HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.01.27City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Lane Room, Burlingame Public Library9:00 AMSaturday, January 27, 2018
City of Burlingame 2017-18
Annual Goal Setting Session
1. Welcome
Annual Goal-Setting Meeting Informational Reporta.
Staff ReportAttachments:
2. Department Highlights
3. Public Comments
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.
4. Measure I Discussion and Public Comments
Discussion of Measure I Expenditure Plana.
Staff Report
Police Chief's Memo
Attachments:
5. Break
6. Affordable Housing Discussion and Public Comments
Housing Goals Discussiona.
Staff Report
Residential Projects Overview
Attachments:
7. Adjournment
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/24/2018
January 27, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, February
5, 2018
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/24/2018
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: January 27, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: January 27, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Nil Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager – (650) 558-7229
Subject: Annual Goal-Setting Meeting Informational Report
BACKGROUND
During the City Council’s 2017 goal-setting meeting, the Council established four priorities for Fiscal
Year 2017-2018. The priorities are:
DISCUSSION
Given the press of City business and the importance of making progress on these priorities, staff
and the Mayor determined that drilling down on two of these priorities, housing and infrastructure,
would be a good use of the time set aside for the goal-setting session. To that end, the agenda
includes a discussion of the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for Measure I, which
includes funding for certain infrastructure needs, and a discussion of housing goals and programs.
Staff looks forward to a robust discussion with the Council and community about these important
issues, both of which will come back to the Council in the future as appropriate.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: January 27, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: January 27, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230
Eric Wollman, Police Chief – (650) 777-4100
Subject: Discussion of Measure I Expenditure Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the City Manager’s recommended Measure I
expenditure plan and provide direction.
BACKGROUND
In November, Burlingame’s voters approved Measure I, a retail transactions and use tax of ¼
percent, which effectively increases the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75 percent to 9 percent.
The tax will go into effect on April 1, 2018, and the City will begin to see the increased revenues
from the tax a few months later. Last year, the City’s sales tax consultants estimated that the
measure would yield approximately $2 million per year. A more recent analysis performed by a
different member of the sales tax consulting team indicates the measure will yield closer to $1.75
million per year. The actual yield will likely be somewhere between the two numbers, and the
amount will vary somewhat from year to year depending on how well Burlingame’s local economy
is doing.
Measure I was structured as a general purpose tax, requiring a simple majority for passage. As
such, the Council was prohibited by law from approving a specific expenditure plan for the funds in
advance of the measure’s passage. (With a special tax, in contrast, the Council could have adopted
an expenditure plan in advance of the election, but a two-thirds majority would have been required
for passage.)
DISCUSSION
With the passage of Measure I, it is now time for the City Council to discuss how to appropriate the
funds. Prior to placing the measure on the ballot, the City spent well over a year soliciting
community feedback on budget priorities. The public’s stated budget priorities included public
safety; street and sidewalk maintenance; and safe, adequate park and recreation programs and
facilities.
Measure I Expenditure Plan January 27, 2018
2
To that end, staff recommends the following annual expenditure plan:
Community Center: $1.0 million
Streets and sidewalks $575,000 +/- depending on actual receipts
Police Officer: $200,000
Community Center:
The City has been contemplating building a new Community Center to replace the aging, 1940s-
era Recreation Center for many years. In early 2013, the City and community began work on a
Community Center Master Design Plan, which the Council adopted in July 2014. In early 2015, the
City engaged Group 4 Architecture, which worked on the Master Design Plan, to develop the
conceptual design for the Community Center. The conceptual design process engaged staff,
stakeholders, and the community-at-large through online surveys, drop-in events in Washington
Park, kiosks at the Fresh Market, and public meetings to weigh in on program and site diagrams,
architectural styles, and massing options.
A Community Advisory Committee comprised of key community leaders helped guide the overall
development of the conceptual design and provided the design team with feedback. In August
2015, staff and Group 4 met with the City Council to discuss the Community Advisory Committee’s
preferred building design options; no decisions were made as to the final design. Staff intends to
schedule a study session with the City Council within the next several months to further discuss
the design.
Regardless of which design is eventually chosen, there will be three main components to the new
Community Center:
Parking under the tennis courts and/or under the new building
Park improvements, including moving the playground to make room for the new building, which
has a slightly different footprint than the old building
New Community Center building
Group 4 estimates the cost to build parking under the tennis courts is $6.1 million, while the cost to
build parking under the new Community Center building is estimated to be $9.3 million. The park
improvements are estimated to cost just under $4 million. The architects are working to update the
cost of the building. Based on other local project costs, however, it is estimated that the building
will cost between $20 million and $30 million. This estimate includes soft costs and rental of facilities
to maintain a basic level of programming during construction. Strategies to reduce the cost for the
building are being explored and may include a combination of value engineering and scope
reductions.
An annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds would
yield bond proceeds of approximately $15 million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community
Center project, the City will need to rely on a combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing
General Fund revenues and/or monies from the Capital Investment Reserve. Staff recommends
Measure I Expenditure Plan January 27, 2018
3
that the Council consider an additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease
revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million, with the remaining financing for the
Community Center project to be provided from the Capital Investment Reserve.
Over the past several years, the Capital Investment Reserve has been funded largely by transfers
included as part of each fiscal year’s General Fund budget and by budgetary surpluses identified
with each fiscal mid-year analysis. Because of the economic growth experienced in Burlingame,
the reserve grew by $8 million in fiscal year 2015-16 and $7 million in fiscal year 2016-17; the
projected total as of June 30, 2018, is $23.5 million. It is clear that a $1 million increase in debt
service would not have a deleterious impact on the overall health of the General Fund, but would
merely slow the growth in the Capital Investment Reserve. By that same reasoning, any funds
taken out of the Capital Investment Reserve to fund the Community Center Project would be
replaced at a slightly higher pace if the General Fund did not take on an additional $1 million in
debt service. Similar to the decision to take on a higher or lower mortgage, financing the
Community Center will be a balance between pay-as-you-go (cash) and pay-as-you-use (debt).
The recommendation to fund the Community Center Project at least partially by debt service
backed by Measure I funding has been discussed with the City’s Financial Advisor, PFM. A lease
revenue bond issuance would be the most straight forward and highly efficient method of financing,
providing an attractive investment credit via a conventional and well-understood offering in the
municipal bond market. It is quite reasonable to assume that the City would want to maximize this
bond financing (through additional, annual General Fund support), and retain more of its reserve
funds for other capital projects that may take on a priority status in the future. Debt financing is
appropriate when the cost of a capital improvement project exceeds tax and fee revenues available
during the construction period. It also allows the City to spread the cost of the project over time
and manage cash flows.
Streets and Sidewalks
Burlingame maintains approximately 84 miles of streets and 116 miles of sidewalks. The current
backlog of work is estimated at $20 million. Currently, the City spends approximately $1.2 - $1.5
million annually for street repairs and resurfacing work. The funding for street repairs comes from
a combination of State gas tax revenues, Measure A funds, and Federal Grants (if awarded), and
the amount varies from year to year. The current funding is clearly inadequate to keep up with the
backlog.
In the case of sidewalks, the City faces a similar challenge as there is an estimated $10 million of
backlog of work related to repairing vertical displacements of sidewalks caused by tree roots,
damage resulting from aging concrete and subsurface soil conditions, and Americans with
Disabilities Act improvements. The City spends approximately $500,000 of General Fund revenue
annually to address sidewalk needs.
Because the City has a large number of street and sidewalk miles to maintain as well as a significant
backlog of work, it can be difficult to tackle potentially hazardous road and sidewalk conditions as
quickly the City might like given the funding available. The addition of Measure I funding to address
Measure I Expenditure Plan January 27, 2018
4
street and sidewalk repairs will complement the existing funding sources and will help with the
City’s infrastructure needs.
Staff therefore recommends dedicating a large portion of the Measure I revenues (approximately
$575,000 annually) to the maintenance of streets and sidewalks. The number is an estimate given
the uncertainty surrounding the actual Measure I receipts as discussed above. In addition, if the
Council agrees with the recommended expenditure plan described above, then $1 million of the
total Measure I revenues will be dedicated to paying the debt on the Community Center lease
revenue bond, while $200,000 will be dedicated to paying the ongoing costs for a Police Officer.
By combining the Measure I revenues with other, external funds, such as gas tax revenues, the
City can vary the amount spent on streets and sidewalks from year to year depending on how much
Measure I actually raises.
Additional Police Officer
The attached memo from Police Chief Wollman details the need for a new Police Officer. In a
nutshell, the Police Department’s sworn staffing level is lower now, by 11 positions, than it was in
the year 2000. Although the department is able to handle its current call volume, that volume is
expected to grow markedly as the population increases and as various commercial projects come
online. If the Council is receptive to adding an additional Police Officer, then the department would
add that Officer to Patrol, the new Community Response Team, or the Traffic Unit. The cost of an
additional Police Officer is just under $200,000 (including the long-term costs of CalPERS pension
benefits) annually.
The City Manager tasked the Police Department with determining whether the department had
other, non-personnel needs for the Measure I funds. Because the department has been able to
purchase the technology and other equipment that it needs over the last several years, the Chief
and his team were unable to identify other potential uses for the Measure I funds. They determined
that the department would be better served by the City increasing funding for youth library and/or
recreation programs to help keep kids off the streets and participating in the community in positive
ways.
Next Steps
During the goal-setting session, staff would like the City Council to discuss and provide direction
on the recommended expenditure plan. A final plan will be brought to the City Council for adoption
at a regular Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Measure I is expected to provide $1.75 to $2 million annually each year.
Exhibit:
Police Chief’s Memo
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: January 27, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: January 27, 2018
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Housing Goals Discussion
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should discuss housing goals and programs to be prioritized for the coming year
and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
With its location on the Peninsula, Burlingame is within a region that is in the midst of strong
economic growth. The economic growth has resulted in a sizable increase in new jobs, but
communities throughout the area have had difficulty developing additional housing to keep pace
with the job growth.
For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not kept up with the
thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten worse in recent years. Between 2010
and 2016, San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes of all types. The
resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 1 to 16. In other words, only one new housing unit was built
for every 16 new jobs created. This jobs-housing gap drives up the cost of housing for
homebuyers and renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers, and forces
friends and family members to move away because they can no longer afford to live in
Burlingame or San Mateo County.
The situation is particularly challenging for those making lower wages. A significant number of
new jobs pay lower income wages, including jobs generated by new development. The region’s
driving economic sectors are increasingly split between high-wage jobs in industries such as
professional and technical services, and low-wage jobs in hospitality, childcare, retail, and others.
Those in the low-wage workforce increasingly commute into the area from long distances, which
results in increased traffic in the region and ultimately limits the pool of employees for local
businesses. For a worker earing minimum wage, the cost of gas and bridge tolls together with the
long commute times make it difficult (if not infeasible) to justify employment in a low wage local
job. Local service businesses have reported difficulty hiring and retaining employees, even when
offering wages well above minimum wage.
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
2
The City of Burlingame has been proactive in addressing the supply aspect of the housing
situation through the encouragement and approval of significant numbers of new housing units.
The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, together with the most recent Housing Element update,
have emphasized the construction of new housing units to address the increased demand for
housing units near employment in Burlingame and San Mateo County. Per the City’s most recent
Residential Projects Overview document (attached), 472 units have been approved, and an
additional 334 units are currently under review by the Planning Commission, for a total of 806
units. Of these, 178 would be priced below market rate for households in the Moderate, Median,
Low, or Very Low income categories.1
For reference, Table 1 below lists these income definitions and the amount of rent a family in San
Mateo County can “afford” (i.e., that is no more than 30% of their household income):
TABLE 1:
INCOME DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABLE RENTS
SAN MATEO COUNTY 2017
In addition, approximately 500 additional units have been presented to the public in conceptual
form, but either have not been formally submitted for review, or are part of master plans with
development projects to be submitted at later dates.
Beyond these totals, there are additional units that have been discussed in conjunction with the
update of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, known as Envision Burlingame. In the North
El Camino Real area alone (within the boundaries of the current North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan), several property owners have expressed interest in submitting applications upon
completion of the General Plan Update. (In fact, one property owner presented a preliminary
concept to the Envision Burlingame Community Advisory Committee.) Based on property owner
input, and factoring the residential densities proposed in the Draft General Plan, staff estimates
potential applications in the range of 350 to 400 units in the near term (i.e., within two years of
plan adoption).
1 By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the
“Area Median Income” (AMI), “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI,
“Very-Low Income” means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI, and “Extremely-Low Income”
means a household with an income at 30% of AMI.
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
3
CITY ACTIONS TO DATE
On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees
for new commercial development in Burlingame. The adopted fees are $7.00 per square foot for
new retail development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00 per square
foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for office greater
than 50,000 square feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the
fees are $5.00 per square foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square foot for new hotel
development, $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and $20.00 per
square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. Over time, these fees will provide a
dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. In the
near future, the Council will consider adoption of a Housing Impact Fee program.
Although no commercial linkage fees have been collected since adoption of the ordinance, there
are currently two projects under review that would both be subject to commercial linkage fees.
Table 2 outlines the revenues that could be generated by the projects; both had applications
deemed complete after the adoption of the commercial linkage fees (applications deemed
complete prior to adoption would not be subject to linkage fees).
TABLE 2:
PROPOSED PROJECTS SUBJECT TO COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
JANUARY 2018
Project Application Square Feet
Linkage Fee
Base With Prevailing / Area
Wage
1499 Bayshore Highway
Hotel 258,865 $3,106,380 $2,588,650
Restaurant 12,700 $88,900 $63,500
250 California Drive
Office 44,118 $794,124 $661,770
Total $3,989,404 $3,313,920
The nexus studies supporting the adoption of commercial linkage fees evaluated commercial
hotel, retail/restaurants/services, and office/R&D/medical office projects. They did not evaluate
more specialized land uses such as commercial recreation and industrial. For commercial linkage
fees to be established for uses other than those currently adopted, further nexus studies would be
required.
On October 16, 2017, the City Council discussed potential uses for Commercial Linkage Fees
and Housing Impact Fees. Below is a summary of options that the City Council expressed interest
in, and for which staff is currently conducting follow-up research:
Housing Trust Funds: HEART of San Mateo County (The Housing Endowment and Regional
Trust) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and a joint powers authority founded by the cities and
the county of San Mateo. Its mission is to help address the regional housing needs of low- and
moderate-income families, primarily by financing the construction of new affordable units.
HEART’s developer loan program provides pre-development, land acquisition, and bridge loans
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
4
to developers creating affordable housing. HEART also operates a first-time homebuyer program
for moderate-income families (allowing purchases of up to $795,000 with 5% down-payment) and
serves as a housing resource to its member cities.
Based on direction from the City Council at the October 16, 2017 meeting, staff has been
coordinating with HEART representatives to draft an agreement where HEART would manage a
portion of the City’s linkage and impact fees while the balance accrues. HEART would direct
these funds to projects throughout the County that are ready for development, then return the
funds to the City when it is ready to deploy them locally. Staff and HEART representatives will
return to the City Council with a proposed agreement in the coming months.
Emergency Rent Assistance: At the October 16, 2017 meeting, the City Council indicated interest
in allocating a portion of funds collected by linkage and impact fees to emergency rent or
assistance with utility bills. Rental assistance during crises is important because it allows families
to avoid eviction and remain in their homes.
Samaritan House currently provides emergency rent and utility bill assistance for individuals and
families facing unanticipated crises. As a Core Agency for San Mateo County, Samaritan House
is able to assign case managers to work with clients to explore factors contributing to housing
instability and address those issues. Support is provided with housing applications, first and last
month rent, and qualification for housing programs, as well as referrals to financial, health,
educational, and job resources as needed. City staff is currently coordinating with Samaritan
House representatives to assess where there may be duplication in services and/or need for
additional resources in light of the City Council’s interest in providing funding for emergency
assistance.
Retention and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock: Some Councilmembers expressed
interest in allocating funds for retention of existing housing stock. For example, Mid-Peninsula
Housing has piloted a new Multi-Family Preservation Program to acquire and preserve existing
“naturally affordable” rental housing. This strategy is relatively unusual, compared to the more
common strategy of constructing new units, but may have merit given scarcity and cost of land
available for new affordable housing projects. Funds could help nonprofits or responsible
investor-owners acquire occupied, multifamily rental properties, which would then be required to
maintain the tenancies of residents in good standing and maintain affordable rent levels for the
units in the property for a significant amount of time.
A variation of this strategy that has been discussed in relation to the General Plan Update would
be to offer financial assistance to property owners to perform rehabilitation and retrofits of their
multifamily properties with the agreement that rents be maintained at affordable rent levels for a
significant amount of time. This could include seismic retrofits of apartment buildings with “soft
stories;” maintenance, such as roofing and siding; or upgrades to aged electrical, plumbing, or
mechanical systems. A caveat is that private property owners may be wary of entering into
agreements that would restrict future rental income, even with incentives. For example, for many
years the City’s accessory dwelling unit regulations have allowed waiver of the onsite parking
requirement if an agreement is recorded specifying the unit be affordable, but no property owners
have utilized the provision.
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
5
An additional consideration could be to combine the retention and rehabilitation of existing
housing stock with the establishment of a Strategic Property Acquisition Fund. Such f unds can be
leveraged to provide nonprofit developers with financing to acquire underutilized properties
appropriate for the development of mixed income housing. The intent would be for the fund to
enable nonprofit developers to better compete in the competitive market.
Rent subsidies: Funds held in a housing trust fund may be used to provide rental assistance to
lower-income households. Voucher programs can be established to provide assistance for either
existing apartments, or to subsidize rents of newly constructed apartments. At its October 16,
2017 meeting, while the City Council expressed interest in subsidies given the needs in the
community, the consensus was that this option had less potential than others. Concerns included
that the amount of assistance would be diluted if applied broadly, that such a program would
require significant administration, and that the program would not result in the expenditures being
leveraged as they would be with other options under consideration.
Notice of Funding Availability: While not discussed in detail at the October 16, 2017 meeting,
some municipalities issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) periodically to receive
proposals for housing services, then choose those that address local needs. For example, the
City Council may direct the bulk of its funds to HEART for management while balances accrue,
but designate a portion of the balance to a NOFA. For example, the City of San Carlos issues a
NOFA periodically to invite local organizations providing affordable housing services to submit a
request for funding. Permissible uses of funds include assistance with land acquisition, debt
service, parcel assemblage, gap financing, housing rehabilitation, grants, unit acquisition, and
new construction.
Housing Resources Web Page: The City of Burlingame maintains a web page devoted to
affordable housing resources at:
https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/affordable_housing.php.
This web page has recently been updated to include resources for emergency rent and utility
assistance from Samaritan House, financial counseling and assistance from United Way
Sparkpoint, and information on the proposed Village at Burlingame affordable workforce and
senior housing development.
Home for All Community Engagement Strategy: At its meeting on January 2, 2018, the City
Council received an overview of the Home for All Community Engagement Pilot Program. A key
focus of Home for All has been to understand how community perspectives about housing affect
decisions made by local governments, and the Community Engagement Pilot Program is
designed to work with local jurisdictions to jointly develop customized community engagement
strategies. Home for All has partnered with Common Knowledge Plus, a community engagement
consulting firm, to facilitate the initiative, with the objective of having housing conversations and
decision-making be as inclusive as possible.
Outreach is ongoing for the first community engagement meeting scheduled for the morning of
Saturday, February 10th from 9:00 am to 11 am, followed by an informational poster session and
tour from 11:00 am to noon. The poster session will have exhibits with information on current
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
6
housing proposals in Burlingame, as well as housing assistance organizations and programs in
San Mateo County. A self-guided tour map will be available to those interested in visiting
locations of future housing developments in Burlingame.
This will be the first of two community meetings being planned for the Community Engagement
Pilot Program. Staff is available to meet and make presentations to interested community
organizations in advance of the meeting.
NEXT STEPS
Establish a Local Affordable Housing Trust Fund: As noted earlier in this report, on October 16,
2017, the City Council conducted a discussion regarding the potential uses for Housing Impact
and Commercial Linkage Fees. Analysis of the discussion from that meeting supports the
establishment of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a depository for funds received by the City.
Based upon the Council’s discussion, funds should be used for:
Investment in proposed projects to be built by non-profit affordable housing developers
with a higher priority to funding projects to be built within Burlingame
Rent subsidies to assist existing residents who are vulnerable to loss of their homes for
various reasons (e.g. health issues, divorce, job loss, etc.) with an emphasis on very low
income individuals/families.
Rehabilitation of existing buildings in return for maintaining rents at an affordable level.
The primary source of monies to be placed within the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be
payments of the Commercial Linkage Fee for new non-residential developments and the Housing
Impact Fee collected from residential developers (when/if such a fee program is adopted by the
Council). As time passes, there may be opportunities for additional funding to supplement these
funds from grant sources.
Based upon the City Council’s discussion, funds in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund should be
allocated to both short-term (means-tested) and long-term goals. Examples of short-term goals
include: rent subsidies, renter relocation funding, first- and last-month security deposits, and other
similar purposes that address the immediate needs of existing tenants within the community.
Long-term goals include: investment in projects developed by non-profit affordable housing
developers and rehabilitation of existing housing units in return for maintenance of rents at an
affordable level.
As a starting point, staff suggests that the funds be allocated in the Fund as follows:
Goals Allocation Target *Approximate Dollar Amount
Short-Term Goals 25% (+/- 5%) of fund balance $1,000,000
Long-Term Goals 75% (+/- 5%) of fund balance $3,000,000
Total Allocation 100% $4,000,000
*Based upon January 2018 estimate of Commercial Linkage Fees to be collected for pending projects.
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
7
Management of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund would require the hiring of a staff member, or
consultant, to work with the City Council and staff to establish criteria for awarding resources (the
Council may choose to provide initial direction at the Goal Setting Session), to monitor and
disburse the funds, and to coordinate with non-profit providers for disbursement of monies from
the fund. It is estimated that the cost of a full-time staff person to fill this position would be roughly
$200,000 (salary and benefits) annually, which should at least partially be paid from the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Additionally, staff would need to work with the City’s Finance
Department in order to develop appropriate investment strategies to ensure maximization of the
use of funds to promote the City Council’s affordable housing goals.
Housing Impact Fees: Fees for residential development were not included in the linkage fee
ordinance adopted by the City Council last year. Consideration of Housing Impact Fees will
reference a Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study that measures the increased demand for affordable
housing resulting from the development of new market rate housing. Housing fees are anticipated
to be brought to the City Council for consideration within the next two months.
The following table is a summary of Housing Impact Fees that have been adopted by other San
Mateo County jurisdictions. This information can inform the Council’s suggestions regarding the
appropriate fee amount for the City of Burlingame:
TABLE 3:
SUMMARY OF HOUSING IMPACT FEES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction Townhomes
Per SF
Condominiums
Per SF
Apartments
Per SF
Date Fee
Adopted
Colma $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 September 2016
Daly City $18.00 $22.00 $25.00 2014
Foster City None1
East Palo Alto2 $23.00 $23.00 $33.71 2014
Menlo Park None1
Redwood City $25.00 $20.00 $20.00 2015
San Bruno $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 November 2016
San Carlos3 $20.59 $20.59 $21.00 2010
San Mateo City None1
San Mateo County4 $12.50 $12.50 $10.00 June 2016
AVERAGE $19.87 $19.73 $21.39
MEDIAN $20.59 $20.59 $21.00
1 No Housing Impact Fee adopted, but Inclusionary Housing requires Below Market Rate units in new developments.
Some municipalities allow on-site Below Market Rate units to be satisfied with in-lieu fees.
2 Fee increases to $44.00/sf for projects with structured parking.
3 Fees vary based on number of units, up to $42.00/sf for largest projects. Also assesses fee on single family
additions.
4 $5.00/sf for first 2,500 sf, $12.50 per each square foot over 2,500 sf. Only applies to projects with 4 or fewer units;
projects with 5 units or more are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
This Section Intentionally Blank
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
8
In prior discussions, Councilmembers have suggested a tiered system where fees increased with
the size of the development and number of units. Referencing other municipalities, some exempt
smaller projects, such as residential projects with fewer than five units. Other jurisdictions have a
slightly higher fee for higher-density projects, where the threshold is units per acre (for example,
greater than 35 units per acre). San Carlos is unique in having a full sliding scale for residential
projects, with a detailed schedule providing an incremental adjustment for each additional unit,
from 1 up to 280 units.
One reference the City Council may wish to consider is the current tiered system in place for
condominium planning application fees. Currently, the application fees are tiered into the
following categories:
10 units or fewer
11-25 units
26-50 units
51-100 units
101 or more units
Estimating potential fees anticipated to be collected depends on a number of variables, including
the residential densities, sizes of units (since the fees are typically based on square feet, not
number of units), and the fees themselves. Some jurisdictions also provide discounts for projects
paying prevailing construction wages, similar to the model the City Council adopted for
commercial linkage fees. Furthermore, if an in-lieu option is offered, the impact fees collected
would be lower depending on how many units are built with projects.
Should housing impact fees be adopted in the coming months, they would apply to new
residential projects that have not had applications deemed complete as of the effective date of
the ordinance implementing the fee. Per the City’s most recent Residential Projects Overview
document (attached), approximately 500 additional units have been presented to the public in
conceptual form, but either have not been formally submitted for review, or are part of master
plans with development projects to be submitted at later dates. Beyond that figure, there could be
potentially 350 to 400 additional units that have been discussed in conjunction with the update of
the General Plan, based on property owner input, and factoring the residential densities proposed
in the Draft General Plan.
Table 4 below provides a rough estimate of potential fees that could be collected, working with
the assumption that applications for 850 to 900 new units may be contemplated in the near term.
For purposes of the estimate, the assumptions are an average impact fee of $20.00 per square
foot and an average unit size of 850 square feet.
TABLE 4:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units Floor Area
(assuming 850 sf/unit) Housing Impact Fees
850 722,500 $14,450,000
900 765,000 $15,300,000
Housing Goals Discussion January 27, 2018
9
SB 2 – Building Jobs and Homes Act: SB 2, passed by the State legislature in 2017, imposes a
fee on recording of real estate documents excluding sales for the purposes of funding affordable
housing. In the first year, proceeds will be split evenly between local planning grants and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) programs that address
homelessness. Thereafter, 70 percent of the proceeds will be allocated to local governments in
either an over-the-counter or competitive process. While the allocation formula for distribution to
local governments has not yet been established, this could be a source of additional funding in
the coming years.
Neighborhood and Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Districts (AB 1568): Neighborhood
and Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Districts, under AB 1568, can be created to fund
more affordable housing units, as well as needed infrastructure upgrades to meet current and
future capacity demands. After the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies, the State adopted
several economic development tools using more restrictive tax increment funding mechanisms
than the one utilized under Redevelopment. One of these tools is an "enhanced infrastructure
financing district" ("EIFD"). AB 1568 allows a local jurisdiction to direct a portion of its local sales
and use taxes and transaction and use taxes to an EIFD if the area is an infill site and specific
affordable housing requirements are met. In conjunction with the General Plan Update, staff
suggests evaluating this tool for its applicability to the North Burlingame and/or Rollins Road
planning areas.
Affordable Housing Authorities (AHA)(AB 1598): AB 1598 creates a new financing tool called an
Affordable Housing Authority (AHA). If the City creates an AHA, it would be permitted to pledge
sales and use taxes and future tax increment to issue bonds to develop low and moderate
income housing. The AHAs are limited to the narrow purpose of financing low- and moderate-
income housing, and a plan must be adopted to develop low- and moderate-income housing
projects in the community.
FISCAL IMPACT
Commercial linkage fees ranging from $3,989,404 to $3,313,920 are estimated based on current
development applications under review. Housing impact fees, should they be adopted, as well as
funds from SB 2 are expected to provide additional housing funds in the coming years.
Exhibit:
Residential Projects Overview
Residential Applications Overview
January 2018
Approved Projects
The following projects have received approval and are in various stages of construction:
Address Units
BMR
Units
Status
Information Page Planning
Approval
Building
Permit
Submitted
Building
Permit
Approved
Under
Construction
1600 Trousdale Drive –
Assisted Living 124 www.burlingame.org/1600trousdale
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue
(SummerHill) 290 29 Demo
permit www.burlingame.org/summerhill
1491-93 Oak Grove Avenue 10 www.burlingame.org/1491-93oakgrove
1433 Floribunda Avenue 10 1 www.burlingame.org/1433floribunda
1509 El Camino Real 11 1 www.burlingame.org/1509elcaminoreal
1128-32 Douglas Avenue 27 2 www.burlingame.org/1128-32douglas
TOTAL 472 33
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW – JANUARY 2018 | 2
Proposed Projects
The following projects have applications that have been formally submitted for review, but have not yet been acted on by the Planning
Commission:
Address Units
BMR
Units
Status
Information Page Plans
Under
Review
PC Study
Session CEQA PC
Action
City
Council
556 El Camino Real 21 1/25/16
2/24/14 7/24/17 www.burlingame.org/556elcaminoreal
619-625 California Drive
Live/Work 26 11/13/17
6/12/17 www.burlingame.org/619-25california
920 Bayswater Avenue 128 13 11/13/17
7/10/17 www.burlingame.org/920bayswater
1431 El Camino Real 6 3/27/17 www.burlingame.org/1431elcaminoreal
The Village at Burlingame
(Lot F Affordable Housing) 132 132 www.burlingame.org/villageatburlingame
21 Park Road 7 10/11/17 www.burlingame.org/21park
1214 Donnelly Avenue 14
TOTAL 334 145
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 onc e 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.
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW – JANUARY 2018 | 3
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.
Address Estimated Units Status
Peninsula Wellness Community
Master Plan up to 400 Environmental review underway. Draft EIR anticipated Fall
2017.
220 Park Road (former post office) 100 - 128 Negotiations ongoing with City to consider including
municipal Parking Lot E in development.
TOTAL 500 - 528