BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Study Session on December 4, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in person and via Zoom at 6:00 p.m.
2 . ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, Stevenson MEMBERS ABSENT: None
3 . REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were no requests.
4. STUDY SESSION
a. CITY HALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
City Manager Goldman stated that the study session was to provide the Council with an update on the subcommittee’s effort to review options for either utilizing City Hall’s current lot for a new City Hall or building it elsewhere in the city. She discussed some of the challenges of the current building including space, heating, and storage.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City hired Group 4 to assist with understanding what would be needed for a new City Hall. The City also hired Keyser Marston to provide financial advice on the project and Craig Whittom, a consultant who has been assisting Caltrain with a project related to rebuilding or revamping their headquarters.
Group 4 representative Dawn Merkes reviewed the timeline of the project:
• September 2023 – Existing City Hall Conditions Report o Confirm project goals and objectives
o Confirm project management, communication tools, and protocols o Review City provided documents
o Tour City Hall
o Prepare draft existing conditions report for City review and feedback o Draft final existing conditions report
• October through December 2023 – New City Hall Space Needs Assessment Report o Interview staff from the different departments in City Hall o Staff survey
o Draft space needs assessment report including preliminary conceptual layout of a new City Hall
o Review feedback and comments from City
• October through December 2023 – Keyser Marston reviews City and privately-owned properties
• December 2023 through January 2024 – New City Hall Preliminary Cost Estimate o Estimate includes
Three alternatives for the site including a written description, conceptual site plan, and breakdown of area per proposed use
Cost estimates for each of the three potential sites
o Present to City Council
• January through February 2024 – Keyser Marston works on new City Hall Development and Financial Plan
• February 2024 – Preliminary Community Engagement Plan o Contingent on a financially feasible plan being established o Preliminary community engagement plan will be designed to build support for a new City Hall
Ms. Merkes reviews the results of the staff survey:
• How frequent is your in-office interaction with the public – top answer was weekly • What type of interaction do you have with the public – top two answers – at the public counter and individual meetings
• Select your workspace – top answer at 83% was cubicle • On average, how many hours do you work at your workstation per day – top answer was six to eight hours
• How many days per week do you typically work remotely – top answer was zero to two days
• How do you get to work – top answer at 78% was drive alone
Ms. Merkes stated that staff was asked to rate the condition of each area within City Hall as applicable. She noted that the results showed that staff’s main concerns included storage, circulation, parking, access to meeting spaces, breakroom, and restrooms.
Ms. Merkes reviewed staff’s responses to the survey question that asked them about additional concerns they had with the current building. The responses included the below comments with some indicating multiple people with the same concern:
• Security (4)
• Lack of locker room and showers (4)
• Too noisy (3)
• Heating and cooling systems need improvement (3)
• Privacy
• Need for: kitchenette in each department, meeting and collaboration spaces in each department
• Asbestos needs to be addressed
• Physical layout
• Rarely see other departments
• Prefer cubicles over offices
• Equal cubicle size
• Need for sunlight/large windows
• Not enough parking
• Restroom improvement
• Major upgrades needed
Ms. Merkes showed floorplans for the two levels of City Hall. She noted that most of the interaction with the public occurs on the second floor at Public Works and Community Development. She discussed the inefficiency of space in the existing building.
Ms. Merkes reviewed a spreadsheet that depicted the current staffing and space of each department with projections of future staff and space needs. She added that these projections were for five to ten years out. She stated that the current space use of City Hall is 169 square feet per staff member. She noted that best practices are 200 to 250 square feet per staff member.
Ms. Merkes reviewed the following chart of comparable cities:
City Facility
Size
Population
(2020)
SF/Capita Population
projected
for 2030
SF/Capita Year
Built
San Pablo 42,500 31,258 1.36
SF/CAP
32,845 1.29
SF/CAP
2018
Belmont 33,800 26,941 1.26
SF/CAP
27,970 1.21
SF/CAP
1985
(remodel
in 2003)
Mountain
View
96,400 83,601 1.15
SF/CAP
86,330 1.12
SF/CAP
1991
Pleasant
Hill
35,700 34,905 1.07
SF/CAP
35,065 1.02
SF/CAP
1991
Burlingame 26,000 30,743 0.85
SF/CAP
31,805 0.82
SF/CAP
1970s
Foster City 24,700 33,901 0.73
SF/CAP
34,095 0.72
SF/CAP
El Cerrito 16,735 25,593 0.65
SF/CAP
28,090 0.60
SF/CAP
2010
Newark 25,000 48,900 0.53
SF/CAP
57,600 0.45
SF/CAP
2022
Dublin 33,300 71,750 0.46
SF/CAP
75,000 0.44
SF/CAP
East Palo
Alto
15,339 30,800 0.53
SF/CAP
33,500 0.46
SF/CAP
varies
Ms. Merkes discussed Newark City Hall. She noted that Newark has to do another needs assessment because the City has already outgrown future growth space and is projecting 20% more staff growth.
Councilmember Beach asked about non-assignable space. Ms. Merkes replied that this includes bathrooms, mechanical rooms, etc.
Ms. Merkes reviewed the draft space needs:
Growth Projected
Staff
Office
Needs at
200
SF/staff
Office
Needs at
250
SF/staff
Council
Chambers
Meeting
Room,
Amenities,
Non-
Assignable
and
Circulation
Total City
Hall Space
Needs
No Growth 67
(including
3 off-site
staff)
13,400 SF 16,750 SF 2,500 SF 13,400 –
16,750 SF
29,300 –
36,000 SF
20%
growth
81 16,200 SF 20,250 SF 3,000 SF 16,200 –
20,250 SF
35,400 –
43,500 SF
30%
growth
88 17,600 SF 22,000 SF 3,250 SF 17,600 –
22,000 SF
38,450 –
47,250 SF
40%
growth
94 18,800 SF 23,500 SF 3,500 SF 18,800 –
23,500 SF
41,100 –
50,500 SF
Councilmember Stevenson asked how the City of Newark underestimated their growth and space needs in their new city hall. Group 4 representative Andrea Gifford replied that Newark’s development increased the demands on their city hall as well as bringing IT in-house.
Ms. Merkes discussed the need for additional parking in connection with the different levels of growth. She reviewed elements of a good city hall site including:
• Prerequisites: site capacity, cost, functionality, operations, sustainability, schedule and phasing, alignment with planning goals, and zoning
• Visibility: entrance and wayfinding
• Access: pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation, vehicle, and parking • Community Impact: connectivity and enhancements
• Economic Impact
• Placemaking
• Quality of Life
• Synergy: civic facilities and retail
• Environmental: environmental risks
Ms. Merkes reviewed the prerequisites in the site evaluation criteria including:
1. Site Capacity – does the site have the capacity to accommodate the building and parking being planned? Is there an opportunity to develop shared parking in order to conserve resources?
2. Cost – what are the total development costs? Costs include land acquisition, site infrastructure (sewer, water, power, and roads), site entitlement costs (CEQA), site and building construction costs, and potential relocation costs for existing users.
3. Functionality/practicality – does the option prioritize functional design and inherent flexibility to best serve the community, support the operational efficiency, and support staff now and well into the future.
4. Operations – can the City continue to provide excellent services to the residents? Does the facility increase or decrease the number of staff required to operate the facility?
5. Sustainability – both environmental and operational, will be fundamental in the location and design of the new City Hall.
6. Schedule and Phasing – is the land or property currently available or ready for development? Does the proposed option require temporary relocation or phasing?
7. Alignment with Planning – does this option function efficiently and is it responsible to minimize on-going cash costs and environmental impacts? Is this option in alignment with the City’s short-term and long-term General Plan goals?
Ms. Merkes showed the sites that Group 4 and the subcommittee looked at as a potential site for the new City Hall including: City Hall’s current location, Lot B, Lot C, Lot D, Lot G, Lot H, Lot J, and Lot W.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if Group 4 surveyed the number of non-staff members that utilize City Hall every day. Ms. Merkes replied in the negative.
Mayor Brownrigg voiced concern about picking a lot that was difficult for people to get to. He noted that he felt that a lot of people were coming and going from City Hall on a regular basis.
