Loading...
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