1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on January 16, 2024
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 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by former Mayor Terry Nagel.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, Stevenson MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There was a request for remote participation from Councilmember Ortiz. The request was granted.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MARIA SAGUISAG-SID, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA, TIMOTHY L. DAVIS ATTORNEY,
AND FINANCE DIRECTOR HELEN YU-SCOTT
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: AFSCME AND BAMM
City Attorney Guina reported that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed upcoming events in the city.
2 7. PRESENTATIONS
a. REVIEW OF THE CITY’S PENSION LIABILITIES
Finance Director Yu-Scott gave background on the City’s pension liabilities. She introduced Doug Pryor, a Senior Consulting Actuary from Foster & Foster Actuaries and Consultants. She stated that the City provides retirement benefits through its participation in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”). She explained that this is a defined benefit pension plan funded by a combination of employer and employee contributions that are set by statute and that fluctuate from year to year based on an annual actuarial valuation performed by CalPERS.
Finance Director Yu-Scott explained that in response to the prospect of alarmingly high future employer contribution rates, the City engaged an actuary in 2017 to model the actuarial valuations of the City's pension plans. She stated that the fluctuation of CalPERS' investment portfolio performance in the last couple of years triggered a big swing in the City's net pension liability, and as of June 30, 2023, the net pension liability for the City was projected to be $86.7 million, a significant increase over the prior year of $47.9 million.
Mr. Pryor explained that 20-year and 30-year average return rates on June 30, 2022, were 7.0% and 7.4%, respectively. He noted that in 2021, the return rate was 21.30%, and in 2022, the return rate was -6.10%.
He then discussed the City’s benefits:
Tier 1 PEPRA
Miscellaneous 2.5% @55 FAE1 2% @62 FAE3
Safety Police 3% @50 FAE1 2.7% @57 FAE3
Mr. Pryor explained that:
• Benefit = (years of services) X Percentage X FAE
o Percentage varies by retirement age
o FAE1 is highest 1 year (typically final) average earnings o FAE3 is highest three years (typically final three) average earnings • PEPRA tier for new employees hired after 1/1/13
o Employee pays half of total normal cost
o 2024 compensation limit
Social Security participants: $151,446
Non-Social Security participants: $181,734
Mr. Pryor explained that under PEPRA, an individual can’t retire until age 52 for Miscellaneous, and at age 67, the two formulas are the same percentage. He noted that for Safety employees, there is a slight difference between the two formulas.
3 Mr. Pryor stated that the discount rate is determined by many factors. He noted that there is a range of likely outcomes, but you can’t really predict it. He explained that after the great return of 2021, CalPERS looked at how they were investing and how they wanted to invest going forward. He stated that despite a good return year, they ended up increasing their risk (from a standard deviation of 11.2% to 12.0%). He stated that CalPERS reviews the assumptions in the portfolio every four years.
Mr. Pryor discussed the City’s pension obligation bond:
• $32,975,000 pension obligation bond (“POB”) issued by the City in 2006 • POB debt service based on projected UAL payments and normal cost at issuance for Miscellaneous, Safety Police, and Safety Fire plans
• Outstanding POB balance as of June 30, 2023: $6,185,000 • Pay off date is June 1, 2036
Mayor Colson asked if the City achieved a higher return through CalPERS than if it was borrowed. Mr. Pryor replied that while he didn’t do a detailed analysis on the Mayor’s question,n it appears that the City is ahead. He added that when the consultants calculate the projection for contributions, they take the sum of what they expect the City to contribute to CalPERS plus the payments on the POB.
Mr. Pryor reviewed the demographic information for the City’s Miscellaneous plan:
2002 2012 2021 2022
Actives
Counts
193 157 189 187
Average Age
45 48 45 45
Average City Service
10 12 10 10
Average PERSable Wages
$ 59,000 $75,200 $96,800 $97,100
Total PERSable Wages
$11,400,000 $11,800,000 $18,300,000 $18,100,000
Inactive Members
Counts
Transferred
79 87 108 120
Separated
42 48 69 79
Retired
• Service 122
197 250 251
• Disability 18 21 24 25
• Beneficiaries 21 25 33 34
• TOTAL 161 243 307 310
4 Average Annual City Provided Benefit
for Service Retirees $14,500
$26,700 $31,800 $33,800
Mr. Pryor reviewed the City’s unfunded pension liability for the Miscellaneous plan:
• 2021 - $33 million
• 2022 - $53 million
• 2023 - $54 million
He stated that the current unfunded pension liability is projected to be $65,100,000.
Mr. Pryor reviewed a bar chart that depicted the funded status of the Miscellaneous plan through the years. He noted that in the late 1990s, the Miscellaneous plan was fully funded. However, since the mid- aughts, the funding level has dropped to around 70% to 80%. He noted that the City has the Section 115 Trust that is not reflected in the funding level in the bar chart.
Mayor Colson stated that when returns were good, many cities opted to take pension contribution holidays, which she thinks won’t happen again judging from the current market factors. Mr. Pryor replied that PEPRA won’t allow the contribution amount to go below the normal cost.
Mr. Pryor further reviewed the funding status of the Miscellaneous plan with the following points:
• Investment returns:
• Future returns based on stochastic analysis using 1,000 trials • Single year returns with current investment mix, no risk mitigation:
Percentile
25th 50th 75th
First 8 years -1.8% 6.0% 14.7%
After 8 years -0.7% 7.5% 16.4%
• Assumes investment returns will generally be lower over the next 8 years and higher beyond that
• Discount rate decreases due to Risk Mitigation Policy – ultimate rate 6.0% • No other gains/losses, method/assumption changes, benefit improvements • Different from CalPERS projection
• Impact of Risk Mitigation Policy:
• Net impact of investment gain and discount rate change amortized over 20 years with 5 year ramp up
• Same amortization method for all future years
• New hire assumptions – all new hires assumed PEPRA members and none are Classic members • June 30, 2022 employee distribution:
Benefit Tier Count Percentage of
Total
FY 2021/22
Payroll
Percentage of
Total
2.5% at 55 FAE1 93 49.7% $10,622,600 58.5%
5 2% at 62 FAE3
(PEPRA)
94 50.3% $7,527,400 41.5%
TOTAL 187 100% $18,150,000 100%
• Projections include POB proceeds and debt service but exclude the City’s Section 115 Trust • Employee cost-sharing – Classic employees contribute 1.5%
Mr. Pryor stated the City’s contribution for the Miscellaneous plan is projected to be $7.287 million for FY 2023-24 and peak in FY 2034-35 at $9.919 million.
Mr. Pryor reviewed the City’s Safety Police plan. He began by summarizing the demographic information of the Safety Police plan:
2011 2016 2021 2022
Actives
Counts
35 37 38 36
Average Age
n/a n/a 37 36
Average Service
n/a n/a 10 9
Average PERSable Wages
$ 108,600 $ 126,100 $ 136,100 $ 135,900
Total PERSable Wages
$3,800,000 $4,700,000 $5,200,000 $4,900,000
Inactive Members
Counts
Transferred
21 12 11 11
Separated
7 8 13 14
Receiving Payments
58 74 88 93
Mr. Pryor noted that Safety is combining three different plans, so the numbers will look a bit different than the Miscellaneous plan. He reviewed the unfunded pension liability for the City’s Safety Police plan over the years:
• 2021 - $27 million
• 2022 - $39 million
• 2023 - $40 million
He stated that the current unfunded pension liability for the City’s Safety Police plan is projected to be $47 million.
Mr. Pryor further reviewed the funding status of the City’s Safety Police plan with the following points:
• All new hires assumed PEPRA members and none are Classic members
6 • June 30, 2022 employee distribution:
Benefit Tier Count Percentage of
Total
FY 2021/22
Payroll
Percentage of
Total
3% at 50 14 38.9% $2,378,600 48.6%
2.7% at 57 FAE3
(PEPRA)
22 61.1% $2,514,400 51.4%
TOTAL 36 100% $4,893,000 100%
• Classic employees contribute 4%
Mr. Pryor stated that it is projected that the City will pay $3.965 for this fiscal year, and that the contribution rate for Safety will peak in FY 2034-35 at $6.841 million.
Next, Mr. Pryor reviewed charts that depicted the combined funding status of Miscellaneous and Safety.
The first chart depicted the funded status summary as of June 30, 2022:
Miscellaneous Safety Police Total
AAL $182,000,000 $113,000,000 $295,000,000
Assets $129,000,000 $74,000,000 $203,000,000
Unfunded AAL $53,000,000 $39,000,000 $92,000,000
Funded Ratio 70.8% 65.1% 68.6%
He then showed the projected fund status summary as of June 30, 2023:
Miscellaneous Safety Police Total
AAL $188,000,000 $115,000,000 $304,000,000
Assets $134,000,000 $75,000,000 $210,000,000
Unfunded AAL $54,000,000 $40,000,000 $94,000,000
Funded Ratio 71.2% 65.3% 69%
Mr. Pryor reviewed some key points concerning the City’s Section 115 Pension Trust including:
• Can only be used to:
o Reimburse City for CalPERS contributions
o Make payments directly to CalPERS
• Investments significantly less restricted than City investment funds o Fiduciary rules govern Trust investments
o Usually, designed for long term returns
• Assets don’t count for GASB accounting
o Are considered Employer assets
• Over 200 trusts established, mostly since 2015
• More flexibility than paying CalPERS directly
o City decides if and when and how much money to put into the Trust o City decides if and when and how much to withdraw to pay CalPERS or reimburse Agency • Balance as of June 30,2023: $20,816,735
• Individual custom account
7 • Five-year annualized return: 5.03%
• Assumed Trust earnings: 5% for illustrative purposes
• FY 2023-24 budgeted contribution to the Trust: $1,159,000 • Projected balance as of June 30, 2024 balance: $23,045,000 o Allocation between Miscellaneous and Safety based on cumulative contributions for each plan
Mr. Pryor explained that in 2026, the City’s contribution to CalPERS for Miscellaneous will be 36.5% of payroll. He stated that if the City decides to begin withdrawing from the Section 115 Trust in 2026, payments would look as follows:
• 30% of the City’s contribution to the Miscellaneous plan from payroll • 6.5% of the City’s contribution to the Miscellaneous plan from the Section 115 Trust
He noted that this would allow the City’s payments to hover at around 30.8% through FY 2038-39.
Mr. Pryor stated that for Safety, if the City begins withdrawing from the Section 115 Trust in 2026, payments would look as follows:
• 77.4% of the City’s contribution to the Safety plan from payroll • 6% of the City’s contribution to the Safety plan from the Section 115 Trust
He noted that this would allow the City’s payments to hover at around 77.4% through FY 2038-39.
Mayor Colson stated that pensions are a primary obligation, and that if you can’t fund them, then you have to cut in other places in order to fund them. She noted that she is proud of the City for setting up the 115 Trust in order to help address pension obligations. She added that she doesn’t want to see the City need to cannibalize the City budget and hamstring future Councils.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it is a given that the City starts withdrawing from the Section 115 Trust, or will Council have a policy meeting to address this. City Manager Goldman replied that it is the Council’s choice on when the City starts withdrawing from the Section 115 Trust.
Councilmember Stevenson asked if there is any limit on how much the City can contribute to the Section 115 Trust. Finance Director Yu-Scott replied in the negative.
Vice Mayor Beach echoed Mayor Colson’s thoughts on the foresight of the Council to fund the Section 115 Trust.
Council thanked Mr. Pryor for his hard work and for all the information in the presentation.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
8 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Peterson spoke about AI and how it can benefit government services.
Mr. Tarelo spoke about his organization, Medical Equipment Loan Program, and its upcoming event.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Members of the public pulled 9h from the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to approve 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e, 9f, 9g, 9i, 9j, 9k, 9l, 9m, and 9n; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 6, 2023 CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the December 6, 2023 Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 18, 2023 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the December 18, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT COMMUNITY GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO SUPPORT THE LET THE SUNSHINE IN PROGRAM
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 001-2024.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO MODIFY THE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF PRYOR CITY
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 002-2024.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1740 ROLLINS ROAD AND 842 COWAN ROAD PUMP STATION UPGRADES, CITY PROJECT NOS. 84820 & 83390 BY ANVIL BUILDERS INC.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 003-2024.
9 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 14, CITY PROJECT NO. 86330 BY GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 004-2024.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #1
TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. UNTIL JUNE 30, 2025 AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $800,000
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 005-2024.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $626,815 AGREEMENT WITH BUILDCORP, INC. FOR THE WASHINGTON PARK SOFTBALL BATTING CAGE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85430; TRANSFERRING $379,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE TO THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND; AND INCREASING THE PROJECT’S APPROPRIATION BY $379,000
Mayor Colson opened public comment.
Burlingame Girls’ Softball President Meghan Dunne spoke in support of the softball batting cage.
Alex Cardwell, Kaan Ersun, Mary Kilponen, Shannon Delucchi, Alison Pariani, and Scott Sayegh all spoke in support of the softball batting cage and thanked the Council for taking this on. (Comments submitted via [email protected]
)
Jay Leslie spoke in favor of this project.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 006-2024; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz.
The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #1
TO INCREASE THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE, LLC., BY $60,000 AND INCREASE THE APPROPRIATION OF $60,000 FOR THE PARK
DIVISION'S GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution number 007-2024.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCREASE OF THE CITY'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS FROM $350 TO $375 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.25.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 008-2024.
10 k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PART-TIME SALARY & BENEFIT PLAN
Human Resources Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 009-2024.
l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INCREASE TOTAL PRICE OF THE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC., BY AN ADDITIONAL $7,060, AND APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $7,060 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE PARKS DIVISION FY 23-24
OPERATING BUDGET
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 010-2024.
m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, THE CITY OF
ATHERTON, CITY OF BRISBANE, CITY OF COLMA, CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY, CITY OF HILLSBOROUGH, CITY OF MENLO PARK, CITY OF MILLBRAE, CITY OF PACIFICA, CITY
OF SAN CARLOS, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, TOWN OF WOODSIDE, CITY OF SAN MATEO,
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, AND THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO DEVELOP A COMPOST QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN
Sustainability Program Manager requested Council adopt Resolution Number 011-2024.
n. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2024
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council confirm the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2024.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 9.04, “ANIMALS,” OF TITLE 9 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY EXISTING DEFINITIONS, ENACT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL, AND REVISE THE FEES FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(B)(3)
City Manager Goldman stated that the City of Burlingame, along with the 19 other cities in San Mateo County, contract with the County for the facilitation and coordination of animal control services. She explained that animal control has been one of the longest running regional and shared services in San Mateo County. She noted that the County contracts with Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA for animal control and sheltering services.
City Manager Goldman stated that in 2021, the Council, along with several other cities in the county, adopted an animal control agreement with the County for continued services. She explained that the agreement requires that each City adopt and maintain animal control ordinance(s) that are substantially
11 the same as the San Mateo County ordinance in order to continue the County’s ability to administer the animal control services.
City Manager Goldman stated that in late 2021, the County and the Peninsula Humane Society began working with a committee of five City Attorneys to update the current animal control regulations. She noted that the intent of the revised ordinance is for enhanced enforceability, streamlined processes, clarity in definitions based on real-world experience, and above all else, public safety. She added that on December 12, 2023, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors introduced an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 6.04 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code. She stated that the City’s proposed ordinance is substantially the same as the San Mateo County ordinance.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to bring the ordinance back for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.36.010 OF CHAPTER 13.36, "PARKING LIMITATIONS," OF TITLE 13 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SCTIONS 15378 AND 15061(B)(3)
City Attorney Guina stated that staff needs more time to review this item and requested it be continued to a future meeting. Council approved the request.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. UPDATE ON THE SOFT STORY BUILDINGS AD HOC COMMITTEE
CDD Gardiner explained that a “soft story building” is considered a structure with wood-framed construction built with two or more stories situated over an open parking, storage, or commercial level. He stated that the open level typically has disproportionately large openings (such as carports or garage doors) compared to the upper levels, and the upper levels are often supported only by slender columns. He added that these characteristics make the building “top heavy” so that there is a variation in lateral stiffness, making the building vulnerable to damage from the lateral motion of an earthquake.
CDD Gardiner stated that the remedy for soft story buildings is a combination of steel frames and sheer wall supports.
CDD Gardiner stated that this issue is important for a few reasons:
• Life safety
• Financial (cost of repairs and loss of rent revenues) • Displacement
12 He noted that only about 10% of property owners in California have earthquake insurance.
CDD Gardiner stated that the General Plan includes the Community Safety Element, which establishes goals and policies designed to protect public health and safety, provide for sound emergency preparedness planning, and build in resiliency. He explained that among the hazards addressed in the Community Safety Element are seismic safety hazards, which can be influenced by ground shaking, topography, groundwater conditions, and type of building construction.
CDD Gardiner stated that General Plan Goal CS-7 calls for protecting people and buildings in Burlingame by reducing the risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards. He noted that CS-7 calls for the creation of an ad hoc committee to investigate and describe the seismic risk posed by pre-1980 wood frame soft story buildings. He thanked the members of the ad hoc committee for their assistance:
• Dena Gunning – Community Risk & Resiliency Specialist, CCFD • Janiele Maffei – Chief Mitigation Officer, California Earthquake Authority • Rik Kasuga – Burlingame CERT Coordinator
• Dominic Chu – Structural engineer
• Peter Sung – Structural engineer
• Terry Nagel – Burlingame Neighborhood Network
• Justin Moresco – Civil engineer with expertise in seismic mitigation • Randy Grange – Architect
• Ron Karp – Commercial building owner or broker
• Ryan Guibara – Commercial building owner/developer
• Lisa Lohmann – Property insurance
• Rhovy Lyn Antonio – CA Apartment Association
• Angelina Soldatos – CA Apartment Association
• Gina Zari – Government Affairs Director, San Mateo County Association of Realtors • Will Loftis – Architect/former Planning Commissioner
CDD Gardiner discussed the ad hoc committee’s work plan:
• Review inventory of potential soft story buildings
• Review ordinances and programs from other municipalities • Consider options for incentives and requirements
• Report findings to the City Council
CDD Gardiner stated that Bureau Veritas North America, Incorporated prepared a preliminary report regarding the estimated number of soft-story buildings in Burlingame:
• 140 potential residential structures
• 15 potential commercial structures
• Based on a visual assessment of the buildings from the right of public way conducted by a qualified structural engineer
• Single unit dwellings were not included
13 He noted that if each building is assumed to have ten units, this equates to 1400 units potentially affected.
CDD Gardiner stated that much of the ad hoc committee’s work focused on potential policy options, and how successful each approach has been in Bay Area communities. He explained that the most recent committee meeting included a presentation by Ana Miscolta, Director of Community Resiliency for Thrive Alliance, and Sarah Atkinson, Earthquake Policy Program Manager for the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, that summarized a continuum of four policy options for retrofit programs:
1. No Program – City/County without a soft story program or ordinance (i.e., status quo)
2. Voluntary – Program to deal with soft story buildings, but there is no enforcement policy
3. Mandatory Screening – Requires building owners to conduct seismic safety test, building the jurisdiction’s inventory
4. Mandatory Retrofit – After a mandatory screening, building owners must upgrade their building to be seismically safe
CDD Gardiner reviewed which counties and cities fell into which of the policy options:
No Program Voluntary (with
incentives)
Mandatory Screening Mandatory Retrofit
San Mateo County
(2023)
Fremont (1999) Berkeley (2005) Fremont (2007)
Oakland (2007) Oakland (2009) San Francisco (2013)
San Francisco (2009) Alameda (2009) Berkeley (2014)
Hayward (2019) Oakland (2019)
Mill Valley (2023)
CDD Gardiner noted that the ad hoc committee members have been very cognizant of the potential cost burdens to building owners. He stated that there are a range of financing and potential grant options, but these may be unfamiliar to building owners, and some grants are designated to jurisdictions to fund programs rather than to individual owners. He explained that some potential funding options include:
• Expedited permits, inspections, reviews
• Reduced permit fees
• Zoning incentives
• Technical assistance
• Transfer Tax Rebates (Ex. Berkeley)
• PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing
• Private loans
• Tax reductions for historic properties
• FEMA grants
• Passthrough costs to tenants
CDD Gardiner stated that for the program to go forward, the question about funding needs to be answered.
CDD Gardiner reviewed a preliminary technical assistance process:
1. Inventory (additional research beyond prior study)
14 2. Review of City plans and mitigation programs
3. Engineering, including evaluation of dominant building types in Burlingame
4. Cost-sharing, including grant opportunities
5. Legislation
6. Implementation
CDD Gardiner emphasized that these are just recommendations, and can be discussed and modified, but are a good starting point. He stated that the estimated fee would be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000, depending on how much additional research is desired, versus focusing on development of an ordinance and retrofit program.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff considered using impact fees to fund retrofits in exchange for some type of affordability covenant. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that this might be a legitimate use of the housing impact fees. He noted they would have to work out some of the conditions.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked at what point does a mandatory retrofit cost so much that a building owner might sell. CDD Gardiner replied that after discussions with other cities, the cost can be between $12,000 and $16,000 per unit. He added that some building owners might have trouble coming up with the funds.
Vice Mayor Beach asked about the potential cost of mandatory screening. CDD Gardiner replied that he didn’t have a number, but has reached out to other municipalities for information.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Former Mayor Nagel spoke about the imperative to move this program forward as it is a critical aspect of public safety.
Justin Moresco spoke in favor of moving forward with a retrofit program. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
)
Ms. Atkinson spoke in favor of moving forward with a retrofit program. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
)
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz spoke in favor of a gradual approach that leads towards a mandatory program.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that we don’t know when the next big earthquake will be. She spoke in favor of moving forward with a retrofit program and hopes the City will seek out grants. She was in favor of starting with mandatory screenings.
15 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the financial question needs to be addressed. He explained that he wanted a better understanding of the potential cost and favored an incremental approach leading to a mandatory program.
Councilmember Stevenson agreed with his colleagues.
Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg about finding the right balance. She liked the idea of incentivizing affordable units.
Mayor Colson stated that the City has a responsibility to assist in retrofitting these buildings. She added that a lot of these older buildings are lower income units, which would devastate the occupants. She noted that it is an equity issue.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE OF 4.5% AND APPROVING THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE)
Human Resources Director Saguisag-Sid stated that City Manager Goldman began her service with the City of Burlingame on December 27, 2012. She explained that that Council met in a closed session to evaluate her performance after her eleventh year as City Manager. She stated that per paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, City Manager Goldman receives the same benefits provided to City Department Heads.
Human Resources Director Saguisag-Sid explained that following Council’s evaluation of City Manager Goldman’s performance, the recommendation is to approve the amended salary increase.
Mayor Colson opened up public comment.
Ms. Nagel thanked City Manager Goldman for all her hard work.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 012-2024; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Colson asked for a discussion on the Mills Act. Council agreed to agendize this discussion.
16 14. 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
.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. in memory of Mayor Colson’s mother-in-law, Betty Singer.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk