Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.07.02 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on July 2, 2018 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 former Mayor Cathy Baylock. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOV. CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: SONYA M. MORRISON EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, BURLINGAME PUBLIC SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 829 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, AFSCME LOCAL 829 MAINTENANCE UNIT, AFSCME LOCAL 829 BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE MANAGERS, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856, AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND UNREPRESENTED UNIT b. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE: LIABILITY CLAIM, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 54956.95: CLAIMANT: NAME UNSPECIFIED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 54961 AGENCY CLAIMED AGAINST: CITY OF BURLINGAME City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given, on both matters, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION OF VEOLIA DONATION FOR MUSIC IN THE PARK Recreation Coordinator Kevin Sanchez thanked Veolia for their continued support of Music in the Park. He stated that because of Veolia’s support, the City will have five concerts this July. Veolia’s Vice President Paul Savage presented the City with a check for $5,000 to support Music in the Park. Mayor Brownrigg and the City Council thanked Veolia for their generous donation. b. PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP PRESENTATION Parks and Recreation Foundation member Randy Schwartz stated that the Foundation’s mission is to raise funds for youth scholarships and improvements to local parks and to create new recreation programs. He stated that this year, the Foundation used funds to create a map of the Ed Taylor Trail at Mills Canyon, buy equipment for the Bayside Dog Park, assist BYBA with improvements to the Bayside Park dugouts, and contribute $18,000 to the Paloma Park renovations. Mr. Schwartz presented the City with a check for $5,000 for youth scholarships. The City Council thanked the Foundation for their contribution and their hard work. c. PENINSULA WELLNESS COMMUNITY UPDATE (DIRECTOR FRANK PAGLIARO) Peninsula Health Care District (“District”) Director Pagliaro gave a presentation on the proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Center. He explained that the District recently signed an agreement to begin negotiations on the project. He noted that it is estimated the project will break ground in 3.5 years. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the District is still reviewing options for the project. However, their initial thoughts are that the project would contain a senior living facility containing 400 units along Marco Polo. He explained that the Board has not yet determined if some of the units would be designed for individuals with specific disabilities and how many affordable units the project would contain. He noted that the helicopter flight path dictates where buildings will be located. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the Board is proposing creating a “Hub” for the community, which would include a theater for public meetings and a café. He also noted that the District is working with the Burlingame School District and Gatepath in order to ensure that these facilities remain open. He explained that the project would also contain green space, a community garden, and gym. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City adopts housing linkage fees, would they apply to this project. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and stated that independent living units for seniors would be considered multi-family units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if linkage fees still apply when the property is owned by a nonprofit. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 Councilmember Beach asked if the public would be allowed to weigh in on community benefits before the project goes to the Planning Department. Mr. Pagliaro replied in the affirmative and stated that the Board envisions holding town hall meetings. Mayor Brownrigg thanked the District for their assistance in keeping the seniors’ gym. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the District felt bound to profit maximize on the proposed project. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the District wants to use the profits from this project to continue funding other programs such as suicide prevention in the high schools and wellness in grade schools. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the District create a simple list of the contributions it makes to the community that could be circulated in the City’s e-newsletter. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the District should determine how much of their project they want to be affordable and give that portion of the project to an affordable housing developer. Councilmember Ortiz asked Mr. Pagliaro to discuss the need for this proposed project. Mr. Pagliaro explained that the County’s population is aging, and it is important to prepare for this. Councilmember Keighran noted that 25% of the County’s population is going to be over the age of 60 by 2030 (the highest in the United States). She explained that the amenities of the proposed project are going to be important. She added that she would like to see Gatepath stay in its location as it would be a benefit to the senior community. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Carolyn Way discussed her concerns about the size and impact of the building on the community. Burlingame resident Kathy Smith voiced her concern about the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Cheryl Fama, Chief Executive Officer of the Peninsula Health Care District, discussed the District’s proposed project and how it would benefit the community. She added that the vision of the wellness center is to focus on healthy aging and to encourage research and innovation. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Beach stated that affordability is critical. She challenged the Board to not only think about affordability for the seniors but also for the workforce. She noted that included in affordable housing discussions is the need for daycare and preschool facilities. She discussed the need for green space in the project and asked the District to look into utilizing shuttle systems to relieve traffic. Councilmember Keighran asked about putting the District’s meeting dates and times in the City’s e- newsletter. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 The City Council thanked Bill Meeker for his service to the City, congratulated him on his retirement, and presented him with a gift. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CAROLAN COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT BY GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83680 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 93-2018. c. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING FOR THE 2017 CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER POINT REPAIR, CITY PROJECT NO. 84830, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 94-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL CONTRACT FOR FY 2018-2019 AND FY 2019-2020 AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE THE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85450 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 95-2018. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING A CONTRACT FOR SALES, USE AND TRANSACTIONS TAX AUDIT AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES (HDL) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 96-2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE PLAN JPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 97-2018. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84540, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 98-2018. h. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO INSTALL NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES (ANTENNAE AND EQUIPMENT) ON EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLES LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE AND 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE CDD Meeker requested Council set September 4, 2018 as the public hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 action denying without prejudice applications for conditional use permits to install new wireless communications facilities (antennae and equipment) on existing wood utility poles located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED HOURS Assistant DPW Morimoto explained that side streets near the Broadway Commercial District and Downtown Burlingame Avenue have signage that restricts parking between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He stated that the signage was originally installed to facilitate the cleaning and maintenance of the downtown areas. However, upon a recent review of the Burlingame Municipal Code, it was discovered that these restrictions were not codified. Therefore, he asked that the City Council adopted the proposed ordinance to update the code to reflect the existing signage. Additionally, he explained that currently Gilbreth Road has parking restrictions from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. These restrictions were originally adopted to reduce the impact of overnight parking of large trucks along the frontage road. However, the Yaseen Community Center is experiencing problems with the parking restrictions as they hold community meetings/events that extend past 10:00 p.m. The Yaseen Community Center asked the City to modify the restrictions so that their members are able to utilize on-street parking. Mr. Morimoto stated that after review, staff recommends modifying the parking restriction hours to 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Assistant DPW Morimoto noted that TSPC supported both amendments. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Yaseen Community Center has hours of operation on record. Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that he didn’t know but that he would get back to Council with this information. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to publish notice of the proposed ordinance. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING METER ZONES Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that staff was recommending that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance to revise the parking meter zones at the following locations: 1. South Lane from California Drive to West Lane to a 10-hour parking limit 2. West Lane from South Lane to 200 feet south of South Lane to a 10-hour parking limit Vice Mayor Colson asked how the public is informed of these changes. City Manager Goldman stated that there is signage but that staff could include it in the e-newsletter. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City could color code the meters to signify long-term and short-term parking. Councilmember Keighran asked if there would be a transition period. Mr. Morimoto replied in the affirmative and stated that they can put signage out prior to changing parking spots. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to publish notice of the proposed ordinance. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad began by reviewing the scope of the Community Center project. She stated that the project includes a full-sized basketball court, playground, underground and surface parking, and a new Community Center. She stated that staff is asking Council to decide whether to move forward with the Mission or Pavilions design for the Community Center. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Architect Dawn Merkes reviewed the Mission design including an exterior fly through of the project. She noted that in the Mission design, photovoltaic tiles can only be used on half of the roof. She next reviewed the Pavilions design including an exterior fly through of the project. She noted that in the Pavilions design, photovoltaic tiles can cover 80% of the roof. Ms. Merkes discussed lighting and daylight design strategies. She reviewed options such as glazed glass, sun shades, and luminaire selection. Ms. Merkes discussed the public outreach they conducted on the two options. She stated that they received 1,623 responses, with 49% voting for the Pavilions and 51% voting for the Mission design. She reviewed public comments on the two designs. Ms. Merkes reviewed the next steps for the project. She stated that the schematic design would be done between July and October, 2018, and construction would begin in 2020. Councilmember Keighran asked about the cleaning and maintenance costs of the windows in the Pavilions design. Ms. Merkes responded that she didn’t know the maintenance costs but would expect the two designs to have similar costs. She added that she believed the windows in the Pavilions design would need a major window cleaning once a year. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City Council was interested in getting to zero net energy. He asked how the City would get to zero net energy with the Mission design if only 50% of the roof can be covered in photovoltaics. Ms. Merkes replied that the City could consider adding photovoltaics as shade structures over surface parking. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame residents Cathy Baylock and Tom Payne voiced their support for the Mission design. Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the importance of what lies within the building and asked that the City work with the community to ensure that programming addresses the needs of the public. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has struggled since the beginning with the two options. He stated that he was leaning towards the Pavilions design and believes that it will complement its surroundings. Councilmember Beach thanked the architecture team and the committee for putting forth two great designs. She stated that when she started to review the designs she leaned towards the Mission design. However, the photovoltaics were not shown in the earlier renderings to the community, and she believes that they work better in the Pavilions design. Moreover, the photovoltaics cover up to 80% of the roof in the Pavilions design and only 50% in the Mission design. Additionally, she discussed the importance of natural light and felt that the Pavilions design did a better job maximizing natural light. She also noted that after seeing the fly over views of the two designs, she believed that the Mission design was not as attractive as the Pavilions coming from Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Beach stated that the Pavilions design takes inspiration from the parks and the trees, and the Mission design takes inspiration from other civic buildings. She stated that if City Hall is redone, that should be done in the Mission style. Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t believe the City could go wrong with either design. She explained that after reading all the public comments, it was clear that no one despised either of the designs. She stated that she originally felt that the Mission design would be the best, but the Mission design is associated with quiet places like schools, the library, and city halls. She noted that the Pavilions design has more of an interaction with the outside. She stated that she believed the Pavilions design was better suited for the location, and the photovoltaics looked better on the Pavilions design. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she has an affinity for both designs. She discussed the importance of where you place modern architecture. She explained that glass buildings look good in natural environments because they reflect their surroundings. She stated that the Pavilions design connects to the environment. She noted that the Pavilions design needed more work, but she stated that she supported the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the importance of having the Community Center be light and airy. He stated that the Pavilions design allows the community to embrace the park. Councilmember Keighran asked Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad to speak about the proposed programming for the new Community Center. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that she envisions working with the community to see what types of programs they would like in the new building. She stated that while her staff attends state conferences to learn about best practices, each community is different, so it is important to get feedback from the community. The City Council unanimously voted to move forward with the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern that the playground is immediately adjacent to the first base line of the baseball field. He stated that higher netting is needed to protect children on the playground. Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City budget for smart parking in the underground parking lot. Vice Mayor Colson asked that the architect put in more stone work and less concrete. Councilmember Keighran asked that EV charging stations be installed in both the surface level and underground parking lots. Councilmember Beach stressed the need for smart curb management. She discussed the fact that the Portola Valley Community Center integrates the wood of trees in their community and asked that the City consider the same. Vice Mayor Colson asked when landscaping plans come into play. Ms. Merkes stated that the landscape plans will be presented to the City Council for their review during schematic design. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 b. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES CDD Gardiner stated that on February 12, 2018, the City Council held a study session to consider the establishment of residential impact fees. He explained that the City Council directed staff to further study potential fee levels and structures, consider an onsite “in-lieu” option for providing affordable units within development projects, and obtain input from housing developers and stakeholders. CDD Gardiner stated that staff has engaged Seifel Consulting to prepare an analysis for residential impact fees. He noted that the consultants weren’t asked to determine from a policy standpoint whether fees or onsite units is preferable. Libby Seifel began by reviewing the pre-development phase of a project. She stated that this is the riskiest phase as capital is most expensive at this point and requires significant return to attract investment. She explained that the more risks a project takes on, the more potential returns may increase. She noted that the Bay Area is notorious for the amount of risk that is inserted in projects. She discussed the term “developer margins,” which refers to the necessity of building in a margin for risk, so that if everything goes well, that entire margin is profit. Next, Ms. Seifel reviewed the development cost factors of a project. She stated that hard construction costs and parking construction represent more than 50% of the total development cost. She noted that land cost is also a large factor, especially in a high market area like Burlingame. She reviewed the rising cost of parking in developments. She stated that parking spaces are often more than $60,000 for a below-grade space and approximately $40,000 for an at-grade space. Ms. Seifel reviewed land acquisition costs, which are based on existing use and future development use. She explained that developers determine how much they can pay for land by undertaking a “residual land value” analysis. Under this process, the developer estimates the value or revenue anticipated for the completed project, totals up the costs of the project and their developer margin, and the remainder is the budget or residual value of the land. She stated that property values in Burlingame range from $150 to $400 per land square foot. She noted that this creates a value per land acreage of between $6.8 million and $15.6 million. Ms. Seifel reviewed real estate trends that affect housing development and affordability. She stated that interest and cap rates are at historic lows, which means that prices are higher. Construction costs are still increasing and projected to intensify with the Sonoma County rebuilding effort. Housing supply has not kept pace with demand, while apartment rent growth has flattened due in part to the housing affordability crisis. She also noted that the affordability gap has widened for many households and that the current economic cycle could end soon. She displayed a graph that showed the significant increase in home prices in Burlingame from March 2008 to March 2018. She stated that single family homes are now valued at more than $2 million. She also displayed a graph that showed the stabilization of apartment rent. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the apartment rent stabilizing graph was for all of San Mateo County. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 Vice Mayor Colson asked if apartment rent was stabilizing because the demand is decreasing or the supply is increasing. Ms. Seifel stated that she believes that the rent is stabilizing because people are doubling or tripling up in apartments. Ms. Seifel stated that the 2015 Housing Nexus Study discussed three prototypes: single family attached homes, condominiums, and apartments. She stated that in the 2015 Housing Nexus Study, the average unit size was much larger than what is currently being built; the total affordability gap was measured across the whole development and was much less than the current gap; and construction costs were not accurately reflected. The study also reviewed housing impact fees in neighboring communities with an average of $20 to $25 fee per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that in May 2018, the Concord Group did a market assessment and focused primarily on the area extending from Daly City to San Carlos. She explained that the Concord Group found that studio apartments cost more per square foot than three-bedroom apartments. She noted that this trend resulted in individuals doubling or tripling up in order to have cheaper rent. Ms. Seifel explained that Seifel Consulting, in collaboration with staff, looked at the three prototypes from the 2015 Nexus Study for Burlingame. She noted that they updated the typical unit size, density, and parcel size to reflect current conditions in Burlingame. She stated that they reviewed three prototypical development types: multifamily apartments on a three-acre site with a density range of 50 to 120 dwelling units per acre, condominiums on a ½ acre site with at least 50 dwelling units per acre, and single family attached homes on a 1.7 acre site with 18 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Seifel reviewed the findings for each prototype. She began with apartments and reviewed typical apartment characteristics: 1. Unit size was 850 net square feet 2. Market rate rent per month was about $3,750 3. Parking ratio was 1.45 spaces per unit Ms. Seifel explained that they then looked at the affordability gap per unit. She stated that if the market rate for rent was $3,750, they determined what the affordability gap was by reviewing what an individual at 110% AMI could pay, 100% AMI, and so on. The graph showed that the gap for 110% AMI was a little over $1,000. She stated that this information is translated into apartment values by taking the net operating income divided by the cap rate. She displayed this information on a bar chart that showed that the value gap gets significant as AMI decreases. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Burlingame Apartment Value bar chart displayed the door cost of each unit. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative and explained that it is the door cost with developer margin. Ms. Seifel reviewed the consultants’ findings on apartment affordability gap at alternative on-site requirements. She explained that the purpose of this was to figure out if the City is going to have a residential impact fee, how can the fee be set or structured to incentivize on-site affordable housing in lieu of paying the fee. She gave the example of a 100-unit development where 15%, or 15 units, are affordable for those at 110% AMI. The affordability gap for the 110% AMI is spread across all of the units to create a fee Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 instead of the cost it would take to provide that unit. She stated that this would create a $20-$40 housing linkage fee per square foot for moderate income levels. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City aims for 10% affordable, and you give developers the choice of paying a fee that is less than $30 per square foot, they are going to pay the fee. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel to discuss what would happen if the City wants to get into deeper levels of affordability such as the 50% AMI range. Ms. Seifel stated that it is much harder because of the costs. She stated that the fee would be close to $70 a square foot. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the length of time that a developer would have to keep a unit affordable instead of paying the fee. Ms. Seifel stated generally covenants run 55 years for rental and 45 years for ownership. She noted that some communities are moving to permanent restrictions. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the residential impact fees apply only to new construction, or do they also apply to renovations. Ms. Seifel replied that typically they only apply to new construction. Therefore, after the 55 year covenant runs on an affordable unit and the developer needs to renovate, they wouldn’t be hit with a second round of residential impact fees. Ms. Seifel stated that the consultants next reviewed the return on cost. She explained that the return on cost is determined by net operating income over development cost. The threshold ranges from 5-7% return on cost. She stated that they assumed a threshold of 5.25% return on cost and assumed that land values were a little bit more expensive if you had a higher density but lower cost per door. Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the apartment analysis. 1. Apartment rents currently are not increasing as fast as construction costs. 2. Land purchase and construction costs (including parking) significantly affect development feasibility 3. Depending on these costs factors, apartment projects do not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (feasibility gap) 4. Higher density alternatives are more feasible when per unit land values are less than lower density projects 5. Onsite affordable housing requirements focused on moderate income households are more feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels between $15 and $25 per square foot. Next Ms. Seifel reviewed their findings for condominiums and stated their typical characteristics: 1. Sales price is approximately $940,000 2. Parking ratio is 2 spaces per unit 3. Affordability gap ranges from 150% AMI to 80% AMI 4. If the City had a 15% affordability requirement, the impact fee would be more than $15 to $20 dollars per square foot. Ms. Seifel reviewed single family attached characteristics: 1. Sales price is approximately $1.63 million 2. 2 parking spaces She explained that the affordability gap for single family attached is significant. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the for-sale analysis 1. Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, but most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units. 2. For sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points. 3. The for sale housing affordability gap is significant, particularly for large units, and ranges between $20 and $180 square feet for prototypes studied. 4. Onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between 110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible, assuming reasonable land and construction costs. Ms. Seifel stated that from a policy perspective, one of the potential strategies to help developers succeed is to use density bonuses. Under State law, a density bonus allows local governments to provide additional density or housing units in exchange for the provision of affordable housing onsite. This includes special provisions for land dedication and senior housing. She stated that the State’s density bonus law doesn’t work very well for anything other than very-low income housing. She explained that this is because the law says you can get the maximum state density bonus if you have 11% of units at very low income (50% AMI). But to obtain the bonus building low income units, the developer has to dedicate 20% of the project to low income; for moderate income, the developer has to dedicate 40%. She explained that Burlingame would need to create its own density bonus program customized for the City’s market. She explained that in Burlingame they found that a density bonus with reduced parking requirements would assist in incentivizing developers. She stated that this could be done by reducing parking from 1.4 spaces per unit to .7 spaces per unit. Ms. Seifel reviewed strategies to encourage onsite affordable housing: 1. Allow more housing units to be built when imposing on-site affordable housing a. Density bonus and height modification b. Incentives and concessions c. Allow smaller affordable unit sizes, especially for ownership d. Smaller parking space dimensions e. Significant parking reductions for residential and retail, especially near transit and public parking 2. Streamline development approval 3. Limit City imposed development impact fees. Ms. Seifel discussed parking requirements. She stated that communities are moving towards decreasing parking requirements when developments are near transit and public parking. Additionally, she stated that the State’s density bonus law allows for parking at .5 space per bedroom. She stated that for affordable units, it can be .5 spaces per unit (no matter the number of bedrooms). Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame residents Eileen Easterbrook and Jan Stokley discussed the impact of housing prices on those with disabilities. They asked that the City consider policies for low income housing. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed his concerns with the cost of impact fees. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 Housing Leadership Council representative Daniel Valverde thanked the City Council for having this conservation and asked that the City move forward with residential impact fees. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comments. Mayor Brownrigg and City Manager Goldman discussed holding a study session on a separate night to further discuss the residential impact fees. Mayor Brownrigg asked that his colleagues voice questions or items that they would like the staff to address in a future staff report. Councilmember Keighran asked staff to research tiered fee systems. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was interested in the conversation around the low and very-low income units. She stated that these units might need support services as they would belong to those transitioning from homelessness or senior citizens. She stated that it would be good to get more information about what types of support services these units would need. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City needs to come up with a way to encourage new construction and create affordable housing. Councilmember Beach discussed amending the parking requirements in order to incentivize affordable housing. She asked whether her colleagues favored collecting the residential impact fee or having developers build on-site housing. She stated that she would like more information on tipping the scale towards one method or the other. Councilmember Beach asked for more information on how often the fees need to be reviewed once established. Vice Mayor Colson explained that she believed the only feasible way to get low and very-low income housing in Burlingame is to utilize City land. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what is indisputable is that the City needs to ensure that people of limited means have access to communities like Burlingame. He stated that he believes the City should assist in both preserving existing units and building new units. Mayor Brownrigg thanked SAMCAR for their recent letter stating that they believe that Measure T doesn’t prohibit the City from creating inclusionary housing requirements provided that there is an in-lieu option for the developers. Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of partnerships with HEART and other nonprofits to create affordable developments. Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 c. UPDATE ON THE PROCESS TO COMMISSION PUBLIC ART TO HONOR ANSON BURLINGAME Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the Committee was making progress on the art installation to honor Anson Burlingame in the front of Washington Park. She stated that the Committee received 18 RFQs, eight of which were disqualified. Out of the remaining ten, the Committee chose to interview three. After the interviews, the Committee asked two of the artists to answer the RFP. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the Committee reviewed the two options, voted, and made the unanimous decision to move forward with John Roloff. She stated that the plan is for the Committee to meet with Mr. Roloff, refine his ideas, and then make a presentation to the City Council in the fall to gain the Council’s input. Committee member Andra Norris stated that Mr. Roloff would be a great fit for the City as he was known for his outdoor sculptures. She noted that one of his installations is across from the San Francisco MOMA. Vice Mayor Colson stated that there would be large spaces for art in the new Community Center, and she asked if the City would follow a similar process. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach discussed the qualifications of the Committee and thanked them for their assistance. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. d. TOPGOLF UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROUTE City Attorney Kane stated that TopGolf would like to acquire an access point from Airport Boulevard to the project site. She noted that staff supports this request. She explained that she was bringing this request to Council because it was outside the scope of Council’s direction to her on negotiating the lease. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the access road was going to be one way. A TopGolf representative explained that they would like it to be a two-way road. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to allow City Attorney Kane to negotiate on the City’s behalf for an additional access road into the Topgolf facility; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Beach asked Topgolf to work on reducing the amount of traffic that their project would create. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Approved Minutes 15 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 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 Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk