HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2022.04.23CITY
v
0
ticow � �
rPORATED
Saturday, April 23, 2022
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
9:00 AM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Annual Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local
agency to meet remotely when:
The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency
2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing
3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the
health or safety of attendees
On April 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 036-2022 stating that the City
Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the
following reasons:
1. There is still a declared state of emergency
2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear
masks
3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff,
Councilmembers, and Commissioners, in their meeting spaces
Pursuant to Resolution Number 036-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the
public for the April 23, 2022 City Council Meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below.
Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website
after the meeting.
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to
publiccomment@burlingame.org.
Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.
Note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. The length of the
comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal
comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received
and read to the City Council and Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please
submit your email no later than 8:00 a.m. on April 23, 2022. The City will make every effort to
read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the
record. Any emails received after the 8:00 a.m. deadline which are not read into the record, will
be provided to the City Council and Planning Commission after the meeting.
Online
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 412112022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 23, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER - 9:00 a.m. - Online
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 873 4655 2631
Passcode:538645
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 873 4655 2631
Passcode:538645
2. ROLL CALL
3. MEETING OVERVIEW (Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director)
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M.
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
5. DISCUSSION TOPICS
a. 1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway Office/Life Sciences Proposal Overview
Attachments: Staff Report
b. Housina Element Update Overview and Discussion
Attachments: Staff Report
Summary of Public Engagement Activities
Residential Applications Overview — April 2022
6. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance
in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00
a.m. on Friday, April 22, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Any
individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings
that may be distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City clerk by 10:00
a.m. on Friday, April 22, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org.
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 412112022
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 23, 2022
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE
www.burlingame.org/video
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
VIEW REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ONLINE
www.burligname.org/video
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council and Planning Commission
regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection via www.burlingame.org
or by emailing City Clerk Meaghan Hassel -Shearer at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are
unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at (650)
558-7203.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 412112022
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 5a
_11
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
Date: April 23, 2022
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253
Subject: 1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway Office/Life Sciences Proposal Overview
The City of Burlingame has received an application for redevelopment of a 12 acre site with three,
11-story office/life science buildings at 1200-1340 Bayshore Highway. A preliminary project
information page can be found at www.burlingame.org/1200-1340bayshore.
The site is zoned Bayfront Commercial Zoning District (BFC). The purpose of the Bayfront
Commercial (BFC) zoning district is to provide opportunities for office and research and
development, as well as both local and tourist commercial uses that take advantage of views of
and access to the Bay, where residents, employees and visitors can work, shop, eat, bike and walk,
and enjoy nature. A critical component is prioritization on public access to the waterfront.
The BFC zoning standards have a "tiered" structure, with increased development capacity allowed
in return for provision of specific community benefits. The public benefits are required to be in
excess of the City's normal requirements, and should improve the quality of life of employees,
residents, and/or visitors, or assist the City in implementing an important plan or policy. Application
materials outline a variety of community benefits including, but not limited to:
a. Public plazas: open area for public use at the intersection of Airport Boulevard. The area
includes various seating options, an amphitheater, convenience outlets and water to
support a wide variety of public programming;
b. Park space: the project includes over 3.5 acres of public park with native species and a
range of recreation options;
c. Off -site streetscape improvements including street trees and improved pedestrian and
bicycle safety options along Old Bayshore Highway, the Bay Trail, and throughout the site;
d. Sea Level Rise infrastructure: the project includes 17' crest elevation berms and sea walls
along the Bay and 16' crest elevation infrastructure along Easton creek, engineered to
provide sea level rise protection with a 100-year time horizon.
For the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, representatives from the development
team will make a presentation providing an overview of the proposed project, and be available for
questions.
1
BURL`E AGENDA ITEM NO: 5b
STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 23, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
Date: April 23, 2022
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
Joseph Sanfilippo, Economic Development and Housing Specialist
Subject: Housing Element Update Overview and Discussion
BACKGROUND
California requires each jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order
to ensure that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout California.
Unlike other elements of a General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by
the State.
The process begins with the State advising a region of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA),
which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period (usually
eight years). This allocation is further subdivided among four household income categories: very -low,
low, moderate, and above moderate. Affordable housing income limits are determined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are adjusted for family size, as detailed in
Table 1 below (effective June 28, 2021).
TABLE 1: 2021 SAN MATEO COUNTY INCOME LIMITS
(BASED ON FEDERAL INCOME LIMITS FOR SMC)
County
Income
Category
Number of Persons in Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
San Mateo
County
4-Person
Area Median
Income
(AM 1):
$149,600
Extremely Low (30% AM 1)
38,400
43,850
49,350
54,800
59,200
63,600
68,000
72,350
Very Low (50% AMI)
63,950
73,100
82,250
91,350
98,700
106,000
113,300
120,600
Low (80%AMI)
102,450
117,100
131,750
146,350
158,100
169,800
181,500
193,200
Median 100%AMI
104,700
119,700
134,650
149,600
161,550
173,550
185,500
197,450
Moderate (120%AMI)
125,6501
143,6001
161,550
179,500
1193,850
208,200
222,6001
236,950
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the public process by which this
regional allocation is apportioned to each jurisdiction within its boundaries. In addition to demonstrating
how the allocated number of units can be produced, policies in a Housing Element must also:
1. Address the removal of governmental barriers to housing production;
2. Ensure the jurisdiction's housing stock is maintained; and
1
Housing Element Update Overview and Discussion April 23, 2022
3. Ensure that housing is available to all types of persons on an equitable basis.
Currently, the Housing Element is updated every eight years. The current cycle is the fifth cycle in which
housing elements have been updated and is referred to as "RHNA 5." 2022 is the final year in the RHNA
5 cycle. The current Housing Element can be found at www.burlingame.org/housingelement.
DISCUSSION
The City has been undertaking outreach efforts for the update of the Housing Element for the next
housing cycle, which will cover 2023 — 2031 and is due by January 2023.
In the fall of 2021, there was a countywide outreach program administered by the 21 Elements
collaborative. 21 Elements includes all 20 San Mateo County municipalities, as well as unincorporated
San Mateo County. The outreach was referred to as "Let's Talk Housing San Mateo County" with the
intention of increasing awareness of and participation in the Housing Element Update process. A
dedicated Let's Talk Housing website includes information on the Housing Element Update process, as
well as a "Housing 101" primer. Four meetings were held virtually and can be viewed at
www.letstalkhousing.org/past-events. There are also two general videos, "What's a Housing Element"
and "San Mateo County Housing Trends." Videos are available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and
Arabic.
More recently, the City of Burlingame has conducted city -specific outreach. The schedule of outreach
events included:
• Sunday, March 20th — "Pop-up" outreach booth at the Fresh Market, Downtown Burlingame
• Wednesday, March 23rd 6:00-8:00 pm — Community Meeting #1 (via Zoom)
• Saturday, March 261h — "Pop-up" outreach table on Broadway
• April 6th 6:00-8:00 pm — Community Meeting #2 (via Zoom)
The City's outreach effort was assisted by staff from MIG, Inc. who supported the planning,
development, and implementation of the outreach. A summary of the outreach activities and related
findings is attached, and slides and videos of the workshops can be viewed at
www.burlingame.org/housingelement.
RHNA Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) for most cities across the state were much higher
than they were during the previous Housing Element Cycle. This was true for Burlingame, where the
allocation (3,257 housing units) was almost four times the previous allocation (863 housing units).
However, the General Plan (known as "Envision Burlingame"), adopted in 2019, has already planned
for substantial new housing, including housing of different types and levels of affordability.
The General Plan will be able to accommodate the new RHNA with no need for changes to land use or
re -zoning. Furthermore, development projects that are in the "pipeline" (meaning they have already
been approved or are under review) are allowed to "roll over" and be applied to the upcoming allocation
provided they do not receive a certificate of occupancy prior to June 30, 2022. As of April 2022, there
are 2,299 units in the "pipeline" that will be eligible to be applied to the next cycle, provided they are
2
Housing Element Update Overview and Discussion April 23, 2022
approved and built as proposed. This represents more than 70% of the total allocation of units for the
next cycle. However, it is important to note that there are specific allocations based on each affordability
level, so additional attention will need to be given to accommodating units in the Moderate, Low, and
Very Low Income categories. Table 2 below outlines the RHNA allocations for each income category:
TABLE 2:
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCAITON (RHNA)
Income Level
Very Low Income 50% AMI
RHNA Allocation
863
Low Income 60% AMI
497
Moderate Income 80% AMI
529
Above Moderate Income 120% AMI+
1,368
TOTAL
3,257
Policies and Programs
Given that the General Plan has provided adequate capacity for the total number of housing units
allocated in the next cycle, Burlingame's Housing Element Update can focus primarily on policies and
programs that respond to the needs of the community. The purpose of policies and programs is to:
• Provide opportunities for a variety of housing choices
• Facilitate the development of affordable housing
• Remove barriers to housing
• Improve the condition of existing housing
• Preserve existing affordable housing
• Promote fair housing
Councilmembers and commissioners have expressed interest in various housing programs and
policies, and some were presented to community members in the April 6th community meeting. These
included:
1. Should the City look into affordable homeownership opportunities (e.g. condos or townhouses)?
To support this initiative, should the City remove or modify the condominium conversion
restriction which prohibits conversions of 20 or fewer units?
2. Should the City embark on a rehabilitation program, where the City would subsidize seismic
retrofits provided a percentage of the units are kept at below -market rents?
3. Should the City embark on a rehabilitation program, where the City would subsidize energy
efficiency retrofits provided a percentage of the units are kept at below -market rents?
4. Should the City allow private landlords to enter their units in the City's inventory (managed by
HouseKeys) provided the rents are below -market? The City could offer subsidies in
management fees, to relive the landlord of the burden, and/or provide some subsidies of the
units.
3
Housing Element Update Overview and Discussion
April 23, 2022
5. Should the City invest housing funds in the acquisition of existing "naturally affordable" units,
even if the return on cost -per -unit investment is not as good as subsidizing new construction
projects?
6. Should the City encourage, or require, "missing middle" units to be included in new
developments? These would be townhomes and larger flats suitable for families and larger
households.
7. Should the City offer subsidies for constructing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), provided the
owner agrees to rent the unit at a below -market rent for a specified period of time? (Assume 10
years)
A summary of community feedback on these questions is included in the Summary of Public
Engagement Activities (attached).
In the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting councilmembers and commissioners may
choose to discuss these policies and programs, and/or suggest other policies and programs to be
considered.
Exhibits:
• Summary of Public Engagement Activities
• Residential Applications Overview — April 2022
M
Envision 1111111.inGnmE
HousinG ELE EnT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED MARCH-APRIL 2022
Introduction
In March -April 2022, the City of Burlingame conducted a focused outreach effort to collect input
to inform the preparation of the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031. The City's
outreach effort was assisted by staff from MIG, Inc. who supported the planning, development,
and implementation of the outreach. This document summarizes the outreach activities and
related findings conducted between March and April 2022.
The City benefited from having recently updated its General Plan, known as "Envision
Burlingame." The planning process anticipated a substantial need for more housing for
ownership and rental. It also responded to housing affordability by planning for opportunities to
include multi -family housing at different income levels.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocations
(RHNA) for most cities across the state were
much higher than they were during the
previous Housing Element Cycle. This was true
for Burlingame, where the allocation (3,257
housing units) was almost 4 times the previous
allocation (863 housing units). However,
through Envision Burlingame, the City had the
foresight to plan for substantial new housing,
including housing of different types and levels
of affordability.
Envision Burlingame accommodates the new
RHNA with minimal need for re -zoning — and
thus minimizes the needs for community
conversations required around changes to
Burlingame's cherished neighborhoods.
Envision Burlingame put the city "Ahead of the
Game", which was used as the theme for the
outreach. Participants were asked to validate
the decisions made in the 2019 planning
process and/or share their new ideas and
concerns for consideration by the City.
y ni EnvisionBURLinsRmE
;, HOU5111G ELEME11T
High -Level Themes
Across online and in -person outreach activities, these themes emerged:
• People consider Burlingame a great place to live. They value the community, scale of
neighborhoods, accessible local shopping, and transit options.
• Many residents are satisfied with the planning outcomes of Envision Burlingame and the
decisions made related to future housing types, levels of affordability, and locations.
• There is support for locating housing near transit.
• There is support for providing different housing options that meet the needs of renters,
families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
• There is support for affordable housing and making sure essential workers can live in the
community.
• When surveyed, a majority of City of Burlingame staff who live outside the city shared
that they would prefer to live in Burlingame if housing that was affordable to them was
available.
• There is general recognition that there is a need for more housing, especially housing
that is affordable to a range of incomes. While some issues emerged (see below),
respondents acknowledge that people living near to where they work can help reduce
traffic congestion.
Issues and Concerns
• Some residents expressed concerns about how much they believed the City has
changed over the past 10-20 years, including housing affordability.
• There is a need to plan for adequate housing for special populations, including very low-
income residents and people with disabilities.
• There were also concerns about commercial development and large businesses moving
into the city.
• Concerns were expressed about increasing traffic, especially at key intersections and
thoroughfares, as well as the need for parking (for current and future residents).
• While trees are a definitive feature of the community, there are some areas where
residents fear for their safety or recognize that change is necessary, due to the potential
for falling trees (especially eucalyptus, which are aging out).
Potential Sites and Policies and Programs
• There was general acceptance of the housing sites identified in the General Plan and the
overall distribution of units.
• There were some questions related to ADUs and how they could be used to meet
housing goals.
There was support for potential programs to increase affordability through investments of
City funds, with an emphasis on programs that would have the highest return on
investment in terms of the number and type of affordable units preserved or created.
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities
March -April 2022
Approach
Public Engagement Plan (PEP)
MIG prepared a Public Engagement Plan (PEP) that described the general approach for public
outreach. The PEP built upon the extensive community involvement conducted for Envision
Burlingame, to identify how the City will achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
and develop housing programs that are responsive to the needs of the community.
Key activities in the PEP included stakeholder interviews, two pop-up events in the Downtown
Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas, and two community workshops.
Consistent with public health directives related to the Covid-19 pandemic that limited in -person,
indoor gatherings, the workshops were conducted via Zoom videoconference. At the request of
City Council, City staff were invited to respond to a brief survey regarding their housing
preferences. Outreach activities were scheduled to be completed so that the results can be
reported out at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 23,
2022.
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES & COMMUNITY INPUT
I1r'I"I
APRIL 23, 9AM42 PM
MARCH 20 MARCH 26 Interviews with Housing Joint City CounchlPlanning
Pop-up at Fresh Market Pop-up on Broadway Organizations Commission
MARCHf APRIL 2022
MARCH 23 Survey of City Staff APRIL 6
Virtual Community Workshop (suggested by City Council) Virtual Community Workshop
cnvtst 11116E EMEn �
i10115111GELEI11EI1T
PEP activities were developed to:
• Educate and inform community members about the Housing Element and the State's
requirements and rationale regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocation.
• Provide opportunities for participation in different formats and locations so participants
can participate based on their interests and time availability.
Demonstrate transparency through open, consistent interactions with the community
throughout the process, and communicate how public comments and input will be
incorporated into recommendations and decisions.
Document results to provide decision support and demonstrate transparency.
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities
March -April 2022
Outreach Methods
Several methods were used for public engagement to ensure that there were numerous ways
for people to receive information and get involved. The City deployed the following outreach
methods:
Project Identity
MIG created a project identity
that was visually linked to Envision BURL nGAME
Envision Burlingame to �i HOUSinG ELEMEnT
ensure that materials and � N �
presentations have a
consistent identity. The
identity helped to successfully communicate that the Housing Element was aligned with and part
of the General Plan. MIG was also able to use maps and imagery from Envision Burlingame in
the outreach materials and presentations.
Dedicated Webpage
The City hosted and maintained a dedicated webpage that provides information about the
Housing Element. The page was also used to host and promote outreach activities and to share
meeting materials and results from the documentation. Materials can be found at:
https://www.burlingame.org/housingelement
Social Media and Digital Communications
The City promoted the workshops and pop -ups using established social media channels and
email lists. The staff survey was distributed by city email.
List of Stakeholders and Interested Parties
MIG assisted the City with developing an initial list of contacts. The City then compiled several
lists of interested parties that served as the core of its email communications with the public.
The email list proved to be the most effective way to reach people for the community
workshops.
Stakeholder Interviews
MIG and the City identified a list of advocates and individuals to participate in interviews to
provide insight into the Housing Element. Many of these individuals were active in the Envision
Burlingame development process. Some represented key Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH) stakeholders including seniors and people with disabilities.
Survey of City Staff
At the request of City Council, staff were asked to complete a short survey regarding their
housing preferences. The survey sought to learn about staff preferences related to living in
Burlingame. Staff were also asked their opinion regarding including housing as part of a
redevelopment of City Hall. The survey received 126 responses (the City has approximately 220
full-time employees.
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 4
March -April 2022
Posting Flyers around Town
City Staff was able to visit small and large businesses and public facilities around town to
post/share flyers with the general public as well as answer any questions the public may have.
Businesses included those found in Downtown, Broadway, North Burlingame, El Camino Real
and the Rollins Road area. Public Facilities included the Burlingame Police Station, Burlingame
Fire House, Burlingame High School and Burlingame Train Station.
Pop -Up Events
MIG conducted two in -person "pop-up" events to increase interest and participation in the
March and April workshops. MIG conducted outreach activities and distributed flyers publicizing
the workshops and planning process. The MIG Team relied upon information from Envision
Burlingame as the basis of the descriptions for the housing locations and to respond to
questions.
The first event was held at the Burlingame
Fresh Market, the community's weekly
farmers market, on Sunday, March 20.
The second was held on the corner of
Broadway and Paloma Avenue in front
of the Burlingame Farmers Market
shop. Both locations were very busy
with a lot of foot traffic.
The pop-up activities allowed the MIG
team to "meet people where they are",
shopping, enjoying the community, or
participating in kids' or other activities.
The outreach activity was designed to
be brief so that it would only require a
few minutes for a person to engage.
Those with more time were welcome to
stay and share more.
Community Workshops
MIG planned and facilitated two
interactive online workshops. The first
was held on March 23 and the second
on April 6. Both workshops lasted about
90 minutes and included presentations,
EnV1510n OURLInGR111E
ot� HOU5111G ELEMEnT
Our
neigfiborhooda
antl the cllys
�meee tree:
ul eont�nue to
thnrel
GURLINGAME
GENERAL PLAN
cirys[miis
� pvrvntown
� T
*
�carro aorve
a Noe, Bu6noame
ggl El Cam'no Real
B..d—y
gnifi
4% No si c t
"' "
changes proposed
wnw�:�.y ro�eu inw.�,e�ea rr�:n.rn.m�ce�eno.nem.Aa. Mnreew:vna wee.,�e; a
evwnona�r u,dae wwi.�m.,u��mar� imdoa aem:oar s�r�oe.�o�..�n'R�wm.�
impiaea p.nuc rofsng cptarc cmpunenuryccmmercieiuus imy�wea xeesuw xwmmxwene oefesmen rxus
polling questions, use of chat for
comments and questions, and public
comment. The recordings of both
workshops are posted on the City's website.
Workshop #1 on March 23 provided a high-level overview of Housing Element requirements and
the planning process. Participants were asked to share their comments and concerns and ideas
related to specific housing sites.
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities
March -April 2022
Workshop #2 on April 6 provided a review of the housing element process and the potential
sites that would be included in the Housing Element. The City shared some of the existing
policies and identified seven new policy ideas for consideration. Participants were asked to
share their opinion on the policies and then explain their response using the chat. The input
provided the City a good understanding of community concerns along with some ideas for
strengthening or bolstering these ideas.
City Council Meeting
Staff will present the outreach results and provide information related to the housing sites and
policies to the City Council and Planning Commission on April 23, 2022.
Outreach Results
This section of the document provides more detail on the input received through the specific
methods.
Findings from Stakeholder Interviews
MIG reached out to speak with representatives from the Housing Leadership Council, Peninsula
for Everyone, Housing Choices, and Housing for All Burlingame. MIG also interviewed a landlord
who expressed interest in providing housing for tenants who qualified for affordable housing.
Their feedback identified the following concerns:
• Lack of rental housing for residents making under $100,000 per year
• Unregulated rent increases have been an issue for many
• Need for greater effort to be made to provide housing for adults with disabilities,
including developmental disabilities
Findings from the Survey of City Staff
More than 50% of City staff responded to the housing survey conducted at the City Council's
request. The City has approximately 220 full-time employees and there were 126 responses to
the survey. The survey asked how many staff live outside of Burlingame and if those staff would
prefer to live in Burlingame, if housing in their price range was available. Staff were also asked
to gauge their interest in living in housing that might be included in a redevelopment of City Hall.
The City staff results indicated:
• 82% live outside of Burlingame
• 66% would like to live in Burlingame if housing they could afford was available (18%
already live in Burlingame)
• 30% commute at least 30 minutes each way; 18% commute 45 minutes or more each
way
• 64% would want to participate if the City provided rental housing for employees
• 61 % would consider housing located on top of or adjacent to a new City Hall
Findings From the Pop -Ups
MIG estimates they invited between 200-300 people to learn about the Housing Element. While
more than 60-70% declined, MIG was able to personally interact with an estimated 100 people
at each location. Interactions include providing passersby a flyer, receiving their comments and
ideas, and inviting them to validate the areas of the map where they agreed with the planned
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities
March -April 2022
approach for housing as shown in Envision Burlingame. MIG requested that participants
complete a short demographic survey, however responses were extremely limited.
While participants were invited to place a dot or make comments on the areas of the map where
housing would be directed, the results cannot be reported as survey findings. Rather, the
opportunity to place a dot on the map and add comments using post -its served as an invitation
for participants to receive information and share their opinions. The dots and post -its served to
confirm that the participant's opinions had been heard.
At the first pop-up event, at the Fresh Market, the MIG Team heard many comments about trees
and traffic; and fewer opinions expressed in opposition to the new housing being planned. The
second pop-up, on Broadway, attracted a broader audience by virtue of its well -trafficked
location. Numerous people identified themselves as visitors; and the crowd tended to include
more families with children and people walking their dogs. MIG staff tabled for a two-hour period
at each of the two locations.
Participants were oriented to a map from Envision Burlingame that illustrated the areas of the
City where changes would be minimal. It then identified the main planning areas and called out
four locations where most of the housing would be added. Participants were asked to place a
dot in an "I like it" box to indicate they agreed with the housing proposed in specific locations. If
they had concerns, their comments were written on a post -it. All comments were later
transcribed and organized by location.
Comments by proposed housing location (from left to right on outreach board, shown):
Downtown (27 "1 like it" dots)
Some participants want to maximize
affordable housing this area
Concerns about parking
Transit density makes sense
North Burlingame (22 "1 like it" dots)
• First -floor commercial with housing above
Concerns about traffic
• Density is a fact of life and makes a
community walkable
El Camino Real (18 "1 like it" dots)
• Concerns about hazardous trees
• Concerns about traffic and parking
• Want sidewalk improvements
• Concerns about left turns
• Need better bus lanes
• Doesn't believe anyone will walk on ECR
Rollins Road (26 "1 like it" dots)
• Opinions were divided - some thought this
was a great location with options for affordable
housing
.57
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 7
March -April 2022
• Others thought it was not a good location and there are too many apartments there
already
• Concerns about traffic
• Need better, more reliable transit options
• Concerns about housing near industrial
Findings from Community Workshops
Workshop #1 served to introduce participants to the Housing Element and provide an
opportunity to share their issues and concerns. The workshop was conducted on Zoom. There
were 28 people registered to attend the workshop and 10 people participated. While the number
of participants was small, they represented people of different ages and ethnicities. Participants
were generous with their comments and provided the City with an array of comments and ideas
to consider.
The City provided a presentation that described the City's current conditions and need for
housing, and it also introduced the Housing Element. Participants were encouraged to ask
questions throughout and share their issues and concerns. There were numerous concerns
raised about meeting the needs of very low-income residents (VLI) and people with disabilities,
including developmental disabilities.
Participants were also encouraged to share strategies for meeting the housing needs of those
who live or work in Burlingame and also the needs of special populations. Comments received
were recorded on a digital whiteboard that was shared with the participants.
Issues, Concerns & Ideas
How much of the
housing developed
How much
City has limited
Recent
Look at gap
VLI/ELI
abilitytocompel
developmentfor
at the end cfthe
previous cycle was
—. owners of
housing has
those making
between VLI
available for
private land to
less than 60%
& Low
extremelybeen
low
build affordable
AMI was built on
income
income levels?
produced?
housing
public land
The City should
Lack of
Housing for
Support
Changes to
more to
opportunities to
services for
RHNA given
u
support the
keep adults w/
teachers, first
housing on
state auditor
building of VLI
developmental
p
responders,
the east side
report? - HCD
p
housing
disabilities in
etc.?
underestimated
their homes
of 101
housing need
Housing
Explore
Need for VLI
More work
available for
opportunities to
build VLI/ELI
housing for a
Housing on
w/ private
extreme) y
housing on
variety of
the other
land
low income
publicly owned
populations
side of 101?
levels
land
owners
Housing for
Incentives for
Rezoning of
sgg
teachers will
landowners
commercial
district on Rollins
Integrated
increases the
attract better
who retain
Rd - existing plan
nei hborhood
g
potential for
educators and
affordable
expands housing
approach
new housing
improve schools
rent rates
units by 20%
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities g
March -April 2022
Strategies and Program Ideas
-For those living in Burlingame?
-For those working in Burlingame?
-For Vulnerable Populations
• Seniors
• Low-income residents
• Families with children
• People with disabilities
Incentive
HE should be Competitive
program for
clear on how process to
landowners who
retain affordable
CltIII develop public
y Wuse
lands - scoring
rent rates
public lands process
Opportunities for
Selecting
ADU program
adults with
developers who
to match those
developmental
will meet
w/disabilities
disabilities - remain
housing needs
In their homesl
of vulnerable
at VLI/FLI rent
communities
populations
levels
Continue
ongoing work to
Funds to
affordable housing
preserve
developers to
existing
preserve existing
affordable
affordable housing
housing
Workshop #2 attracted 25 participants and provided an opportunity to provide input on several
new policy and program ideas. Participants were asked to respond to a poll question with one of
three responses regarding the proposed policy. The choices were "I love it," "I like it" and "I'm
not too crazy about it". The combined "I love it" and I like it" responses were considered a
positive response. Participants actively engaged and offered explanations of why they supported
or opposed the program and policy ideas suggested by the City. Detailed comments from the
meeting chat provided insight into participant opinion and ideas for ways to enhance the
proposed program ideas. The polling results and comments follow this section.
Some key results:
• 79% of workshop respondents responded positively to policy ideas to increase
affordable ownership ideas (i.e. townhouses and condominiums), including possibly
removing or modifying the condominium conversion restriction which prohibits
conversions of 20 or fewer units.
77% responded positively to a proposed program that would subsidize seismic retrofits
with the provision that a percentage of the units be kept at below -market rents
• 84% responded positively to a proposed program that would subsidize energy efficient
retrofits provided a percentage of the units were kept at below -market rents
• 86% responded positively to a proposed program that would allow private landlords to
enter units in the City's inventory (managed by HouseKeys), provided the rents are
below -market
• 60% responded positively to a proposed program where the City would invest housing
funds in the acquisition of existing "naturally affordable" units, even if the return on cost -
per -unit investment is not as good as subsidizing new construction projects
• 84% responded positively to a program question about whether the City should
encourage, or require, "missing middle" units to be included in new developments
• 57% responded positively to a program to offer subsidies for constructing ADUs,
provided the owner agrees to rent the unit at a below -market rent for a specified period
of time (10 years).
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities
March -April 2022
1. Should the City look into affordable
homeownership opportunities (e.g.
condos or townhouses)?
Remove or modify condo conversion limits?
- Polls — ❑ X
Policies Question 1
Poll 1 1 question 1 14 of 24 (5896) participated
1. Should the City look into affordable homeownership opportunities
(e.g. condos crtownhoLeiii Remove or modify condo conversion
limits? (Single Choice) "
14/14 (100%) answered
Love it f6/14) 43
Like it (5/14) 36%
Not crazy about it (3/14) 21%
BMR for sale units
are convoluted
with resales
having to be BMR.
BMR rentals
are key
Condo conversion
of apartments is
great!
Just a note that
conversions don't
count towards
RHNA numbers
Worried about lowering
the threshold that might
impact rental housing
stock in a negative way
new development
yes, conversion no
generally in favor of
movements to allow
increases in the size
of housing stock.
It would be great if we
could offer
opportunities for
renters to build equity.
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 10
March -April 2022
2. Should the City embark on a
rehabilitation program, where the
City
would subsidize seismic
retrofits provided a percentage of
the
units are kept at below -market rents?
❑ x 1&
The buildings that need to
be retrofitted tend to be the
I want to make sure
Policies Question 2 older shorter buildings that
the numbers are well
could be demolished for
thought out.
Poll 1 1 question 1 13 of 23 (56%) participated denser taller buildings
1. Should the City embark on a rehabilitation program, wherethe City subsidies for seismic
would suhsidize seismic retrofits provided a percentage of the units
$1 subsidy in
are keptatbelow-marketrents?{Single Choice) retrofit are a good
exchange for 10OT
13/13 (100%) answered idea regardless of
BMR would be a poor
below market rents.
Love 'rt (3/13) 23%
idea for example
Like it (7/13) 54% This type of building
is much more
Not crazy about it (3/13) 23% affordable than the
newly built
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 11
March -April 2022
3. Should the City embark on a
rehabilitation program, where the City
would subsidize energy efficiency
retrofits provided a percentage of the
units are kept at below -market rents?
6, Palls - ❑ x
Policies Question 3
Poll I i question 1 12 of 20 (60%) participated
1. Shculd the City embark cna rehabilitation program, wherethe City
would subsidize energy efficiency retrofits provided a percentage of
the units are kept at below -market rents? (Single Choice)
12/12 (100%) answered
Love it (2/12) 17%
Like it
Not crazy about it
Rather than a program of
subsidies for BMR rents,
could the cityjust set up a
loan or financing program
for people in the city?
Subsidizing solar is
good regardless of EMIR
requirements - older
buildings are more
affordable
(a/12) 67% 1 assume that would be
more broadly applicable
and apply to some less -
old units as well
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 12
March -April 2022
4. Should the City allow private
landlords to enter their units in the
City's inventory (managed by
HouseKeys) provided the rents are
below -market?
The City could offer subsidies in management fees, to
relieve the landlord of the burden, and/or provide
some subsidies of the units.
L,, Polls — ❑ X
Policies Question 4
Poll 1 1 question 1 14 of 21 (sb%) participated
1. Should the City allow private landlords to enter their units in the
Citys inventory (managed by HouseKeys) provided the rents are
below -market? The City could offer subsidies in management fees, to
relive the landlord ofthe burden, and/or provide some (Single
14/14 (100%) answered
Love it (5/14) 364
Like it (7/14) 50%
Not crazy about it (2114) 14%
Will you be charging
a fee for owners to
participate for the
administrative?
I'm for this idea just
not sure the city
should subsidize
management fees
Is the BMR requirement
even necessary? Seems
like it could be
something negotiated
Anything the City can do to
partner with property
owners to provide more
transparency and ease of
providing more affordable
options is good
Anything that can be done
to increase the number of
BMR units and make it
easier to rent them out is
a good idea
like the broad idea of
providing incentives for
behavior that will make
the city more affordable.
We should make
developers want to
create BMR/affordable
units, not to make it
hard to do
sounds like a good
idea but it will be more
work for the city
employees - may cost
the city to administer
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 13
March -April 2022
5. Should the City invest housing funds
in the acquisition of existing "naturally
affordable" units, even if the return on
cost -per -unit investment is not as good
as subsidizing new construction
projects?
o Polls - o x
Policies Question 5
Poll I 1 question 1 10 of 21 (47%7 participated
1. Should the City irrvest housing funds in the acquisitic n of existing "
naturally affordable" units, even ifthe return on cost -per -unit
investment is not as good as subsidizing new construction projects?
(Single Choice) "
10/10 (100%) answered
Love it
Like it
Not crazy about it
(2110) 20%
(4f10) 40%
(4/10)40%
Very expensive to buy
an entire building with
not as great bang for
the buck
If the city can pick-up
the pieces in areas
where developers
aren't suited to do it,
like this idea
need a multipronged
approach that includes
preserving existing
housing stock
Purchasing existing
buildings is very
expensive
Providing rental assistance
as a substitute for the more
bureaucratic Section 8
program would be a much
better use of funds
I think the amount I
like it would depend
on the density & BMR
% of the new projects
We need more housing.
Shuffling around existing
housing doesn't feel like
it will be all that useful.
There's a decent amount
of data out there that you
need to both build new
housing and preserve
existing housing
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 14
March -April 2022
6. Should the City encourage, or
require, "missing middle" units to be
included in new developments?
These would be townhomes and larger flats suitable
for families and larger households.
Polls — ❑ X
Policies Question 6
Poll I question 113 of 21 (61%) participated
1. Should the City encourage, or require, "missing middle" units to be
included in new developments? These would be townhomes and
larger flats suitableforfamilies and larger households. (Single Choice)
13/13 [100%) answered
Love It (6/13) 46%
Like it (5/13) 38%
Not crazy about it (2/13) 15-
Great idea that
should be
encouraged, not
required
Encouraging
variety is good
As a young person, I
would love to see more
townhomes. It mind
boggling we don't have
more in the area
Seems like building a
higher number of
apartments is more helpful
for more families than
building townhomes.
Need more 2+
bedroom housing
for larger families
Are we zoned
for missing
middle housing?
Townhomes are great
places to live with families
or roommates - need so
many more places with 3+
bedrooms
I just wouldn't want a
"missing middle"
'requirement' to get in the
way of a development
getting built. Otherwise love
it1
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 15
March -April 2022
7. Should the City offer subsidies for
constructing ADUs, provided the owner
agrees to rent the unit at a below -
market rent for a specified period of
time? (Assume 10 years?)
Polls — ❑ X
Policies Question 7
Poll 1 1 question 1 14 of 21 (66%) participated
1. Should the City offer subsidies for carrstructing Anus, provided the
owner agrees to rent the unit at a below -market rent for a specified
period of time? (Ass umei o years?)(single Choice)
14/14 (100%) answered
Love it
Like it
Not crazy about it
(3/14) 21'A
(5/14) 36%
(6/14) 4335
how much would a
below market rent be
for All
How enforceable is a
BMR covenant. Could
they be easily
abused?
What happens when a
home is sold? Does
the covenant transfer
to the new owner?
Seems like a good
idea, especially if
paired with expedited
permitting.
Since homeowner's
reap the property value
increase it seems like
subsidizing them is a
bad idea
enforcement of the
BMR would require
too much
oversight.
I like this policy, but would
far prefer to see policies
Implemented the subsidize
new housing including
duplexes and townhomes
before ADUs
Using city funds to
subsidize single units
doesn't seem cost
effective.
Offering help with
financing is nice, but
locking someone into a
BMR rental situation will
require a lot of follow up
might not be
appealing for
neighbors, especially
if it catches on
I like the idea, but
agreed with other folks
here that it may not be
the best bang for the
buck
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 16
March -April 2022
Additional Comments/
What is the ratio
between
apartments and
condos?
Will we see the
percentage of what
income level is being
served for affordable
housing?
Questions
is it preferred high
or medium density
for North Rollins?
very low income
units in each
building vs
moderate?
How will the how about
infrastructure such townhome? would
as new schools be they be
financed? considered?
create a childcare impact
requiring housing
fee, for new —0
developers to
developments, to create
specifically include
a fund to help support
"childcare" in their
childcare infrastructure
housing developments.
What areas have we
rezoned or will we
rezone for bungalows,
cottages, four-plexes
and duplexes?
Will the bayfront
area be considered
for housing in the
future
What if developers
only develop
townhomes in the
N Rollins area?
I'm in Oak Grove Manor
and think there's great
opportunity there for
duplexes & 4plexes.
What percentage of
housing sites will be
considered for the
RHNA buffer?
Do we project ADU
conversions being
made - incorporated
into RHNA?
any plans for
a 55+
community?
North Rollins area
prefers townhomes? I
know SFR would not
be supported.
How did we do in
meeting the
RHNA 5 targets?
Hopefully more
ADUs as well to
house more folks
North Rollins area -
are townhomes
considered
medium density
Burlingame Housing Element Summary of Public Engagement Activities 17
March -April 2022
Residential Applications Overview
April 2022
Approved Projects
The following projects have received approval and are in various stages of construction:
AddressNet
1 Adrian Court
265
New
265
BMIR
38
Approval
Status
Submitted
Issued
Includes 38 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/ladriancourt
920 Bayswater Avenue
128
110
13
Includes 13 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 30 years
www.burlingame.org/920bayswater
1418 Bellevue Avenue
15
15
2
Includes 2 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/1418bellevue
601 California Drive (Live/Work)
25
25
www.burlingame.org/601california
619-625 California Drive (Live/Work)
44
42
www.burlingame.org/619-25california
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue (SummerHill)
290
290
29
completed
Includes 29 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 25 years
www.burlingame.org/summerhill
1214 Donnelly Avenue
14
7
www.burlingame.org/1214donnelly
1128-32 Douglas Avenue
27
21
2
Includes 2 Moderate Income units (110% AMI) for 25 years
www.burlingame.org/1128-32douglas
556 El Camino Real
21
7
www.burlingame.org/556elcaminoreal
1431 El Camino Real
6
2
www.burlingame.org/1431elcaminoreal
1457 El Camino Real
9
6
www.burlingame.org/1457elcaminoreal
1509 El Camino Real
11
0
1
completed
Includes 1 Moderate Income unit (120% AMI) for 10 years
www.burlin ame.orVl509elcaminoreaI
1766 El Camino Real
60
60
3
Includes 3 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years
See Proposed Projects for current submittal.
www.burlingame.orV1766elcaminoreaI
1870 El Camino Real
169
169
17
Includes 17 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlin ame.orVl870elcaminoreal
1433 Floribunda Avenue
8
3
www.burlin ame.orVl433floribunda
30 Ingold Road
298
298
43
Includes 43 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years.
Includes 4,060 SF commercial.
www.burlingame.org/30ingold
128 Lorton Avenue
19
15
2
Includes 2 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlin ame.org/128Lorton
1491-93 Oak Grove Avenue
10
8
completed
www.burlingame.org/1491-93oakgrove
1814-1820 Ogden Drive
90
90
5
Includes 5 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/18140gden
1868 Ogden Drive
120
120
6
Includes 6 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/18680gden
continued on next page
continued from previous page
pr
Units
Net New
Units
BIVIR
Units
Building Building
Planning Under
Notes
Information Page
ApprovalStatus
Permit Permit
Submitted Issued .
21 Park Road
7
6
www.burlingame.org/21park
1095 Rollins Road
150
150
15
Includes 15 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/1095rollins
Village at Burlingame
82 units up to 50% AMI, 35 units up to 80%AMI, 14 units up
(Lot F Affordable Housing)
132
132
132
to 120% AMI.g�g
www burlin ame.or villa eatburlin ame
TOTAL
1918
1841
308
Proposed Projects
The following projects have applications that have been submitted for review, but have not yet been acted on by the Planning Commission:
New
BIVIR
Status
-AddressNet
in"
Under
Review
Not
1213 Capuchino Avenue
6
5
pending
1766 El Camino Real
311
311
22
Includes 22 Very Low Income units (50% AMI) for 55
www.burlingame.org/1766ecr
years
123-135 Primrose Road
14
14
www.burlingame.org/123-125primrose
1855-1881 Rollins Road
420
420
35
Includes 35 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years
www.burlingame.org/1855rollins
TOTAL
751
750
57
Key to Application Status:
Plans Under Review - Application has been submitted and plans are being reviewed by staff. Planning Commission study session will be scheduled once plan check comments have been addressed.
PC Study Session - Planning Commission study session to review proposed design and identify environmental issues to be studied. No action (approval) in this meeting.
CEQA - Environmental review in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PC Action - Planning Commission public hearing to consider action (approval) of the application.
City Council - City Council hearing if application includes a General Plan/Zoning Amendment, if the Planning Commission decision is appealed, or if the application is called up by a councilmember.
Preliminary Projects
The following projects have been variously presented to the public in conceptual form, but either have not been formally submitted for review, or in the instance of the Peninsula Wellness Community is a master plan
with development projects to be submitted at later dates. Estimated unit counts should be considered very tentative and subject to change if and when a development application is submitted.
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW - APRIL 2022 1 2