
provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless
Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that
chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply;
8. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the
FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate
wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are
made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter
shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a
different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency.
Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation
of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty;
9. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted with
non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole;
10. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
11. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant
shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure
levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations and with City noise regulations, shall
submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct
any noncompliance;
12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of
commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the
facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with
the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also
provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable
confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information
for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for
emergency contact;
14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial
assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that
its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated;
4
15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance
and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or
change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
16. that if the applicant intends to substitute the equipment installed pursuant to this permit
with subsequently-developed technology, such as “5G” equipment, the applicant or
responsible party shall provide sixty (60) days prior notice to the City and secure any
necessary permits before commencing such work;
17. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and
repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
18. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls,
fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti
and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation
from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize
occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any
facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from
the time of notification by any person or entity;
19. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible
beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays;
20. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to
vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
21. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the
Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve
(12) month period:
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator
resumed operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service
provider.
5
22. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased
operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent
to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the
property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements
associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by
the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other
assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the
removal is completed.
________________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of February,
2019 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE
(EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2017, Abigail Reed, an agent for AT&T, filed an application
with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division requesting
approval of the following request:
Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an
existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive
(existing utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (study session) to review and comment upon the proposed project. At that time the
Commission requested additional information and provided direction regarding the design of the
wireless facility; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (action meeting). Following consideration of all information contained in the June 11,
2018 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence,
and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Commission denied without prejudice
the application for a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 action, Talin
Aghazarian, an agent for AT&T, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s actions denying the
project without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018 the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal, and continued action on the project until additional information was provided
by the applicant and staff; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019 the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing to
consider the appeal and the refinements to the project made during the appeal process to address
issues related to the aesthetics of the wireless facility, and following conclusion of the public
hearing and in consideration of all oral and written testimony provided at the hearing, the City
Council granted the appeal, overruled the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 denial without
prejudice, and approved the application as modified by the applicant.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that:
A. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and
evaluated, the Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth
above will have a significant effect on the environment. The Council further finds that
categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303, which states that construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new
equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures
from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
structure, is applicable to this project and is approved.
B. A Conditional Use Permit is approved for the project subject to the following conditions of
approval. Findings for the Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes,
and recordings of the two Council hearings held on the project. Conditions of approval:
1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility on an
existing PG&E wood utility pole, located within the right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester
Drive, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, one (1)
smartpole meter, two (2) radio remote units, two (2) twin diplexers, one (1) ground bar,
and one (1) electric load center, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval.
At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year
term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community
Development Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 27, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-4, E-1 and E-2;
3. that the equipment mounted on the side of the utility pole shall be concealed with solar
shrouding as suggested by the applicant at the January 22, 2019 hearing; that prior to
issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of the new wireless communication
facility, the City shall work with the abutting property owner(s) to select one of two options
for the solar shrouding, Option 1 or Option 2, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, provided
by the applicant to Council;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018
memos shall be met;
5. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the
applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction
Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department
of Public Works – Engineering Division;
6. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished
grade, no exceptions shall be allowed;
3
7. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable
provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless
Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that
chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply;
8. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the
FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate
wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are
made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter
shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a
different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency.
Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation
of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty;
9. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted with
non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole;
10. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
11. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant
shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure
levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations and with City noise regulations, shall
submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct
any noncompliance;
12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of
commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the
facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with
the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also
provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable
confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information
for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for
emergency contact;
14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial
assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that
its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated;
4
15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance
and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or
change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
16. that if the applicant intends to substitute the equipment installed pursuant to this permit
with subsequently-developed technology, such as “5G” equipment, the applicant or
responsible party shall provide sixty (60) days prior notice to the City and secure any
necessary permits before commencing such work;
17. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and
repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
18. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls,
fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti
and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation
from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize
occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any
facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from
the time of notification by any person or entity;
19. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible
beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays;
20. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to
vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
21. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the
Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve
(12) month period:
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator
resumed operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service
provider.
5
22. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased
operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent
to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the
property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements
associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by
the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other
assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the
removal is completed.
________________________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of February,
2019 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
Option 1 Option 2
Exhibit A
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter in Support of AB 213
RECOMMENDATION
Councilmember Brownrigg recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter
in support of AB 213,
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities has asked its members to support AB 213, a bill it is sponsoring to
restore funding to approximately 140 cities that had annexed inhabited territory in reliance on
previous financial incentives, then suffered significant fiscal harm when those funds were swept
away due to the passage of SB 89 (2011). The bill also offers similar incentives to support future
annexations of inhabited territory to improve services to affected residents consistent with state
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) policies. The bill was introduced in the Assembly
on January 15 but has not yet been referred to its first policy committee.
DISCUSSION
Councilmember Brownrigg serves on the League’s Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee.
Through that committee, he was made aware of AB 213 and the League’s request that its members
support the bill, particularly those member cities who either lost funding with the passage of SB 89
(2011) or are considering annexing an adjacent inhabited territory in the future, but want to make
sure that it can “pencil-out.” Councilmember Brownrigg drafted the attached letter and asked Mayor
Colson to place the item on the Council’s agenda. Mayor Colson agreed to place the letter on the
February 4 agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT
Exhibit:
• Letter of support for AB 213
DONNA COLSON, MAYOR
EMILY BEACH, VICE MAYOR
ANN KEIGHRAN
RICARDO ORTIZ
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG
TEL: (650) 558-7200
FAX: (650) 566-9282
www.burlingame.org
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
February 4, 2019
The Honorable Eloise Gómez Reyes
California State Assembly
State Capitol Building, Room 2175
Sacramento, CA 95814
VIA FAX: 916-319-2147
RE: Annexation Finance: restoration of lost revenue and renewed incentives.
Notice of Support
Dear Assemblymember Reyes:
The City of Burlingame supports your AB 213. While our City was not impacted by the State’s revenue grab of city annexation
funds that occurred as a result of SB 89 (2011), in response to the State’s then-dire budget conditions, we may well proceed in
the future with annexation of nearby unincorporated lands, and the incentives could be a key component.
In particular, the City of Burlingame supports the restoration of fiscal incentives that encourage the policy of city annexation of
adjacent lands, where appropriate. In our case, our County and LAFCO have suggested that the City of Burlingame might
beneficially incorporate Burlingame Hills, an adjacent, largely unincorporated community of homes, into our City. While the
homeowners themselves have traditionally preferred their unincorporated status, there is a growing interest by the homeowners
to harmonize infrastructure and to give those homeowners a vote in their City’s leadership. We have been clear with the
homeowners that this will only be done on a mutually beneficial basis—there will be no forced annexation by the City of
Burlingame—and so it must make sense financially for the City. This is especially so in light of our recent General Plan update,
which expands the total number of housing units in our city by 20% over the next decade, a substantial commitment of resources
on our part but a crucial plank in our collective effort to create more housing on the Peninsula.
Your bill would help restore incentives to cities like ours to proceed with sensible annexations. We urge you to proceed and your
colleagues to support the measure. Furthermore, we believe that sister cities who relied on the revenue from prior annexations,
and which was removed by Sacramento and SB 89, ought to properly see that revenue returned, which your bill would do. Like
Redevelopment Agencies, if cities cannot count on revenue from State policies, then future planning becomes much more
problematic, and city leadership will, in response, necessarily become more conservative and risk averse. This is not a good
way to manage our State.
For these reasons, the City of Burlingame supports AB 213 (Reyes).
The Honorable Eloise Gómez Reyes
February 4, 2019
Page 2
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
Sincerely,
Donna Colson
Mayor
cc: State Senator Jerry Hill
State Assemblymember and Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Mullin
Larry Moody, League of California Cities Peninsula Division President
Seth Miller, League of California Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager (smiller@cacities.org)
Johnnie Piña, Legislative Policy Analyst, League of Cities, jpina@cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of
the Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish No Parking Along North Carolan
Avenue from Edwards Road to Approximately 150 Feet North of Whitehorn
Way between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to introduce the attached
ordinance amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to establish ‘No Parking’
along North Carolan Avenue from Edwards Road to approximately 150 feet north of Whitehorn
Way from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. by:
1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance.
2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance.
3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second
reading and adoption.
5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND
North Carolan Avenue, which is designated as a collector road in Burlingame, primarily serves the
businesses along its corridor. These businesses are mostly light industrial, automotive related, and
include the City’s Corporation Yard and Fire Station No. 36 (Administration Offices). North Carolan
Avenue is 40 feet wide, with on-street parking on both sides of the street. Currently, the only
parking restriction in the area is a height restriction along certain portions of the street. Finding on-
street parking along North Carolan is challenging as many employees who work in the area park
on-street due to inadequate site parking, and must compete with vehicles that are using the street
for long-term parking.
Staff has observed a lack of vehicle turnover on Carolan Avenue, with many vehicles left parked
for long durations, making it difficult to find parking. Some of these vehicles include recreation
vehicles, unhitched trailers, and vehicles being used or serviced by businesses on North Carolan.
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the February 4, 2019
BMC to Establish ‘No Parking’ Along North Carolan Avenue from Edwards
Road to 150 feet north of Whitehorn Way
2
While these vehicles create an inequality for on-street parking, some also contribute to chemicals
and other fluids entering the stormwater system.
Per the City’s Zoning Code (Title 25), the businesses in the Rollins Road District are subject to the
regulations in Chapter 25.44, which require them to provide on-site parking for all vehicles being
serviced and for employees working on the premises.
DISCUSSION
Staff studied the matter to improve on-street parking conditions and presented it to the City’s Traffic
Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC). The TSPC discussed this matter at the November 8,
2018, and December 13, 2018 meetings. At both meetings, business owners along North Carolan
Avenue were in attendance and provided feedback regarding their concerns and support of a
parking restriction. The initial proposal was to restrict on-street parking from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. on North Carolan Avenue between Whitehorn Way and Edwards Road. This parking restriction
would not impact the vehicles parked during the day. The Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC)
13.36.020 already has streets with similar restrictions. These restrictions are also located in light
industrial areas and were created to address the same concerns that are being experienced along
North Carolan Avenue. They are as follows:
• East side of Airport Boulevard from Beach Road to Fisherman’s Park, between 10:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m.; and
• Both sides of Gilbreth Road from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00
a.m.
Based on feedback from the business community at the November TSPC meeting, staff moved the
restriction approximately 150 feet to the north of Whitehorn Way to accommodate concerns of both
Tresser’s Tow Service, located at 1307 North Carolan Avenue, and Burlingame Motors, located at
1295 Rollins Road. Members of the public representing each business spoke at the meeting about
how the proposed parking restriction would impact their business operations. Tresser’s Tow
Service indicated that the 24/7 nature of the business requires them to have on-street parking in
front of their facility at all times. Burlingame Motors spoke of the after-hours needs of either leaving
customer vehicles parked on-street outside of their shop for pick-up, or the early morning vehicle
drop-off by customers, both of which may occur during the proposed restriction.
At the December TSPC meeting, after receiving further input from the community, the parking
restriction hours were revised from the original proposal of 10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. –
5:00 a.m. This change was made to accommodate business owners with concerns about early
arrivals and to assist the Police Department’s enforcement of the area during their less active
periods in the early morning hours. Additionally, based on public input, the TSPC recommended
extending the vehicle height restriction along North Carolan Avenue. Staff noted that this action
can be accomplished through the direction of the City Engineer in accordance with provisions of
the current Municipal Code. At the conclusion of the item, the TSPC unanimously voted to support
the proposed parking restriction from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., and requested that notifications be
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the February 4, 2019
BMC to Establish ‘No Parking’ Along North Carolan Avenue from Edwards
Road to 150 feet north of Whitehorn Way
3
sent out to affected businesses to inform them of the proposed parking restriction changes prior to
any enforcement.
This proposed parking restriction will help alleviate the on-street vehicle storage problem and
provide for additional on-street parking for businesses in the area. In addition, it will also assist with
parking capacity for Corporation Yard employees as they will be impacted by the construction of
Caltrain’s Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) in the City’s Corporation Yard parking lot.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be minor costs and staff time involved in the installation of parking restriction signs and
poles, which will be absorbed within the Department’s current fiscal year operational budget.
Exhibits:
• Ordinance
• Revised Draft BMC Chapter 13.36.020
• Area Map
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO
AMEND CHAPTER 13.36.020 REGARDING NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED
HOURS OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Section 1. Factual Background and Findings.
WHEREAS, Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides for “No
Parking during Specified Hours” on certain streets; and
WHEREAS, North Carolan Avenue is a collector road in Burlingame, which primarily
serves light industrial, automotive related businesses, and includes the City’s Corporation Yard
and Fire Station No. 36 (Administration Offices); and
WHEREAS, finding on-street parking along North Carolan Avenue is challenging due to
inadequate site parking for employees, vehicles using the street for long-term parking and
storage, and the planned construction of the Caltrain Paralleling Station 3, which will further
exacerbate the on-street parking inventory; and
WHEREAS, staff has observed a lack of vehicle turnover on North Carolan Avenue, with
many vehicles left parked for long durations, making it difficult to find parking. Some of these
vehicles include recreation vehicles, unhitched trailers, and vehicles being used or serviced by
businesses on North Carolan Avenue. While these vehicles create an inequality for on-street
parking, some also contribute to chemicals and other fluids entering the stormwater system; and
WHEREAS, the only parking restriction currently in the area is a height restriction along
certain portions of the street; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission discussed the matter and
obtained community input at its November 8, 2018, and December 13, 2018 meetings and
unanimously voted to support the proposed parking restriction from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., and
requested that notifications be sent out to affected businesses to inform them of the proposed
parking restriction changes prior to any enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. Chapter 13.36.020. – ‘No parking during specified hours’ of the Burlingame
Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the
following streets on the designated hours and days as follows:
(1) Adrian Road, east side between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and
holidays excepted;
(2) Airport Boulevard, east side, from Beach Road to Fisherman’s Park,
between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
(3) Broadway, both sides from El Camino Real to California Drive, 4:00 a.m. to
6:00 a.m., Sundays and holidays excepted, unless otherwise prohibited or
limited;
(4) Burlingame Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Occidental Avenue
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.;
(5) Burlingame Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to California Drive
between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday;
(6) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side from
Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday;
(7) Capuchino Avenue, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue between 4:00
a.m. and 6:00 a.m., east side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays;
(8) Carmelita Avenue, south side, from California Drive to El Camino Real,
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.; north side, from California Drive to El
Camino Real, between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.;
(9) Carolan Avenue, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue
between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; east side between Broadway and a point
two hundred twenty-five (225) feet southerly from the southeasterly right-
of -way line of Broadway from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; west side from
Sanchez Creek to the centerline of Larkspur Drive from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.;
(10) Chula Vista Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00
a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays;
(11) El Camino Real West Service Road from Trousdale to Murchison from
2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.;
(12) Gilbreth Road, both sides, from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between
12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
(13) Howard Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue,
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(14) Laguna Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00
a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays;
(15) North Carolan Avenue, both sides, from Edwards Avenue to one hundred
fifty (150) feet north of Whitehorn Way, between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.;
(16) Paloma Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00
a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays;
(17) Peninsula Avenue, north side from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to
Humboldt Street, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays
excepted;
(18) Rhinette Avenue, south side, between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays
and holidays excepted; and
(19) Rollins Road, west side from North Carolan Avenue to Broadway from 4:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement
this ordinance.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law.
____________________________
Donna Colson, Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of February
2019 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the __ day of
February 2019 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
REVISED DRAFT BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.36.020
13.36.020 No parking during specified hours.
It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the following streets on the
designated hours and days as follows:
(1) Adrian Road, east side between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(2) Airport Boulevard, east side, from Beach Road to Fisherman’s Park, between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m.;
(3) Broadway, both sides from El Camino Real to California Drive, 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., Sundays
and holidays excepted, unless otherwise prohibited or limited;
(4) Burlingame Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Occidental Avenue between 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m.;
(5) Burlingame Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to California Drive between 4:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday;
(6) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,
and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side from Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00
p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
(7) Capuchino Avenue, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., east
side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays;
(8) Carmelita Avenue, south side, from California Drive to El Camino Real, between 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m.; north side, from California Drive to El Camino Real, between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.;
(9) Carolan Avenue, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue between 3:00 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m.; east side between Broadway and a point two hundred twenty-five (225) feet southerly
from the southeasterly right-of-way line of Broadway from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; west side from
Sanchez Creek to the centerline of Larkspur Drive from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.;
(10) Chula Vista Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
east side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays;
(11) El Camino Real West Service Road from Trousdale to Murchison from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.;
(12) Gilbreth Road, both sides, from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
(13) Howard Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue, between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(14) Laguna Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east
side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays;
(15) North Carolan Avenue, both sides, from Edwards Avenue to one hundred fifty (150) feet north
of Whitehorn Way, between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.;
(15) (16) Paloma Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
east side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays;
(16) (17) Peninsula Avenue, north side from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Humboldt Street,
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(17) (18) Rhinette Avenue, south side, between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays
excepted; and
(18) (19) Rollins Road, west side from North Carolan Avenue to Broadway from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
(Ord. 1136 § 7, (1978); Ord. 1168 § 1, (1980); Ord. 1187 § 1, (1980); Ord. 1283 § 3, (1984); Ord. 1323 § 2,
(1986); Ord. 1408 § 1, (1990); Ord. 1451 § 2, (1992); Ord. 1564 § 1, (1996); Ord. 1580 § 3, (1997); Ord.
1585 § 2,(1998); Ord. 1597 § 2, (1998); Ord. 1611 § 2, (1999); Ord. 1696 § 2, (2002); Ord. 1734 § 2,
(2004); Ord. 1798 § 3, (2007); Ord. 1925 § 2, (2016); Ord. 1953 § 2, (2018)) (8) Trousdale Drive
between El Camino Real and Skyline Boulevard.
Location MapNorth Carolan Avenue
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2019
To: City Council
Date: February 04, 2019
From: Mayor Colson
Subject: Committee Report
January 23, 2019
California Coalition For Safe Schools
• 114 people killed in 2018 school shootings
• Shooters were as young as 12, but generally between 16-17
• Seeking amendments to gun violence retracing order and child access protection laws.
• SMC leading the way for interagency cooperations around threat assessment. We have a
student and now adult threat advisory team that both incorporate 17 agencies. Last year
worked on 8 different cases.
• The 483 page Parkland report came out last month. Training and knowledge did not
translate down to people on the ground and actions.
• Started and continue CAMP lead sot hat social and emotional learning program. Students
connected to campus feel safer and reduce risk. They did 3 camps with the sheriff’s help
and served over 200 kids.
• Have developed a crisis response and bomb threat protocol.
• Nancy Magee discussed the Big Five Safety protocol and is working with all 23 school
districts as well as 70 private schools to train over 600 people.
• New theme of Think On Your Feet
• Discussed with SRO Rambaugh and school officials having a Burlingame meeting to
understand our protocols and process locally. Proposed having a meeting in April.
Home For All Meeting
January 24, 2019
Statistics from the County
$110.4 million funded from the County Board of Supervisors and this has resulted in 2,055 units
of new affordable, and 584 preserved or renovated that serve 5,540 units total for residents of San
Mateo County.
Speaker - Sterling Speirn
Discussion on Philanthropy and its impact on democracy
Local community engagement is where the work it taking place. Change happens when
communities join together. This is the challenge in 2019 - but more philanthropists that are
engaging in the conversation around civic engagement. They are investing in civic conversation
Colson Committee Report February 04, 2019
2
and transparency. What are the kind of characteristics we need in our youth and high school
students? How do we teach these? Is it through the classroom?
• Considering giving right to vote to 16 year olds in DC and the best practice is to teach
controversial topics in civics - building the democratic muscles.
City Council and Outreach for Public Comment - Listening and learning sessions that made peel
feel welcome.
• 8 sessions and 650 people total
• 30 Council and Planning Commissioners attended
• About 100 round table discussions
• County staff were trained in these discussions as well
Results - of community participants
• Many citizens share the same concerns
• Everyone affected by the housing situation in each town
• Cities are doing a lot of work around housing
• Listening and working together on solutions
• Together we can find solutions
Council and Staff
• Community was ready to move forward but needed a meaningful dialog
• Heard citizen concerns
• Residents thanked staff
• Process can be replicated
Presentations from city staff and council - Discussed actual experiences and the benefits of the
workshops. Overall, a huge success on the format. Had an ADU open-house tour that was very
successful. Was on a night 4:30 - 6:00 PM. Also had several meetings in Spanish as well at several
cities.
January 24, 2019
Peninsula Clean Energy Meeting
Swearing in of six new board members.
Chair Report -
• Because of Pradeep’s Retirement - one open spot on the Executive Committee
• February we will need to vote on a new Chair and Vice Chair. Donna Colson, Rick
Bonilla, Wayne Lee, and Dave Pine.
• The Governor has appointed another person to CPUC - not Pradeep Gupta, but we will be
setting up a meet and greet.
Colson Committee Report February 04, 2019
3
CEO Report -
• Introduce Maggie Tides our new Deputy County Counsel
• 2 positions we are hiring Manager of Distributed Energy Resources Strategy and second,
Regulatory Analyst/Senior Reg Analyst
Meet and Greet PCE
Jan 30 - 11:30 AM Commissioner Martha Guzman-Aceves
Jan 30 - 1:00 PM Commissioner LIane Randolph
• Appointments to CPUC, CAISO, Wildfire Commission
• ERRA - rate setting and how PCIA is going to be set up (does grant that the brown power
true up has a set date)
• Rate Change - Schedule change likely. Means that it is likely that rates will not change
until March 15th.
Programs
• EV promotion - $1,000 incentive and results are that there were 118 EVs that took
advantage of this offer from PCE. Program was very successful.
• Helping other CCAs form and we are working with Merced where our Wright solar project
is located. We will help them on Feb 9 at the energize UC Merced and also video about
union workers and benefit to them.
• Reach Codes - Consultant to work on 2020 reach code update, held meeting here with staff
to let city staff know what we did, next step is letter of intent.
• CARE customer rebate and we are postponing until we get the actual rate changes.
Report from CAC
• Update about legislation on 2019 agenda - idea is to work on a bill to assist in lower
income communities.
• Working Committees and discussed idea of CAC doing survey to determine new PCIA
rate and it’s impact on the CCAs.
• Program to educate high school programs about the impact of EVs.
Changes to CEO - Increase CEO by $15,000 to $300,000 and extends contract by one year.
Item 5 - Report on the Role of the CAC - the CAC has been integral to our staff and helping them
with our programs. Especially want to make a call out to our Burlingame resident Desiree Thayer
who has been an active and integral member of the team and has volunteered many hours and her
expertise to this work.
Item 6 - Energy Storage System - Energy Storage 101
All storage has some financial generation for PCE - Potential Revenue that the storage system can
support. There are costs - capital to install, but then operations over time.
• Specific applications - Output profile of a wind plant - each day is very dramatically
different profile. Also looked at solar and the goal is to manage the duck curve and get
energy smoothed on the grid.
Colson Committee Report February 04, 2019
4
• Storage System Cost - Battery is about 50% of the cost. Capital cost is the remaining.
• Since 2010 there has been an 80% decrease in battery cost - the average is $200 per KWH
and 2040 $40 KWH. The install cost is also declining. These two follow a trend since
battery is driving costs. There is uncertainty in these and that is why so much variability!
• Match the 100% renewable supply with demand on an hour by hour basis.
Opportunities -
• Energy - reshape the duck curve and increased renewables
• Economically dispatch energy to CASIO ahead or real time
• Capacity - (RA)
• Regulation Energy Management - Frequency Regulation Reserves
• New rules at CASIO being developed
January 25, 2019
• Council of Cities Dinner with update on County-wide Gun Buyback and David Hogg and
Ryan Dietsch of March For Our Lives - Parkland, Florida
January 26, 2019
• Goal Setting Session - Minutes attached
• MFOL - Presentation to County kids about gun violence reduction and youth voter
activism.
• Constituent Meetings - Information on Bayfront Ferry Service and small business app for
local retailers to get delivery of goods faster than Amazon.
January 28, 2019
Park and Recreation Foundation Meeting
Proposed Fitness Zone
1. Fitness Equipment on the Bay Front -
2. Total of 4 clusters with multiple pieces of equipment = about 1/4 mile apart in a total loop.
Loop is 1.25 miles.
3. Signage at each cluster - asking the hotels about $5,000 per hotel
4. Partner with the Park and Recreation Foundation to help fund the program and upgrade the
surface areas. The hotels then get their name on the track - and get that advertising
5. Daily inspection for cleaning and monthly safety inspection
6. Total project is $200,000K and the hotels would help with the upgrade so an additional
$20,00.0.
7. ADA Compliant and Safe Street Crossing
8. Sports Flea - Made $500 and we will try it again next year.
9. Tri-Folds in Stands around town - still have more of these
10. Ordered checker tables for Alpine, Pershing, Village, Heritage and Victoria
11. Skyline - got Geotechnical report and they are meeting with building to finish documents
and bid it out - construction starting later this summer. Opening the end of the summer -
hopefully!
Colson Committee Report February 04, 2019
5
Peninsula Division of League of Cities
Steins Beer Garden and Restaurant
• Update on CASA Compact
• Significant issues from Peninsula Cities
• Disconnect from the HFA work and the needs of our community
• Future action to discuss a path forward
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: February 4, 2019
From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 1/17/19: League of California Cities Conf. and Environmental Quality Policy
Committee Meeting, Sacramento – see highlights/notes at end of this report
Tuesday, 1/22 City Council Meeting
Wednesday, 1/23 Meeting with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Director of Policy and
Advocacy
Discussion included:
•Burlingame Roundabout and bike/ped impact
•Dockless bikeshare RFP best practices (I forwarded info to staff)
•Measure W implementation strategy at SMCTA
Wednesday, 1/23 San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau annual awards
luncheon
Thursday, 1/24/19 San Mateo County Home for All Convening
•Reporting best practices of the pilot programs
•Kevin Gardiner represented Burlingame and did a great job explaining our outreach efforts
during our two Burlingame Talks Together About Housing meetings
Thursday, 1/24/19 PHCD Monthly Board Meeting, Burlingame City Hall
•About 12 members of the public advocated for affordable housing
•Board member suggested there may be obstacles in their Health Care District charter
which make housing (including BMR housing) difficult on their public land. Need to
follow-up to understand this. Suggestion conflicts with MTC presentation about unlocking
public land for housing.
Friday, 1/25/19 US 101 Managed Lane Subcommittee Meeting, San Carlos
•Joint SMCTA and C/CAG subcommittee worked through impasse and coalesced around
San Mateo ownership with BAIFA/MTC as operator. This is a positive outcome. Next
meeting on 1/31 to discuss joint SMCTA/C/CAG ownership model.
Friday, 1/25/19 San Mateo County Homeless Count training
AGENDA NO: 11b
February 4, 2019
Beach Committee Report February 4, 2019
2
Friday, 1/25/19 Council of Cities Dinner, Burlingame: thanks to Mayor Colson for coordinating
an inspiring program with the Parkland kids about gun violence prevention!
Saturday, 1/26/19 City Council Annual Goals Session
Saturday, 1/26/19 BHS panel with Parkland kids about gun violence prevention
Wednesday, 1/30/19, Climate Collaborative hosted by San Mateo County
• Official launch of Climate Collaborative with stakeholders from many different
sectors/industries
• Holistic discussion regarding impact of climate change (including sea level rise, flooding,
fires, extreme heat and cold, erosion, food supply, air quality)
• Visualizing risk helps develop tools to mitigate
• Future action will cost 4-10x more expensive than taking preventative actions to mitigate
risk
• County-wide maps/vulnerability analysis underway
• County-wide adaptation tool-kit underway (how to plan and build for future, including
policy templates for local city’s climate action plans, transportation plans, and other local
planning documents.)
• County will sponsor local planning pilot programs with systems approach to solutions –
shared knowledge and benefits (rather than efforts by individual cities)
• Interesting discussion, minimal call to action
Wednesday, 1/30/19, League of California Cities Casa Compact luncheon with guest
speakers from MTC and ABAG staff
• Much concern about components of the Compact and process how it was developed.
Cities need to stay engaged as legislation inspired by the Compact takes shape this year.
League of California Cities – Policy Committee Meeting and Conference Notes
League of California Cities (our premier advocate / lobbying organization for common interests of
California Cities) will play a critically important role during this legislative cycle, which promises
to be a very bold one.
Generally, a positive reception for Governor’s proposed budget – which includes meaningful
funding for affordable housing, education, healthcare. League staff suggested it is a fairly
responsible budget, primarily due to California’s current fiscal strength and nearly optimum
budget climate. Budget also anticipates moderate (4-5%) growth in state reserves over the next
few years.
Significant concerns by League about housing production legislation include:
• reduced local land use authority (legislators telling cities how we should build – one size
fits all approach, no regard for big vs. small cities)
• proposed limits on cities’ control over their own developer fees (possible caps,
standardization of fee schedules state-wide, which prevent cities from valuing different
community benefits (some cities need/desire infrastructure fees, others need affordable
housing fees, others choose parks fees, school fees, public art fees, etc.) Concern by
League that reduction of fees means reduction of public services -- and more dollars for
real estate investors.
Beach Committee Report February 4, 2019
3
• Possible allocation of transportation funds linked to housing creation (possibility even SB1
formula funds may be under attack.)
• increasing RHNA numbers
League encourages cities to stay engaged and actively respond to legislative developments by
sending time-sensitive letters to state representatives.
Overview of legislative landscape and California’s economy:
Income inequality: average Californian is financially much worse off today then they were 10
years ago:
• state-wide wages for workers with a BA degree or higher are finally catching up to 2008
levels (today $70k, 2008 = $72k). When adjusted for inflation, Californians fall way
behind. (today $70k, 2008 adjusted for inflation should = $89k)
• state-wide wages for workers without a BA degree are falling father behind income levels
ten years ago ($40k in 2008, $33k today – adjusted for inflation, even worse)
• State-wide current housing unit production = 125,000 units/year
• State-wide housing production during the peak of housing boom: up to 200,000 units/year
• Currently, there are 450,000 approved housing units in the state-wide pipeline, however,
construction market conditions/economy has slowed down. Current projections suggest it
will take five years to bring those 450,000 units to market.
• League suggests additional higher RHNA targets may not actually bring more units to
market – other factors at play
• Land use bills only require simple majority vote in a Supermajority legislature – lots of
action likely to happen this year
• League encourages member cities to think about what are we willing to give up in order to
be taken seriously at negotiating table
• League poised to oppose divesting CalPers investments
• Governor proposed significant new funding for disaster response ($25m)
• Cap and Trade funds: grant funds are zeroed out this year, $400m less investment likely
this year – this is of concern
Environmental Quality Policy Committee highlights
• Committee deliberated and set areas of focus this year:
o Storm water quality and water supply
o Recycling markets / waste diversion and re-use
o Energy
• Received a presentation from California Department of Conservation about the
Transformative Climate Communities Program
• Received presentation from Institute for Local Government who encouraged cities to
become part of the Beacon Program.
• Our policy committee’s anti-coagulant resolution (pesticides) passed back in September
helped the National League lobby and pull pre-emption out of Federal Farm Bill.
Beach Committee Report February 4, 2019
4
Budget Seminar Highlights
• Sales Tax observations, state-wide: When adjusted for inflation and population growth,
sales tax receipts are not growing/trending higher in California. Driven by:
o Changes in digital/retail landscape
o Structure of taxation (tangible goods vs. services)
• Likely debate in the coming year about reducing sales tax rates and instead taxing services
to create new revenue streams
• Some cities find it more effective to work on 2-year budget cycles, anchored in 5-year
forecasts
• Fees related to use of government property may be set at market rate – don’t have to be
cost justified. (i.e. land lease, parking)
Emergency Preparedness Seminar
• League suggested importance of press conference training for Councilmembers / Mayors
• During emergency, best place for Council Members could be City Hall rather than EOC
• Radio communications critically important among key leaders when wireless service and
phone lines down; consider radios for emergencies
• Importance of coordinating public statements with PIO (public information officer)
• FEMA has emergency management institute training for elected officials
CASA Compact – informal Bay Area (9 county) breakfast discussion – major themes,
comments from city representatives:
• Concerned one size fits all approach to land use
• May not acknowledge housing units already built
• Concern skipping over CEQA
• Concern for infrastructure capacity
• Vagueness is troublesome
• No smaller cities represented during the process, only mayors SF, OAK, SJC. Committee
was formed at staff level (neither Brown Act governed, nor publicly noticed meetings)
• Local jurisdictions concerned about bearing the funding burden
• Cities potentially required to give up 20% of property tax to MTC, with kick-back to the
cities based on housing production
• Misconstrued as overwhelming support by MTC, ABAG, and Bay Area leaders
• Concern about vacant housing tax
• Some cities without business tax base expressed desire to build jobs where housing is,
rather than other way around
• Concerned business taxes to fund Casa Compact will never materialize because lobbyists
will prevent; meanwhile cities may be required to fund the budget shortfall for this
ambitious initiative
• Small and medium size cities need to engage with their representatives, and through the
League