1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
City Council Study Session on October 3rd, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 6:00 p.m.
2 . ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None
3. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING FUND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
CDD Gardiner stated that affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build needed homes for lower-income residents. He explained that the fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing.
CDD Gardiner explained that on June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame. On April 1, 2019, the City Council adopted residential impact fees for new residential development in Burlingame.
CDD Gardiner stated that over time, these fees will provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. He explained that the Housing Fund Subcommittee (“Subcomittee”) has been formed with the intent to direct policies and programs for use of commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees that have been collected from new development projects.
CDD Gardiner stated that for new commercial development, the adopted linkage fees are:
• $7.00 per square foot for new retail development
• $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development
• $18.00 per square foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and • $25.00 per square foot for offices greater than 50,000 square feet.
2 He noted that for developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the fees are:
• $5.00 per square foot for new retail development
• $10.00 per square foot for new hotel development
• $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and • $20.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet.
CDD Gardiner stated that the current balance of the housing fund is $8,700,000, resulting from fees collected from 2550 California Drive, 220 Park Road, and 567 Airport Boulevard.
CDD Gardiner stated that for new residential development, the adopted residential impact fees vary from $14.00 to $45.00 per square foot, depending on residential density (units per acre) and whether the project is rental or for sale. He explained that there is also an “in-lieu” option where the developer can choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee:
• For Rental Multifamily projects, at least ten percent (10%) of the units on site must be affordable to moderate income households (in this instance 80% - 120% AMI) for a period of 55 years in order to waive the residential impact fee.
• For Sale Multifamily (Townhome/Condominium) projects, ten percent (10%) of the units on site must be affordable to above-moderate income households (in this instance 120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period of 55 years in order to waive the residential impact fee
CDD Gardiner noted that the Century Urban economic consultants are currently evaluating the feasibility of modifying the commercial linkage fees. In addition, staff has initiated engagement with Seifel Consulting to evaluate the residential impact fees and in-lieu program.
CDD Gardiner went over the projects under review and the fees associated with them:
Project Base Fee (in $) With Prevailing/Area Wages (in$) Topgolf 355,750 355,750
777 Airport Blvd 10,085,000 8,068,000
620 Airport Blvd 12,100,000 9,860,000
1699 Bayshore Hwy 10,883,500 8,697,500
1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy 36,410,000 29,125,000
1499 Bayshore Hwy 7,880,000 6,304,000
Totals 77,713,870 62,229,870
CDD Gardiner stated that staff anticipates that most if not all of the listed projects will utilize prevailing/area wages. Therefore, staff suggested that the figure of $62,229,870 is more likely provided all projects are approved and advance to construction. He stated that based on project timeline assumptions, • $26,800,870 will be collected in 2023
• $29,125,000 will be collected in 2024
• $6,304,000 will be collected in 2025
CDD Gardiner noted that to date, all residential projects subject to residential impact fees have utilized the on-site in-lieu option. He stated that at least one developer has indicated they typically pay fees rather than
3 build the affordable units on site. He explained that in its initial meeting, the Subcommittee identified some potential uses of the funds including:
• Acquisition and preservation of existing “naturally affordable” housing (likely in tandem with an RFP to manage property acquisition/management, and possibly as part of a land banking strategy) • Gap financing for affordable housing projects (suggested rotating "facilitation loan") • Funding disbursement to non-profits that offer financial assistance to renters and homeless, and/or preserve affordable housing (Samaritan House, HIP Housing, LifeMoves, etc.) • Renovation fund for soft-story seismic retrofits or electrification in exchange for affordability deed restrictions
• Buying down existing units or proposed units (e.g. increasing the percentage of affordable units beyond those currently required)
• Subsidizing ADU construction in exchange for affordability deed restrictions • Housing in conjunction with the City Hall redevelopment, to provide essential worker housing
CDD Gardiner explained that given the many possible uses of the funds, the Subcommittee indicated interest in forming an advisory committee to discuss the use and prioritization of housing funds. He noted that the advisory committee would meet over a series of meetings that would involve a range of community members who have interest in housing matters. He stated staff has been in correspondence with consultants to assist in the meeting facilitation for the advisory committee, as well as technical consultants. Staff and the Subcommittee have suggested the following for the advisory committee:
• Renter Representative
• Non-Profit Representative
• Senior Citizen/Retiree Advocate
• Landlord/Property Owner Representative
• Burlingame Workforce Representative or Residents (2)
• Trades Representative
• School Representative
• Developer Representative
• Healthcare Representative
• Young Adult Representative
• Special Needs Advocate(s)
• Business Leader
• Neighborhood Preservation Advocate
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the advisory committee would help to prioritize how funds are spent. He noted that everyone is invited to the meetings to listen and give input.
Councilmember Colson stated that people on the committee should represent multiple areas and segments of the community.
4 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked about the inclusion of landlord on the advisory committee and how it is defined. CDD Gardiner replied that it has not been defined. He added that a representative from the California Apartment Association could be added to the advisory committee.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked about setting aside funds for rent subsidies. CDD Gardiner replied that that is certainly an option. However, he noted that an issue with rent subsidies is that the funds are not reoccurring, the City gets them once, and rent subsidies are reoccurring. He stated that the advisory committee could discuss this issue further.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran explained that the advisory committee could discuss an emergency fund for rent subsidies.
Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmember O’Brien Keighran was thinking about utilizing rent subsidies to assist individuals through specific emergencies.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that the Subcommittee discussed rent subsidies. She added that the City gives funds to Samaritan House for similar situations.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the list of potential uses for the funds was not comprehensive. He added that his colleagues could add more ideas to the list for the advisory committee to consider.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Ortiz stated that his priority would be to create new housing units, and then focus on more affordable units for lower income individuals.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues if they felt the overall premise of an advisory committee was a good idea.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran replied that she would broaden the “renovation funds for soft-story seismic retrofits or electrification in exchange for affordability deed restrictions” use category. She explained that a lot of the large buildings in the city are older, and therefore it can cost a lot to retrofit or renovate them to qualify for this category.
Councilmember Beach replied that she is in favor of establishing an advisory committee. She stated that she would like to further discuss setting aside funds for nonprofits to utilize. She added that she approved of the list of potential committee members. She voiced support for adding the following representatives: a core- services representative as they tend to help the most vulnerable section of the population, an affordable housing developer, a hospitality industry representative, a healthcare and childcare advocate, and a member of the faith community.
5 Councilmember Colson discussed utilizing funds to assist in filling the funding gap for various nonprofit housing and community development projects. She stated that the City’s funds could assist the project in receiving additional funding from the County.
Mayor Ortiz discussed prioritizing funds for new housing units with a focus on affordable units. He added that he supported the creation of a committee. However, he voiced concern that in trying to make the committee inclusive, it may become too large. Therefore, he asked staff to be mindful of the overall size of the advisory committee.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that the subcommittee is aware of not letting the advisory committee balloon in size.
Councilmember Colson added that the subcommittee will meet next week and discuss individuals for the committee.
Mayor Ortiz thanked the subcommittee and staff for the report.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk