1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on July 1, 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 7:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Beach.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There was no request.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Colson reviewed upcoming events in the city.
7. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JULY AS DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH
Mayor Colson read a proclamation recognizing July as Disability Pride Month.
b. PROCLAMATION HONORING VICE MAYOR EMILY BEACH’S SERVICE TO THE CITY
2 Mayor Colson read a proclamation honoring Vice Mayor Beach’s service. Mayor Colson spoke about how great it has been serving on the Council with Vice Mayor Beach.
Mario Rendon, from Representative Mullin’s office, spoke about how much he enjoyed working with Vice Mayor Beach. He presented her with a proclamation from Representative Mullin.
Mayor Colson read the proclamation sent by Assemblymember Papan.
Linda Wolin, from County Supervisor Pine’s office, read the proclamation prepared by the County Board of Supervisors honoring the Vice Mayor and recognizing her hard work and dedication to public service.
Jennifer Pfaff voiced her appreciation for Vice Mayor Beach’s dedication to the City.
City Manager Goldman thanked Vice Mayor Beach for all her hard work and dedication over the last nine years. She noted that the Vice Mayor had served as Mayor during COVID and helped keep the community calm.
Councilmember Pappajohn thanked Vice Mayor Beach for all her efforts while on Council and for advocating for transit-oriented projects.
Councilmember Stevenson thanked Vice Mayor Beach for all her hard work and dedication.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Vice Mayor Beach for all her time, work, and dedication while on Council. He appreciated her fairness and dedication for democracy.
Mayor Colson thanked Vice Mayor Beach for all her hard work in the community over the years. She recognized her ability jump in and do the hard work, day in and day out. She appreciated the civility and thoughtfulness she brought to Council for all these years.
Vice Mayor Beach thanked Council, staff, and the public for all the kind words. She acknowledged that this was bittersweet, and that she will miss being on Council and being part of the team. She thanked her colleagues on Council and staff for their dedication and hard work.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jerry Peil asked if the City could extend the off-leash hours for dogs at Washington Park.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Nothing was removed.
3 Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 17, 2024 CLOSE SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 17, 2024, Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 17, 2024 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 17, 2024, Regular City Council Meeting.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 25, 2024 LIBRARY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 25, 2024, Library Board of Trustees and Parks and Recreation Commission interviews.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WASHINGTON PARK SOFTBALL BATTING CAGE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85430, IN THE AMOUNT OF $693,329.62.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 086-2024,
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84892 AND WATER SERVICE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 86300, BY CRATUS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,006,991.04.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 087-2024.
F. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $389,170 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE LORTON AVENUE STORM DRAIN PIPE AND CRESCENT AVENUE CULVERT CLEANING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85920, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 088-2024.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING A PARKLET USE FEE STRUCTURE AND AMENDING THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY
4 Interim Community Development Director Hurin stated that the Council previously discussed the parklet fee structure and provided direction to staff. He added that after reviewing the analysis and recommendation by the Economic Development Subcommittee, the City Council agreed on the following parklet use fee structure:
• Application Fee: $1,801 (one-time fee)
• Space Use Fee: $15/sf per year (Downtown Burlingame Area) $6/sf per year (Broadway Area)
• Cleaning Fee: $3,180 per year
• Inspection Fee: $1,800 per year
Councilmember Pappajohn stated that Council made these changes in order to provide a standard and to strike a balance between safety, usability, cleanliness, and function.
Mayor Colson stated that the new fee structure is actually lower than the previous one.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 089-2024; seconded by Councilmember Pappajohn. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Mayor Colson stated there was one vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees.
The Council interviewed the following four candidates: Sid Palani, Fred Bauer, Kathy Battat, and Ann Duncan.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
The Council filled out their ballots, and the City Clerk read their votes.
Congratulations to Sid Palani on his appointment to the Library Board of Trustees.
b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Mayor Colson stated there was one vacancy for a partial term on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Council interviewed Teresa Curtis.
Mayor Colson opened the item for public comment. No one spoke.
5 The Council filled out their ballots, and the City Clerk read their votes.
Congratulations to Teresa Curtis on her appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
c. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE STUDY
Interim Community Development Director Hurin explained that Seifel prepared a study on the Burlingame Residential Impact Fees for FY 2023-24. He explained that residential impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower-income residents and can be charged to developers of new residential projects and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing. He noted that jurisdictions can tailor fees to meet local needs, and there are some guidelines over how they can be used.
Mr. Hurin stated that in 2018, the Council considered the establishment of residential impact fees that would apply to new residential development in Burlingame. He noted that following direction from Council, staff contracted with Seifel Consulting Inc. to prepare an analysis of options for residential impact fees. He stated that Seifel Consulting developed recommendations related to:
1. the potential adoption of new fees on residential development, and
2. the best strategies to incentivize the on-site provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the City’s housing program.
Mr. Hurin stated that the Council adopted Ordinance Number 1961, adding Chapter 25.82 to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, establishing residential impact fees on new residential development in Burlingame. He explained that the City’s residential impact fee program includes an alternative for developers to provide 10% of rental units onsite to moderate-income households (80 - 120% AMI) at affordable rents set at or below 110% area median income (AMI) and 10% of ownership units on-site to above-moderate income households (120 -150% AMI) at affordable sales prices set at or below 135% AMI.
Mr. Hurin stated that in 2022, staff contracted with Seifel Consulting to perform a review of the City’s residential impact fee program due to increased interest in multifamily residential developments after the 2019 General Plan update and 2021 Zoning Code update. He noted that the review studied the feasibility of adjusting the existing fee and the on-site alternative.
Ms. Seifel began by reviewing the City’s Housing Element goals:
• housing that meets the needs of the community and the workforce • housing that is affordable to the City’s workforce
• effective use of housing funds and City resources
Ms. Seifel reviewed the City’s current housing fee program:
• residential impact fees help fund affordable housing – fee revenues can be used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation
• developers are required to pay the housing fee but can alternatively provide affordable housing onsite instead
6 Ms. Seifel reviewed the key questions addressed in the housing analysis:
1. How have economic conditions changed since 2018, and how does this affect the development of housing?
2. Since the housing fee has remained the same since 2019, how much should it increase?
3. Could the City increase the 10% onsite affordable housing alternative or change the target income level of affordable units? What are the effects of using or not using State Density Bonus Law (DBL)?
Ms. Seifel discussed recommendations based on the study’s findings:
• Clarify if the housing fee applies to all for-sale housing developments of seven units or more • Increase the housing fee in FY 2024-25 from the current 2019 levels to incentivize onsite affordable units
o 15% for apartments and condos
o 30% for single family attached/townhome units
• Increase the fee annually thereafter based on an annual inflation index o Use an index recommended by the City’s 2024 impact fee study.
Ms. Seifel also reviewed the recommendations for the onsite affordable housing alternative to the fee:
• Maintain onsite alternatives that do not trigger the Density Bonus Law o Rental – 10% moderate income at 110% AMI
o For-sale – 10% above moderate income at 135% AMI
• Streamline the process for developers to use DBL by utilizing State household income and affordable housing cost standards
Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings of the study:
• The Bay Area and United States have experienced economic upheaval and relatively high inflation since 2018
• Housing costs including construction, insurance, and debt and investment returns have rapidly increased since 2018
• Challenging to secure funding to build new housing particularly for apartments • Widening affordability gap between what many households can afford to pay and housing prices
Ms. Seifel stated that the consultants conducted a feasibility analysis for five typical rental and for sale projects and analyzed:
• Different affordable onsite percentages and affordable housing costs at various San Mateo County AMI levels for affordable units
• 15% or 30% increases in housing fees
Ms. Seifel reviewed the feasibility analysis results in the following chart:
7 Ms. Seifel stated that the consultants found the following after reviewing the different onsite affordable housing scenarios:
Scenarios Tested
Onsite Affordable Housing Scenarios
Without Density Bonus (DB) Units With Density Bonus (DB) Units
Rental Feasibility–
5.5% Target Yield on
Cost
All rental scenarios not feasible.
All rental scenarios not feasible but more
feasible with inclusion of density bonus
units
For-Sale Feasibility– 15%
Developer Margin
(Return)
Status quo feasible for condo and SFA
scenarios, but not deeper affordability
Only condo tested with density bonus
and feasible for 110% AMI with DB units.
Housing Types
Affordable Onsite Requirement
(10% - 24% analyzed)
Residential Fee Per Square Foot
(Base– Without Prevailing Wage)
Status Quo
(10% Onsite)
Income Ranges
Tested
2015
Maximum
Nexus
Status Quo
(2019 Fee)
Fee Increases
Tested
(15-30%
increase)
Apartments (50 dua) 110% AMI 50% to 110%
AMI
$85 $17 $20-$22
Apartments (70 dua) 110% AMI 50% to 110%
AMI
$85 $20 $23-$26
Apartments (140 dua) 110% AMI 50% to 110%
AMI
$85 $30 $35-$39
Condominiums (Condo) 135% AMI 70% to 135%
AMI
$56 $35 $40-$46
Single Family Attached (SFA) 135% AMI 70% to 135%
AMI
$52 $35 $40-$46
8 Next, Ms. Seifel reviewed the feasibility of 10% affordable onsite compared to 15% increase in residential fee:
Scenarios Tested
Feasibility of 10% Affordable Onsite Compared to 15% Increase in Residential Fee
Without Density Bonus Units With Density Bonus (DB) Units
Housing Types
Status
Quo
Deeper
Affordability
Deepest
Affordabilit
y
Status
Quo
Deeper
Affordability
Deepest
Affordability
Apartments (50 dua) More or
Same
More or
Same
Less N/A More or
Same
More or
Same
Apartments (70 dua) More or
Same
Less Less N/A More or
Same
More or
Same
Apartments (140
dua)
More or
Same
More or
Same
Less N/A More or
Same
More or
Same
Condominiums
(Condo)
More or
Same
More or
Same
Less N/A More or
Same
Less
Single Family
Attached (SFA)
Less Less Less N/A N/A N/A
Vice Mayor Beach asked about non-density bonus units and if there was a way to inspire deeper levels of affordability. Ms. Seifel replied that due to legal restrictions, a city cannot adopt an inclusionary housing program. She added that the State is reviewing parking requirements as a potential incentive.
Vice Mayor Beach asked about the prevailing wage incentive for builders of residential projects. Mr. Hurin replied that all but one project decided to build the units rather than pay the fee. He noted that on the commercial side, most projects are paying the lower fee and using prevailing wages.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. There were none.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed incentivizing construction while being mindful not to price out a project. He added that the City needs to continue to build more housing as the City’s school population continues to grow.
9 Mayor Colson stated that Burlingame led the County in permits pulled for housing units last year. She noted that the study recommended the units be affordable for 55 years. She suggested the units be permanently affordable.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if there were any consequences in this change. Ms. Seifel replied that it is a tough policy call. She explained that cities use 55 years as the requirement because it is the typical life of a building before it needs major improvements. She added that it can be hard for a developer to obtain financing for the major improvements if there is an affordability restriction on the project.
Ms. Seifel discussed first-time homeowners and noted that it can be hard for them to finance major improvements. She suggested that the City look into ways to assist homeowners rather than developers.
Councilmember Pappajohn asked if the City could utilize money from the HOPE Fund to assist homeowners.
Mayor Colson stated that there are restrictions around how those funds can be utilized.
Mayor Colson stated that the rent levels at the 110% AMI level can often exceed the market rents. She asked if the City could set affordability limits when the permits are pulled.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City undertake this study on a more frequent basis to ensure that the City is keeping up with the industry standards.
Vice Mayor Beach asked about the 21 Elements study. Economic Development Specialist Sanfilippo stated that it is done every ten years.
Council thanked staff for the presentation.
d. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL INCREASE IN CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION
City Manager Goldman explained that at the May 20, 2024 meeting, Vice Mayor Beach asked to agendize a discussion regarding increasing City Council compensation. She stated that Councilmembers currently make $590 per month, an amount that hasn’t changed since 1999. She noted that in addition to their salary of $590, Councilmembers are eligible to receive benefits such as health care.
City Manager Goldman stated that the method for establishing City Council pay is set forth in California Government Code Section 36516. She noted that on June 29, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 329, which allows cities a one-time opportunity to “reset” City Council salaries. The purpose of the reset is to consider inflation, the work done by local government officials, and the need to ensure that people are not discouraged from seeking city office due to the low pay and high demands of that office.
She added that the salary increase is based on a city’s population size.
10 City Manager Goldman stated that under Government Code §36516(a)(2)(A), the City Council may, by ordinance, increase City Councilmember salaries to an amount up to $950 per month, which is the rate set for cities with populations up to and including 35,000. She noted that salary increases may take effect only when at least one member of the Council commences a new term. She added that if the City Council determines that it wishes to increase Councilmember pay beyond $590 per month, then any salary increase would be effective after the November 2024 election.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that the 2024 equivalent of $590 in 1999 is $1,100.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment.
Rachel Ni voiced support for the increase to $950.
Mayor Colson closed public comment.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that individuals don’t run for Council for the compensation.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she appreciates that this is a difficult conversation to have. She explained that the increase could help someone interested in being on Council with childcare where they otherwise wouldn’t have it. She supported the increase for Council.
Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with Vice Mayor Beach.
Councilmember Pappajohn agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg. She noted that many cities are adopting increases.
Mayor Colson stated that she knows the offered healthcare is sometimes helpful for people on Council.
She agreed that the slight increase could help with childcare for some. She suggested that after the “reset,” future increases should be tied to the collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME.
Council concurred.
City Manager Goldman asked if she was correct that Council wanted to:
• Reset Council pay to $950 per month and
• Tie future increases to AFSCME agreements
Council concurred.
e. DISCUSSION OF IMPENDING CITY COUNCIL VACANCY AND DIRECTION ON FILLING THE SEAT
City Manager Goldman stated that Vice Mayor Beach is resigning from Council effective July 14, 2024. She explained that pursuant to State Government Code Section 36512(b), the City doesn’t have the ability to leave the Vice Mayor’s seat vacant until the end of the term.
11 City Manager Goldman reviewed the process that the City undertook earlier this year to fill Councilmember Ortiz’s vacant seat. She noted that unlike that seat, this seat would be at-large. She added that the appointed Councilmember would serve through the second meeting in December 2024.
City Manager Goldman suggested that the application period be after candidate filing closes in order to keep the two processes separate. She stated that Council should interview the applicants before the August 19 meeting.
Mayor Colson suggested that because this appointment would only be for eight to nine meetings, that the appointed Councilmember not be assigned to any subcommittees.
The Council concurred.
Mayor Colson stated that if a City Commissioner applies and is appointed to Council, they would have to resign from their Commission seat. She noted that the seat would not be held open for the individual after their appointed term ends.
Mayor Colson suggested that she would work with the City Manager to draft questions for the interview.
The Council concurred.
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced concern about tipping the scale towards a candidate running for the District 2 seat in November, if one of them is appointed to the at-large position.
Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
City Manager Goldman asked if she was correct that the application would be changed to include the questions:
• Why do you want to be on Council?
• Will you be available for the remaining City Council meetings in 2024?
The Council concurred.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE OF 8.0% AND REVISION TO THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULE
HR Director Maria Saguisag-Sid explained that the City Council held a Closed Session on May 22, 2024, to review City Attorney Guina’s performance. She noted that at this meeting, the Council discussed a proposal to provide the City Attorney with an 8% equity adjustment to his base salary.
HR Director Saguisag-Sid stated that the proposed amendment to the City Attorney’s contract includes the proposed 8% equity adjustment.
12 Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
The Council thanked the City Attorney for his hard work.
City Attorney Guina thanked Council for their trust in him. He stated it is a privilege to be part of such a great team.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 090-2024; seconded by Mayor Colson. 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
There were no future agenda items.
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 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk