Loading...
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