He discussed how crowded the downtown area is and thought this might make it difficult for the public to get to City Hall.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought a prerequisite should be that City Hall is accessible to all.
Councilmember Stevenson discussed the importance of not only staff’s experience in City Hall but also how the public will access it. City Manager Goldman replied that the City wasn’t yet at the phase of designing what the inside of the building would look like. However, she noted that it was on staff’s wish list to move Community Development and Public Works to the main floor.
She discussed having a main desk where individuals could quickly obtain the services that they are looking for when they come to City Hall. She added that they have also discussed having meeting spaces available to the public, which also helps future proof the City if more space is needed for staff.
Ms. Merkes reviewed the following chart, which was utilized to conduct the site analysis of potential sites for a new City Hall:
Location Capacity Zoning Cost Functionality/Practicality Operations Schedule and
Phasing
Existing 50,000
SF
HDR City-
owned
2-3+ story underground
parking
48,500 SF
2-story
building
Requires
temp
facilities
Lot G 20,064
SF
BMU City-
owned
3+story underground
parking
30,750 SF
3-story
building
Lot J 37,332
SF
HMU City-
owned
Surface and 3+ story
underground or Lot W
Garage
42,500 SF
2-story
building
Lot W 19,100
SF
HMU City-
owned
3+ story underground
parking or Lot J Garagae
48,500 SF
3-story
building
LOT B 15,753
SF
CAC City-
owned
4+ story underground
parking
41,500 SF
3-story
building
Lot C 32,049
SF
DAC City-
owned
3+ story underground
parking or Lot D or A3
Garage
50,500+ SF
2-story
building
Lot D 15,000
SF
BAC City-
owned
4+ story underground
parking or Lot C Garage
45,000 SF
3-story
building
Lot H 32,667
SF
L-HDR City-
owneded
Surface and 2+ story
underground
45,500 SF
3-story
building
Ms. Merkes explained that the lots in red referred to lots that wouldn’t work.
Councilmember Beach asked if the goal is for City Hall to remain a two-story building. City Manager Goldman replied that two to three stories would be ideal.
Ms. Merkes reviewed a chart that depicted the parking spaces count of the potential sites:
Lot (E) Parking Spaces City Hall Parking
Spaces
Additional Capacity
Parking Spaces
Existing 31 157-177 TBD
Lot G 67 99-113 TBD
Lot J 65 137-155 TBD
Lot W 57 157-177 TBD
Lot B 42 134-152 TBD
Lot C 79 157-177 TBD
Lot D 48 143-163 TBD
Lot H 80 143-163 TBD
Councilmember Stevenson asked why the parking structure next to the Library wasn’t considered. City Manager Goldman replied that Donnelly Avenue is a narrow street, and the structure would need to be torn down.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about acquiring a private site and trading a parking lot. He also asked if the City should consider building on a different site like the tennis courts in Washington Park.
He voiced concern that only looking at the parking lots was limiting the scope.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City’s real estate advisor is reviewing private lots. She noted that the City hasn’t located a building that would work.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that early in the subcommittee meetings, they discussed looking at private sites. However, he explained that the subcommittee couldn’t identify a privately- owned site that would work.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the subcommittee also discussed using a site on the Bayfront.
However, the subcommittee felt that the Bayfront was too remote and far from the community. She explained that the subcommittee focused on the downtown because of its vibrancy and the easy access for the community to walk to City Hall or visit while running errands.
Councilmember Beach asked about redeveloping the current lot and potentially putting housing on top of a new City Hall.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the complexity of mixing the site for both housing and government. She noted that this would increase the cost of the project.
Councilmember Beach stated that she hoped the City wouldn’t overpark the new City Hall facility and would instead create incentives to utilize public transportation.
Councilmember Beach asked which lot the old City Hall was on. City Manager Goldman replied that it was on Lot J.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Jennifer Pfaff discussed the history of the old City Hall. She asked that the current City Hall be afforded a proper survey regarding its history.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Colson asked that her colleagues be afforded one-on-ones with Ms. Merkes if they had additional questions about the project.
The Council concurred that this was a good idea.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the study session at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk