HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.09.07ME
Gity of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
BURLINGAME CIry HALL
5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
\-,
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers
\-
City CouncilStudy Session - General Plan Update ("Envision Burlingame")
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand itto staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - GouncilGhambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLLCALL
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 mafter
that is not on the agenda.
5. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION (General Plan Update)
Burlingame General Plan Update ("Envision Burlingame") - Review of General Plan Update Progress,
including Discusslons of Emerging Land-Use Scenarios, Community Grov'rth Potential, Sea-Leve/ Rr'se,
and Other Re/afed /ssues
Envision Burlinqame General Plan Proiect Update and Discussion
Atlachments: Staff Report
Consultant Report
Meetino Presentation Slides
Emerqinq Land Use Conceot - reviewed bv CAC and Planninq Commission
Julv 13, 2016 PC Studv Session tt/inutes
City of Buflingame Page 1 Printed on 9/1/2016
Gity Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 7, 20'16
6. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk al
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available fot
public review at the City Clerk's office, CiA Ha , 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the CW's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday,
September 19,2016.
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 Ha at 501
Pimrose Road during normal business hourc.
City of Burtingane Page 2 Pinted on 9/1/2016
AGENDA ITEM NO:
STAFF REPORT
\-MEETING DATE: September 7,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and Gity Council
Date: September 7,2016
From: Wiltiam Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) 558-7255
Subject: "Envision Burlingame" - General Plan Project Update and Discussion
\-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council provide direction on the ongoing update of the City's General
Plan, including direction on preferred land use strategies.
BACKGROUND
ln March 2015, the City of Burlingame initiated a three-year process focused on a community-
led effort to update the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, called "Envision Burlingame."
The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the City's two documents that regulate all land
use, environmental and transportation decisions made by City leaders.
The City has engaged a consultant team led by MIG to conduct the public outreach process and
create the new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The outreach has involved a broad range
of individuals providing information on current issues, encouraging ideas regarding a vision for
Burlingame's future, and receiving specific input on alternatives and policy concepts.
DISCUSSION
Envision Burlingame has reached a key point in the process. Through the first phases, the
project team has been soliciting input from the community, analyzing existing conditions, and
developing a range of land use and circulation alternatives. The alternatives have now been
synthesized into a single "Emerging Land Use Concept" that is intended to provide guidance in
the preparation of the General Plan and environmental analysis (attached).
The Emerging Land Use Concept has been reviewed by the Envision Burlingame Community
Advisory Committee (CAC), as well as the Planning Commission. The feedback from both will
be presented to the City Council as part of the consultant presentation, and the Council will be
asked to provide further direction.
The consultant presentation will also include a discussion of population and job groMh, housing,
Sea Level Rise and adaptation, and school district coordination. Each of these issues is
important to consideration of the land use strategy.
1
\-
\-,
U
Envision Burlingame - Update and Discussion September 7, 2016
The consultant team has prepared a memorandum that summarizes the community outreach to
date and the topics that will be presented in this study session (attached). The slides for the
presentation that will be made to the City Council are also attached for reference.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Exhibits
Envision Burlingame Project Update and Discussion ltems Memorandum
Meeting Presentation Slides
Emerging Land Use Concept, as reviewed by the CAC and Planning Commission
July 13, 2016 PC Study Session Minutes
2
\-
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ENVISION BURLINGAME PROJECT UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
Sepfember 7,2016 | 7:00pm -9:00pm
City Holl CouncilChombers, 501 Primrose Rood
EnvtSt0n
BURTINENME
\-
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND UPDATE
ln Morch 2015, the City of Burlingome initioted o three-yeor, community-led progrom to
updote the City's Generol Plon ond Zoning Ordinonce, colled Envision Burlingome. The
Generol Plon ond Zoning Ordinonce ore the City's two documents thot regulote oll
lond use, environmentol, ond tronsportotion decisions mode by City leoders.
Envision Burlingome will result in gools ond strotegies for desired chonge in the City by
presenting the question: "How do we wont Burlingome to look, function ond feel 25
yeors from now?" To onswer this question, residents, business owners, ond other
community members hove been engoged in o comprehensive discussion regording
mobility, urbon design, recreotion ond porks, heolth, noturol resources, ond economic
development opportunities.
Envision Burlingome hos three brood objectives
Develop o vision for Burlingome, with porticulor ottention poid to the topics of
stobility ond opportunities for desired chonge.
2. Updote policies ond regulotions to ensure they oddress current regionol, stote,
ond federol requirements.
3. Creote on updoted qnd fully digitol Generol Plon ond Zoning Ordinonce thot
ore eosily occessed, understood, ond opplied by residents, property ond
business owners, ond decision mokers.
\-.
I
\-
7:Z?;:-;;-,:,:"'%.,
ffi..t-. -z- - --^-
E{rI.lErT
EnutSl0ni!trLtIEnmt
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
Below is o summory of the overoll project schedule bosed on mojor project phoses,
eoch of which includes o voriety of community outreoch ond public engogement
octivities ond events.
Phose Stotus
1 . Existing Conditions ond Opportunities..................
2. Vision ond Tronsformotive Strotegies Fromework
3. Concept Alternotives..............
4. Droft Generol P|on..........
5. Environmentol Review
Completed Foll 2015
......... Completed Spring 201 6
..... Completed Summer 2016
ln Progress
Winter 2015
5. Generol Plon Heorings ond Adoption........... Winter - Spring 201l
T.Zoning Ordinonce Updote.... ...............Sprin9 - Summer 20lZ
8. Specific Plon Technicol Updotes............. Summer -Foll2017
Considerotion is being given to completing the Zoning Ordinonce updote in porollel
with the Generol Plon, which would not offect the overoll schedule to begin public
heorings in eorly 2017.
\, Whot is the Generol Plon?
The Generol Plon is o policy document thot is often described os the constitution or
blueprint for development decisions. lt estoblishes the "ground rules" for conserving
resources, designing new projects, exponding public services, ond improving
community omenities. The Generol Plon covers issues ronging from urbon design ond
mobility to public heolth ond sofety. Most importontly, it orticulotes the community's
vision ond will guide growth, chonge, ond development in Burlingome for the next 25
yeors.
The City hos not comprehensively updoted its Generol Plon in over 40 yeors, ond fhe
Envision Burlingome process is on opportunity to define whot Burlingome will look like,
how it will function, ond how people experience the City in the future. The Generol Plon
con oddress olmost ony issue the community defines os importont. At o minimum,
however, the Plon must estoblish policy direction reloting to the following:
The use ond development of properties citywide
Accommodotion of oll modes of tronsportotion
The provision of porks ond other open spoces to meet community needs
The types of housing ovoiloble in the community
Use ond protection of noturol resources
The provision of public sofety services ond protection ogoinst noturol ond
humon-coused hozords (including noise) in the City
2
1
\-
\-
EnulSt0n
BltR1INEf,ME
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
The current City of Burlingome Generol Plon is ovoiloble online ot:
wvwv. bu rlin go me. org/g e n erol plo n
3
U Envtfl0niuSltnrnmE
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
Whot is o Zoning Ordinonce?
A Zoning Ordinonce is the primory regulotory document for the use of property within o
community; it defines specific stondords ond requirements thot set forth the use(s) for
which o property moy be developed ond restrictions on the plocement of structures
upon the property. lt is different from the Generol Plon in the sense thot the Generol
Plon estoblishes the policy fromework thot guides decisions, whereqs o Zoning
Ordinonce identifies the regulotions thot implement those policies. The current City of
Burlingome Zoning Ordinonce is included os Chopter 25 of the Municipol Code ond is
ovoiloble online ot: www.burlinqome.orq/zoning
Whot ore Specific Plons?
A Specific Plon is onother tool used to implement the Generol Plon. Specific Plons
provide detoiled guidonce for defined neighborhoods or districts, ond typicolly include
specific policies, regulotions, design guidelines, implementotion octions ond funding
sources. Currently the City hos three odopted specific plons:
. Burlingome Downtown Specific Plon (odopted in 2010). Boyfront Specific Plon (odopted in 2004 with omendments in 2006 ond 2012). North Burlingome/Rollins Rood Specific Plon (odopted in 2004 with omendments
in 2OO7)
Eoch of these plons moy require minor updotes os o result of chonges to both the
Generol Plon ond Zoning Ordinonce. These updotes would occur of the end of the
Envision Burlingome process. Eoch of the current specific plons ore ovoiloble online ot
www. b u rli n o o m e.org /specific pl o ns
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT PROCESS
Envision Burlingame includes o robust community outreoch ond engogement process.
The following is o summory of meetings, interviews, workshops, surveys, ond other events
thot hove token ploce during the first yeor ond o holf of the project (Morch 2015 -
August 2016).
Stokeholder lnterviews ond Meetings
\-.
At the outset of the Envision Burlingome plonning process, the consultont teom
conducted stokeholder interviews with members of the City Council, Plonning
Commissioners, business owners, residents, ond others interested in Burlingome's plons
for the future. This importont step in the Generol Plon process provided on opportunity
4
\-
\-
*.*%fffi:',tz
,,,,r - -=--I*rlw
Enulsl0nruRltnEImt
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
to understond the Burlingome community, identify desired project outcomes, ond goin
insight into current issues, ossets, ond opportunities.
Neighborhood lnlercepl Surveys
The City held o series of neighborhood intercept surveys in June 2015 of Burlingome's
most populor commerciol oreos to gother informotion for the Envision Burlingome
project. Members of the project teom invited people to porticipote in on interoctive
exercise thot osked them questions obout Burlingome using printed poster boords ond
"voting" stickers. This opprooch engoged oll oge groups-especiolly fomilies with young
children-ond ollowed for informol ond educotionol discussions. A summory of this input
is ovoiloble on the project website ot:
http://www.envisionburlinqo me.orq/neish borhoodinterceptsurvevs
Community Workshop ond Survey #l
On Octob er 24, 201 5, the City hosted the first community workshop on Envision
Burlingome. The workshop wos held of the Burlingome Recreotion Center os on open
house so members of the community were free to drop in onytime between lO n.u. ond
2p.t',t.The workshop provided on opportunity to leorn obout the community-driven
plonning process thot will updote the City's Generol Plon ond Zoning Ordinqnce. Over
Z0 members of the community shored their ideos ond vision for Burlingome's future. For
community members who were unoble to ottend the workshop, on online survey wos
ovoiloble for the first three weeks of November 20.l5. Over 200 people porticipoted
virtuolly, providing feedbock to mony of the some questions presented of the
workshop. A summory of this input is ovoiloble on the project website ot:
h tt p : / /www. e n v is i o n b u rl i n o o m e. oro /c o m m u nitvs u rv ey I
UC Berkeley Groduote Sludenls
ln Februory 2016, o group of UC Berkeley groduote students leorning obout community
ond stokeholder engogement held on outreoch event of the Burlingome Coltroin
stotion. The focus of this event wos to engoge commuters ond young professionols
obout their thoughts ond perspectives reloted to the future vision for the city. A video
summory of their work is ovoiloble ot:
\-
5
\-
Burlingome High School Student's Boyfront Project
nlvi
\-Enut$0n
SUtltnEnmE
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
During the Spring semester of 20,l6, over 50 Burlingome High School students in three of
Anno Liu's orchitecture closses porticipoted in o project to reimogine Burlingome's
Boyfront. MIG ond City stoff conducted o Boyfront wolking tour with the high schoolers,
ofter which the students chose priority sites to plon ond design. Their proposols were
showcosed of Community Workshop #2 in Moy 2016. One student joined the CAC os o
result of the high school project.
Community Workshop ond Survey #2
On Soturdoy, Moy 21,2016, the City hosted the second community workshop for
Envision Burlingome. The workshop wos on open house event in which community
members could drop in of ony time between I0 n.u. ond I p.u. to review ond
comment on potentiol lond use ond circulotion olternotives for six study oreos within the
city. Porticiponts were given o workbook with specific questions to provide feedbock.
For community members who were unoble to ottend the workshop, on online survey
wqs ovoiloble from Moy 21 through June 24, with questions thot corresponded directly
to the workshop moteriols ond workbook. ln totol, over 240 people porticipoted in the
workshop ond survey. A summory of this input is ovoiloble on the project website:
http://www.envision burlin go me.org/com m u niiysurvev2
MITESTONE PRODUCTS
Severol key milestone products hove been developed since the beginning of the
project, eoch of which will leod to the development of the updoted Generol Plon. The
following provides o summory of these key products.
Exisling Condilions Reporl
ln November 2015, the City published o comprehensive Exisfing Condifions Report thot
tokes o "snopshot" of Burlingome's current chorocteristics, trends, ond conditions. The
report provides o detoiled description of o wide ronge of topics within the city. lt
provides decision-mokers, locol ogencies, ond the community with context for moking
lond use ond policy decisions, ond is intended to be objective ond policy-neutrol. The
report, which is o key eorly milestone report, will olso be used os the existing settings
portion of the eventuol Environmentollmpocf Reporf prepored for the updoted
Generol Plon. The report is ovoiloble on the project website ot:
www.envisionburlinqome.oro/existingconditionsreport ond includes the following
topicol chopters:
, Chopter l: lntroduction. Chopter 2: Lond Use ond Urbon Form. Chopter 3: Economics ond Morket Demond. Chopter 4:Tronsportotion ond Mobility
\-,
6
\-
\-rnulfl0n
!gE!!gE4!
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
. Chopter 5: lnfrostructure. Chopter 6: Noturol Resources ond Hozords. Chopter Z: Open Spoce, Porks ond Recreotion
Vision ond Guiding Principles
During Winter/Spring 2016, City Stoff, the consultont teom, ond the Community Advisory
Committee crofted the Vision ond Guiding Principles for the Generol Plon. The Vision is
o brood, ospirotionol stotement thot succinctly summorizes the desired future for
Burlingome. lt is supported by o series of Guiding Principles thot touch on the most
importont topics, opportunities or issues thot will be oddressed in the updoted Generol
Plon. These items were reviewed by the City Council ond Plonning Commission of the
joint retreot in Morch 2016. They were olso reviewed by the community during
Workshop ond Survey #2in Moy/June 2016. The Vision ond Guiding Principles estoblish
the overoll policy fromework for the updoted Generol Plon-ond in turn, oll gools,
policies, stondords ond progroms included in the Plon will relote bock to the Vision ond
Guiding Principles.
Concepl Alternotives
ln Spring 2016, City stoff ond the consultont teom developed on initiol set of Concept
Alternotives bosed on community input ond technicol onolysis. The purpose of the
Concept Alternotives wos to show lond use, mobility, ond policy options for the future.
The olternotives were orgonized oround six key study oreos thot ore expected to be the
primory locotions of lond use chonges resulting from the Generol Plon updote: North
Burlingome/Rollins Rood, the Boyfront, Broodwoy, Howord Street in Downtown, El
Comino Reol, ond Colifornio Drive. The consultont teom presented on initiol droft of the
Concept Alternotives to the City Council ond Plonning Commission of the joint retreot in
Morch 2016 f or their review ond comment. This feedbock wos used to refine the
olternotives, which were then presented to the community during Workshop ond Survey
#2in Moy/June 2016. As mentioned in the Community Engogement section obove,
over 240 community members commented on the olternotives, which helped guide
development of the Emerging Lond Use Concept being presented of the September 7
City Council Study Session.
COMMIIEE, COMMISSION, AND COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS
Three key groups ore guiding development of the Generol Plon, ond hove been
involved throughout the process in different woys. The following describes the
involvement of the Community Advisory Committee, the Plonning Commission, ond the
City Council since the beginning of the Envision Burlingome process.
\-,
7
\-.
\-
\-
lnvlSt0nSltRltnrRmr
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
Community Advisory Committee
The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) wos estoblished by the City Council eorly in
the Envision Burlingome process to odvise the project teom throughout the
development of the updoted Generol Plon. Members include representotives from o
voriety of orgonizotions ond perspectives, including neighborhood groups, business
groups, tronsportotion ond housing odvococy groups, ond environmentol
orgonizotions. os well os residents representing o ronge of perspectives, including youth,
renters, ond seniors.
The role of this committee is to connect with the vorious communities ond stokeholders
of Burlingome for the purpose of odvising ond moking recommendotions to the
Plonning Commission ond City Council. The CAC hos been very octive, holding 1 1
meetings between July 22,201 5 ond July 27 , 2016. The committee hos been closely
involved with the development of the Generol Plon fromework, porticipoting in self-
guided wolking tours to generote ideos for the concept olternotives during
Winter/Spring 2016, ond providing in-depth feedbock to identify the Emerging Lond Use
concept during Spring/Summer 20.l6. CAC members hove olso engoged in discussions
obout mobility ond circulotion, os well os historic preservotion ond sustoinobility. They
will continue to be involved with the development of Generol Plon elements ond
policies throughout the process.
lnformotion on CAC meetings, including summories ond meeting moteriols, is ovoiloble
on the project website ot: www.envisionburlinqome.oro/communityodvisorycommittee.
City Council/Plonning Commission Relreols
Envision Burlingome hos been o focol point of the post two onnuol City
Council/Plonning Commission Retreots. On Morch 7,2015, Envision Burlingome wos
entering its first phose, ond the retreot focused on o discussion of Generol Plon
requirements, content, ond coordinotion with other City policies ond plons. The
meeting olso discussed the proposed work plon for the Generql Plon ond Zoning
Ordinonce updote, including outreoch ond community engogement strotegies.
This post yeor, on Morch 19, 2015, the onnuol retreot provided on updote on the
Envision Burlingome process, including CAC ond other community input gothered
during the first yeor of the project. The moin discussion of the study session focused on
the Droft Vision ond Guiding Principles ond Droft Concept Alternotives for the six study
oreos within the City. As mentioned obove, feedbock from the retreqt wos used to
refine the olternotives for Community Workshop #2 on Moy 21 , 2016.
B
\- Plonning Commission Study Session
\-Invt5t0n
SURltnrnmE
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
On July 13,2015, the Plonning Commission met to discuss the Emerging Lond Use
Concept developed by City stoff ond the consultont teom during eorly Summ er 2016.
The consultont teom presented informotion on housing ond populotion growth
projections, providing the context for o robust conversotion obout the Emerging Lond
Use Concept. Feedbock from the Commission of the July session will be incorporoted
with guidonce from Council of the September 7 session to determine o finol Preferred
Lond Use Concept in Foll 2016.
Minutes from the Plonning Commission Study Session ore ottoched in this pocket.
COUNCIT DISCUSSION TOPICS
The consultont teom will present the following items to the City Council ond Plonning
Commission for their review, discussion, ond feedbock during the September 7,2016
City Council Study Session.
Burlingome Growth ond Housing Discussion
To identify o finol Preferred Lond Use Concept ond policies for the Generol Plon
updote, it is importont to understond the context of populotion ond housing growth
within Burlingome ond ocross the region os o whole. The purpose of this discussion is to
think obout how much Burlingome would wont to grow over the nexl20-25 yeors, ond
how the Generol Plon con identify policies to occommodote on oppropriote level of
growth for the community.
Seq Level Rise ond Adoptotion Discussion
Another importont topic thot will guide development of the Generol Plon is seo level
rise. Given Burlingome's Boyfront locotion, ond the increosing importonce of
sustoinobility ond climote chonge, this discussion is intended to provide context ond
guidonce obout how future chonge in Burlingome con be cognizont of issues of
climote chonge ond how the City con prepore for climote-reloted hozords.
Emerging Lond Use Concept
City stoff ond the consultont teom hove developed on Emerging Lond Use Concept
bosed on the Concept Alternotives process conducted during the Spring ond Summer
of 2016 (described obove). The purpose of this discussion is to gother feedbock from
the City Council on the Emerging Concept in order to refine it ond identify the Preferred
Lond Use Concept for the Generol Plon. This will estoblish the fromework oround which
the Generol Plon ond Environmentol lmpoct Report (ElR) will be prepored. The
community ond decision mokers will be oble to comment ond discuss the lond use plon
9
\-
\-
Inulfl0n
BIRlINGNME
general plan and
zoning ordinance update
ogoin once the droft Generol Plon ond Droft EIR ore ovoilqble for public review eorly
next yeor.
School District Coordinotion
City stoff ond ihe consultont teom ore in the process of working with Burlingome School
District to ensure coordinotion throughout the remoinder of the process. During this
discussion item, the consultont teom will provide on updote on communicotion with the
District ond onswer questions obout the District's input into the Generol Plon.
NEXT STEPS
City stoff ond the consultont teom will refine the Emerging Lond Use Concept bosed on
City Council feedbock to identify the Preferred Lond Use Concept. The consultont teom
will olso prepore o Droft Sofety Element of the Generol Plon, which will be presented to
the CAC ot its September meeting os the first of the droft elements. The CAC will then
be involved in developing subsequent elements throughout the Foll of 2016.
,l0
ItI
IhhElgah
IIxrdE
e
ET
IlrtI
=fhrlt
awe@,ftqE
"m
*n
**n
?t"rtL/-\ud @tl\Y &.*atr-l WL-' A q"\,
@
Aw er
w7
-(J*ffi-3J\,,qL-aat\*^a Yw>!tr# Lt_.r fitra\titJffi
ID
::.
z
a
&
%
i
:
Tcnight's Agenda and Discussion ltems
l. Project Cverview
ll. R*gional Considerations: Projected Growth and Housing
Demands
lll. Sea Level Rise Considerations
lV. School District Coordination
V. Developing the Concept Alternatives
Vl. CAC and Planning Commission lnput
Vll. Discussion Ouestions
rll
EEItE-.aET-E
E
E'I
UII
-h
rat
*
@
z
,
.ffi
*.------.*
t
2
z
..2
a,
*
,z
\
,,
*
.Lt u.Itz
z
.1:,...
..--:?.2 t
,,t' ,
2,,
',,
Z
t
'>-,.
*
a
z
=
,z
' Z':Z
a
.;.,
,
.,,
:
*-
,d€
-L-e**3
w
\-€&
lJ3
\*
da?n\J
*tt\J*Jrc
*{xL
1'
What is Envision Burlingame?
The Envision Burlingame process looks to answer
the question "How do we want Burlingame to
look, function and feel 25 years from now?"
L/L'L_/
Envision Burlingame Progress
ffi Existing Conditions and opportunities
WStakeholderlnterviewsandExistingConditionsReport
eted
W
W
W
W
Environmental Review
Scoping and Environmental lmpact Report (ElR)
General Plan Public Hearings and Adoption
Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings
Zoning Ordinance Update
Updated Descriptive Text, Diagrams and Regulations
Specific Plan Technical Updates
Focused updates to Downtown, Bayfront and Rollins Road Plans
Summer - Winter
2016
Winter - Spring
2017
Winter - Summer
2017
Fall 2017
L/L/LI
Draft
ln June 2015, the City conducted neighborhood intercept surveys
at Burlingame's most popular commercial areas to gather
information for the Envision Burlingame project.
.N\
rrBBlx$ffy'
lntercept Surveys
L-/L/L-/
n October 24, 2015, the
City hosted the first
community workshop.
lVore th an 70 people
attended and shared their
ideas and vision for
Burlingame's future !
Community Workshop #1
L)tr'L_/
ln February 2016, a group of Burlingame High School students
embarked on a field trip to the Bayfront area to develop design
concepts for future changes based on how they use the area.
PTL
/O-'^
o, -t'^3r'r
s,
$
ffiffi
tfi(}"
ffi
s^\s\ !\J (5l
&ur|ng.rtnn l'ligh $rhrol
Pl*nnurg nnd S*$qrr Pruj*rt
r&* 1$$il*m $Ssrr,
s{r, N hsn!* &$;. sx hs
Local High School Students
L,/L/LI
N
. ... . 't'i i.-l ri'.,t i. : i..ry . ,, ...
" , '1ii'.ll
Community Advisory Committee Meetings
The CAC, formed to connect diverse stakeholders to
advise and make recommendations to City staff and
decision makers, has held 11 meetings focusing on
land use and economic policy issues.
nc
uan
if Clark
nath
,i{v dF &,erf,re^(e:
6i6} g!EJC-PJd;'{ eqd6 c&).,*\.E ; o}r'€
dtrd;i ;o\d.i- .t-l.;tr"86 s;
l\i{$fl"\9"l&,rl"l&|$.ts.l
{! se0lr $t^{s it?s' il{w&/s{}
isl$i$.({Silrsit-1'.hp, .
CI 6$.tilEP*ffi.$
.. hts&iA.!t.
r,{*sf,fd
rE s{a{
{$$} srY$|.
r\$dre,)$ffi.
orm Tore
L-/L-/L'
CAC Roster
Kathy Schmidt
Kris Cannon
Laurie Simonson
Cathy Baylock
Perry [Vlizota
Jeff DelVartini
John N/lartos
Janet Vlartin
Molly Kaplan
On [Varch 7,2015, City staff and the consultant team kicked offthe
project during the Council and Commission's annual retreat.
On March 19,2016, the main discussion of the retreatfocused on the
Draft Vision and Guiding Principles and Draft Concept Alternatives.
City Counci I and Planning Commission Retreats
L'l- -/t
On July 13, 2016, the Planning
Commission reviewed the
Emerging Land Use Concept and
provided feedback and guidance
at a study session.
Planning Commission Study Session
L-/L/L_/
NW
m
..is
n\& q;-*-"*-. ... *--,*"........,-,,,,
gI
-E:t
15-h
ItE
I-T
-httI
Ut
-
fhll|
a 3 *ryffi&re s*g w@rAfrw8\#=w*eqYe4 --r-1\glr&,:gAtrt U1l*I 7
^{*ll-u
K \{fl -r
,f L:@ I
***
tM.# ,lql-d I'E*3 \,4.*tAE
7*m, Llu 191\Jh*n
faq,ra *r g
,ea '%
w I *
^ {V LL'
E fr, mrctj- g*1
,?
1..
ffi
%
..
a-
a
tta.
:.
..:
:.4-:
.:
.,'*-'.2'4<*-a:< --tu..:
€. :. '7.:aaa :.;'&
?-,
a
*r,.'.&.'
%4=
?,
,: /-z.....2...=
2...a.;,.,.
747.:2 : .t..
Regional Growth Trends Population
Bay Area
The population of
the Buy Area has
increased by
270,000 between
2010 and 2014,
reaching 7 .4 million.
1.49&
1"?1&
{o/lr's
0"8l.s
CI"fr!6
0".1%
0.3x&
1SSCI-z$CI$2000-2CI{0 2t)"!0-2814
l[ us ffi Califonria f BayArea
Sr:mrce: AffiAS frnm tmJrflmm"wm Sw6:mdrmmn$ *f Srruammm Imfufw #-$ *xnri ff-S daf*
$fetfm *$$fom ffimpi*n trS$$. ffi*m,*lumry, Snp:**fm$rnm mrud Mmi"rsirug A$SAS
0Ys
L'L_./
Average Annual Pnpulatinn Gnowth Rate
{1 990-2000, 20CIs-2CI1 S, 201 0-2CIn4}
ffi
Regional Growth Trends Population
San Mateo County
Between 2010 and
2015, San lVlateo
County's population
grew 6.5% to
7 65,1 35.
Average AnnuaN Populatinn Growth Rate hy County
(1 Sqff-2CI0il, 2$00-?CI1 CI, 20'n 0-tCIi 4)
1.&%
1.S%
't.4$&
,.Ltr
t96
s.8$6
0-E96
0-49e
s"[$6
s96
$l rsso-aooo I rrlss-roln W zorn-rota
$mrurue:,Effi,ES #mrn ffmJlfumrm SmpmNrylwnf mf,Sru.lmrlmm Imf:le ffi-$ *rnd ffi-$ dm$m
$$m$m *f fJ"rw Nw6r*mm tr#$$: S*mmmrm3q Smg:*Jm$imru mn$ $"d*ms*"rgr, AmAffi
Sm*s**s il*ri*&fumfs, US tmnsurm ffiNnemu*
.c ds{$t-d dd
"8' d,"+
'.*d ^.po((4r
*r*"
-d.--c c
L,/L'L'
Regional Growth Trends Jobs
Bay Area
With a 9.8% increase
in employment
between 2010 and
2013, the Bay Area has
outpaced both
California and the U.S.
in job recovery.
Job Levels Relative ts 4th Quarter 2007 [Previor.rs Peak]
U5, Califmrnia, and Bay Area
S tts W calrorn*a I gay ArEa
$n*rpm: SSAS frprn {"1$ S*"rrsmm *f d-m$mr,S$mfis$rrs derfm.
tVmfm: ffim$a vs mm$ s*msnmerJfy mNjus$w$. S**wrm$wr.*#SI f*veJ rs rmdmxw*$ $u $$S
$f-*fw mflfhm Nmgrlmrr #S?$: Snr:mmmy, trr:pmlmfr*n mmd Nmt;sinE, Affi&ffi
110
1$5
r00
s5
90
ss
$* $ $$# 5$# $ $ $$$5$$ # $ $$$ n$$ $ $ $F- @ "6 06 o& d' d' d d * S * $ * - r s r tr f, r y v y F n v y
L'L'L'
Regional Growth Trends Jobs
San Mateo County
In San lVateo County,
total employment
grew by 16,800 jobs
in 2014 -- a growth
rate of 4.6%
Average Ann ual Ernployment
Bay Area Counties (199n-:013 and 2CI14 Estimatei
1,30S,00s
1,000,000
B0CI,mm
ssfi,0fl0
40s,n0s
t0s,ms
t Alarneda
ffi Contra Costa
f Marin
il Napa
! "San Francisco
ffi Sam lrdateo
! Santa f,lara
Solano
ffi sonnrna
Reeessifrfls
0
Hr&lrf)U,lEFFT(}tf(}(f
f'l r',1 f.,l f{
rto F c\! (f) .tr ro (o t\ 6 6l) c} F ({ (f) (t to (o F* @ oro) c') 0, c) dr (', d, o) o, oJ o 6 (] od o o o o (f
cD o) 6, 6, 6) @ 6) 6, 6, o) () C) e (f, O O Cl C] C' Or F r p F r p tr r r (rl t\'l {\l f{ r'l C{ C{ C{ f{ C.l C)
,S,rn $.Sm{wu ffmr"rmfy #*mnm*t.u* Smrurmsf
L-/l--/It
$*l;ruw. Sffi,4 S Sr:rdrfmrmr*r ffmpdmyrnmm$ SmwwJmg:rmwnf Sm3:mr{rmmmf e$mfm.
Regional Growth Trends Housing
Bay Area
Growth in the housing
stock across the Bay
Area is not keeping
pace with employment
or population growth.
The region's housing
stock grew by fewer
than 40,000 between
2A10 and 2014 while
the popu Iation
increased by 270,000
during the same time
period.
Historical Trend for Housing Crowth - Bay Area
.Y
:}
s)
,Y
m
s"i
s
-s)s
J
s0k
60k
40k
I0k
sk
1$S0 1990 2000
W Single-Fanrily Units W Uutti-family Units
SSf# \rr$mJ $rgrms. N**;srng ffirnw$fu,
lldfp :,#r,vr,,rrw wr$mdsrgrms" wfm. mm. grwvlirmr*srmgr-prmwffr
?01CI
l"'ll$h(|xsr{ $ ^($r'r'r
L-/L/L_/
r970
Regional Growth Trends Housing
San Mateo County
lVlost housing growth is
occurring outside of
San lVlateo County.
Sin ce 2010, San lVlateo
County added only
2,148 housing units.
Average Units Added per Year by County
(199S1 999, 200G2009, and 2S1 0-20'1 3)
$,fisfi
5,m0
4 00CI
3,0s0
3,0su
1,CI0n
i.t
fC "..."(P
oo* -dr
Jo,ss ",-c CC ."--. n*d
qft+"
uu 1SS0-1$SS I r$00-r00$ w2010-3013
$n*r*w: AS,{S finnr Smirforrrim Smpmrf,mwnf *f $m*rn*w InSlw tr-$ amN S-S dmfel
S$mf* *S fJre Smgrfnn fS{$. frn*mr:*ty, Smpi"r$mfi*:m cxltd N*usfmgr, ,Affi.,q$
Regional Growth Trends F Housing
Fercent of Renter{ccupied Hor-lsirlg {.Jnits hy Csunty
{1990, }.000.2010 and 20t3}
From 201 0 to
2013, the tota
owner-occup ed
units in the region
decreased by
7 ,6A0 while the
number of renter-
occupied units
increased by
52,700.
70q&,
6096
50$6
409&
30rys
IS$6
1CI$&
CIsls
*sd "--"' (ro*
,r$
+q .dP ^C(rD
e!"^
{Nrso dPs
6f' nps
sd ..d .od
t rsso I r{iso W poxCI I rnrs
,$t:rurcm. AS,4S fr*m $$$S, #SSS, #$$$ Smruse.rsms mmN *SS$-*#f S Amsmmmru Smmrutr^r*rfy ,$*rrvmy
$-Ymc,lr ffsflltre*$ms
$$mfm nf $$w Nwgri*m #S{$: ffnmmmrny, S*3:t*dm$rmm mn$ Nmmsrulp, AffiSffi
Regional Growth Projections
Bay Area
ABAG projects a population gromh of 33.2% and an employment
growth of 37 .7"/" in the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040.
7 ,150,7 40 9,299 50 2,148,410
J obs ,300
2,608,020
4,505,220 1 ,119 ,920
3,308,1 10 700,090
660,000
33.2%
295%
27%
24%Housing Units 2,785,950 3,445,950
Sdmn Smjr,4rmm #SSS; mnc$ ffimgrJmmmJ Smrwars.*s$ fl*r"SJmd"} Smy,S*-wr* S$dS, AmAffi
L/L-/L_/
Popu lation
Households
Regional Growth Projections
San Mateo County
ABAG projects a slightly slower growth rate in San Mateo County than
in the Bay Area as a whole, with a population growth of 26% and an
additional 56,000 housing units.
188,000
345,000 445,000 100,000
316,000 58,000 28%
Housing Units 271 ,000 327,000 56,000 a4 0/zl /o
26%
29%J obs
Juf:s N**rsrrip ffimmnwnfrmm $frmfm6y, NffiAS *Sf #
Popu lation 71 8,000 906,000
Households 258,000
Regional Demographic Projections E lncome
Economic stratification is projected to continue to increase in the Bay
Area, with low- and high-income households growing faster than
middle-income households.
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
500,000
u <30,000
w s30-s59,999
w s60-s99,999
r s100,000+
200,000
20!o
ASAS ffrujmcfimms S$$S, *m{$$S SmJJ,*y's
th
rE
o
-cota
Jo
I
0
2040
400,000
Lower lncomeTracts (> 39Yo of HH are
considered Low lncome)
Moderate to High lncome Tracts (<39%
of HH are considered Low lncomel
Not losing low incoma households or
very early stages
Does not fall within any of the below
categories
illot losing low income households or
very early ltages
Does not fall within any of the below
categories
Regional Displacement - Urban Displacement Project
{Jrfu*xrt ffispf*cwmsi"}f PflsJ#sd, Nffi Smr:kmimy
',4..
noe.o5
o,
U6'
E-
o,n
(D
3o
=*
I
wo
-lo
o,
':::
{
.'
7
4
*{*
&*
.:a
a:-.
a
a'
*@;+ 6 *
1;* i-r f-t $. .A.,tZT.?ry,22:. w*- ?: q 3' a}fl4nfEB1ig flq *ry'dqxd tD
9 r,q'i{ * '-SaI& r8 r:-rT!*3-l3it;'r4\{_, ; 413 ti J. Cl r_i rua*E + r n Sn'gIfr t rH ?? g :r &u:59" a'3rlL&143 'j -L1
ry*,IJI:?i G;
d-fiw.3f.l "rE'rymAHfi-+:nrt dl
11
At
..ru*q:
1*@; s,
l5 ti tJ r:A
?CPZTtt:3-'etr-ifr*#,:n3'4 s tl *r-r rlq !1- L.lryqH5')r,r. 5. fl_ qq ffigrnG.ESn *E = aF# H P H*HHg,aj "{ a*datr*j *L'r *Ye-*
trJj"a
€LlE*4. r,1
t3
s,t7
LA
?'+b,tr
!3
t'1
4
.2 .'
'.:-..
'',
;/
,
:
,
,
a
a
*
,uz
,--
L] q-
,* z---
*;
1"1
JIi
w-,frL'.t\
*_-;*
7d
gJ
icl fY,fr
#fr
4U4LtE
4u=,€-?, E F
EE HE fiBeH,*5fr*-z * 0.1I rJ
E3.w,Er€iEt r:1, -If ,g frr rE o airt "ft h$ r-ti:ft',jf ?.e_ x ltl r,lj ffir?-l +r 'i E 46fr;CEtz43#
UJA-rira4
LI7 '':? @ lt
'...1aru,a
74Lfr .*;2., ea; EjHv.6.1 ei
r^ f?JeJe
ha u
- ELf rr t-tst'fi[rF.g 6krrEEH4{LI-il sE HE,U
B. E H E PE
h E E u; CL-LE.I-iJ0JbrhsE * tu,hrE i3E HHEf'gh h 0 fr E ElUU.Jrf,FuEij:rI3e';z E5Xazutr g r| rr 'tE : ,@*
**
7
::, ;. '-..--
'.- a- -..
a1 z'z
::: aa
< "'1
.,
'?"
a
*
2-
,
''t'?;."€
Z.
..1
#
C
=oU
oo#(u
C(ua
I
P
C
(u
EoU(u
o_
.9o
(u
C
.9
O)ou.
Regional Displacement - San Mateo County
Iyplcol $olsrles lor Vorlour Occupollonol Groups ln lhe $on Frqnclsco-Sqn i\ qteo-ftedwood Cify, CA
Metropolilon Oivbion (Moy 2014) ond Allordobte fienl
trllmol*d Avsoge Annuol Solory
All0{d0X}ls Reol foct$
Avsro$s ?sksd
Fol'Rents in Scn
M{rso Co\}nly n$
of J0nu(l{y 201 6
l)llttlrenIe
Belwqen
Avsro$o
'Ark*d Foi.'
Nlonlr (:nd
}i10nlhly $s1ory
Gen0rcllired
HUDiI.ICD
llousehoid
lncoms
C0ttsga{y
Occupollansl Aroo tolod8r As
0t M0y 201,{+
Adiu$lmsrrl R6nlEossdon
t020ld 3SK0ftnc0rne
Dollors lt4.ffi {:Ul6 do11o$}
cPrl
trood PrepdRllion & Ssrving Rsloterl
PBrronal C$r6 & 5€{vi{6
Suildin$ & Groundr Cleoning & Moinisnsnco
$27"r r0
$33.040
$33,8S0
$28"1 9,{
$34.3d?
$3S"23s
$704.86
$8s9,04
$880.8&
$2.786
$2.78d,
$2,7fi6
-$?.0sr
"$r,92I
.$r.985
_ o_trEo
E BB6 CYIi rtr-gr
f$rnin$. Fishing, & f$isslry
l'leslthcore 5upp0{l
Prrf,dvction
&$nsF)()rt{)li$n & Mfltsri0l Movin$
Ollice & ]ddffiinislrolivo Suppor,l
Cornrnu$ily & socifil S6fvic6
$3s,620
$40,080
$4 L8$0
$41, l 60
$41.0d0
$53.640
$37"04$
$4 r ,683
$43.$?4
${3.&46
$48.9t2
$55,786
$926. r I
$r.04?.08
$l ,088" r 0
$r.096.r6
$1.223.04
$i "394^64
$?.786
$2.786
$?,7S6
$2,786
$2.786
$?.78&
-$r "860
-$r.7{4
"$t,6?s
"$1.690
-$r.$63
"$1,$f t
O=tooqusE6
5sJa
g3
$nl6s & Rsloted
ln:toltotion. M6inlenonce. & Repoir
Prolscllv6 Sorvice
[ducilli$n. Ifi]lning. & Lllyory
ConttnJ*tir:n & Sxhclcli+q
tut$. Pe$i$n, E$tsri$inmenl, SS$rt$. & M*dir:
$5s"6?0
$$e, r00
$6n.r40
$dl,l l0
$66,370
$r3"020
$s7"B4s
$61.464
$63"378
$d3.554
$de,025
$75.94r
$r,c{d.r?
$r.s36.6*
$r.s8-r.{d
$r.588.86
$r,225^6t
$ l "s98.$?
$?,786
$?.786
$2.I86
$?,7Sd
$2,786
$t"/86
'$1,3{s
-$r "2{}
"$r,1s!
"$r.rry
"$r,0d0
-$s8r
Ut*, Physicsl. & Ssci$l Scien(s
8$sin*$ & trinonnl{,I Opsratieni
tushils{:luNs S. [{rgiilsffing
C(}illpule{ & Molhaff olir()l
ll*{}lthc$6 Pfoclilinntsf5 E" Itschnlc0l
$e4, I ?0
$9/.480
$r03"640
$ I 06,990
$r09,820
$?7,88s
$r0r,3r9
$ t07.786
st I 1.2/0
$l r4,213
$?.447. l ?
$2.s34.4t1
$2.694.64
$:,/8 I "74
$2,855,32
$?.786
$2.786
$2,)86
$?./86
(o 7ar
-$$39
"$252
"$rt
-$4
+$6?
o^Egoi5
esioE
od
b"1Er€6
le$0l
M$n(:gemenl
$1 39,9d0
$l 50,700
$l 45,538
$r s6,728
$3,638.44
$3.918"i0
$?,)86
$2"786
rg$52
+$1"t32
s$urrd: unitdd si)16! 06pr)rln1Bht ol l$bsr. sursoLi ol lohoi slfjtisfics. Mdy 201 { hilp:l/ww.bls.0dvlo6$/cunsni,fo6r*4l88.d.htm.R l3-0000 * volu6$
i{rll(}led ls Decefber ?015 $oltu$ u$ii{X lhe Boy Ar$f Cor\sunrer Price In{jex {CPt}. R*r\ls t}or$ed oi sufey} cor]du*le$ fsur liries pel y*o{ by Resl
Answers {iormarly fteolfcclr}, "Aiko.d foC'rents h dovoloprnonls ol 50 or n}ore unils. llUD/HCD lncome lirni}s ors for ?0.l5.
Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley
se$CeiOG
.Q'{)9ls
.E
{l}13 €o
IE
z.€ro
{,C
E
=(}
F
o(s
L
9co
iE(}
.cf
coc\I
(t)()
a)2
c'e$o,tosc-(E
U'
oI$(tr0
q
Siu)(,
\c'
.;
;C
E
Eo
O
,t)
o-vLo36
lg
1l'
1'
,
eELE {r,c,t
EO
coI- l-OlLOo,.o?. {aa
E*I
X,X
(3Cr,
,
ClI
e{J,n'6 rr:c aal$trisc$(t>
.Y)f,c{o(3tro9(}-co()()tfLf}-a{rt
-llrrrrOo()(}b rr,- 'fr- dlf, r (\l r-%*:
t
C
c()
"*
F
E{}
IL
(ri
o
otG}L(st
l;():c)([(}V,z
**
&",t
*?'a
*.**{}
b.
Z*
L}
,*
,
:*
Rn>\J*
rr*
erof(*F(> -;**{'.i YuYt4
EEHilr"L qq3 z*x*
?*-
-r*7xx
s{i**t**
=14,..) *
*$
":t ilLJk {s3
*"x:: _.* er'*x :r
Y.; *.;b4
<2 {4e)>r..t''xx*x*xE8lll(J
r-
t<":n_Fa*r I'-U<
Co
#(o
l-
.?
E
I
C
aa
#c
=oU
oo#o
Loa
a
Cl-oP.Poo-
oP5
E
EoU
o
C
.oolo
E,
C\I€,$I
N3,\ tovO
a! c.J
Ce
€)
*
. *..,
,"* *,
,,3 gt::*..r€fiIl/2 .,.:
,At - ,,,.
3:.:',,:: '
:.:$ *'zi*,c --
"8:.:7,,.
* t:t'
za.-l-::a
w
ru*<E-%:Z-*
=.;ffi
=T@"
'-,7ffi-
'a*
::,r:.'**(}tf;q5C)
,:.*:.
.13:l::.,::
ffig%ffi&w
%
ffiffiw
t-,*: ,o31
*7**bt'4
***';*t:*
324i"ekc,
4,7"asLJ?a '1x
*a<.'r +x,<{cdp6
HT.*- 7:**
**
*-'*#H* '-:,?1'*';3
{:=qu145?yhb*. ,;
k**-*$:*s
ats*t)
11 agFgE
TH
.L; '4**;&*
?*.**,
.s'ff,
**
^r#F'a. *:{c*
l-o
{-,(o
l-
a?
E
IP5
C
aa
#c
-oU
oo#o
Coa
g9o
$2
oCChco!ro
JF
6
!o!Jtno'
=
o
{!ii <r'E o)
$
a).g)cr
H a,r; r.*
c(sa <f)rc(!0
or)
$o.t[Z
$g
$
=
C$*
rf$l(}
rOa{r
.u
O
(r!'
'*
E
Ea(}
./,
{1,-vo3
6
€
8
trcg3bf.86
E5
58
?ELaEEEgx
-aua
."'-t(}
,n
F-
{:}{}
Iqf
t-{){()clc,oP(),.oC, u- tf, F-Cftf)fir
rtar.rr(}ooob()-o-.n!r rO C{
%%ru:
C
*(-)
.2
F
P
tl,
()
oh(UEE_qLJL(Eooz
a
CI-
(I).PP(u
o-
(l)H:l
E
EoU
o
C
.o
o)o
E.
Na
iJ-s*c
.Ew
€,
,.*.,,:.:'& r{vuEgd
Cln
{r2 .ffiffi%
%
*
{lFo;f;'t'rt1.
Regional Transportation lmprovement Projects
CalTrain Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project
Spuns 51 miles from San Francisco toa
a
San Jose
Constructed in 4 k*y segments, with
Burlingame planned in Segment2
Approve d 201 5, expected
i.plementation in 2020
San Bruno
Milbrae Tronsit
C6r*6r
Bur{ingann
& Sert
Hsf'*$nd Psrk
I'lilledalo
Baknort
SnriCfflm
nndwood Ciay
l\rdunio Fark
Polo Ahn
CIulihm$e Ail$.
San Anronio
Mourtarr
br
Sunnyvols
Ssnta
a
r0t
aj'i&Larrvrgtca
tEI.
& cotnge Perk
8an Jcc DHdon SAPosr*r
1,} ramim$
O {9
Nr{hw$:x
l$A
t-,-{il
Regional Transportation lmprovement Project
BART Silicon Valley
. Planned 16-mile, six-station extension of the existing BART
system into Silicon Valley
Focuses on the East Buy through tvlilpitas to San Josea
6-
::LbltrMcr
,oi
do +l.-r :ldrr6. Sfdolr
Eatrlcsst
sAx.rlsE SAN JOSE
r!
-
BenTs$cqlvals,
Bcnyaesa Enandoll
BAAI Sl$con \hlcy Excdsr
(Fritut PtEsr)* MfifwarmspdngsEnalconl+ Cafr"It
".*.- rAEtaDltol Conkbr, ' . VfALhhreX
W$ BAftISIaton
I Prletg
Legend
illlpltas Statlon
LEGEND
-
Phas ll At-Gr:daAltgnmst
m PhaEllTunElAlignmnt
WAs BART Silicon Valley - Phase ll Extension Proioat dam
-\
uIrr.
E
'-ril
Jf.
o Plan Bay Area is a long-range integrated transportation and
land-use/housing strategy through 2040, written jointly by
ABAG and MTC.
It is the Bay Area's first long-range plan, and meets the
requirements of Senate Bill 375, which calls for a Sustainable
Communities Strategy to accommodate future population
growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
a
Plan Bay Area 2040 Overview
'.\
$
Mm5,uffim-umm
i
Plan Bay Area
provides a strategy
for meeting BO% of
the region's future
housing needs in
Priority
Development
Areas (PDAs)
San F
:i.t,t
l'r,.tlt'"r
Hoyw$rd
I
r.ri
Miilb
hlls!ocrrgh Focter C,ity
Sa*dorloC
r'Woalside
,t @
Na rork
Mateo
Mcdo Pirk
HaltMom Bn/
Santa Cl^' cguAreas in purplf,e,fp s
Athert
eI
Plan Bay Area 2040 r Overview
tL'L-J
\,liw
,l
\
\t
I
ABAG Priority Development Area
Showcase:
http : //g i s. ab ag. c a. g av/we b site/PDA Sho
wcaser#nogol
I T
Plan Bay Area 2040 Growth Assumptions
a
a
Plan Bay Area assumes future development in the region will focus
on infill development near transit, particularly within Priority
Development Areas.
Not based on historical growth and development patterns.
$&I
,tt,]
m
\./L/L'
*m$;
tr$s
ffis#
.1
N
s I
:mm.iN
oaL
c
tc
az
rj
4'l
4
'*4
,*
"% ?^toZ
)-A-orrn:3. 7%*
-.% rr
T
?
u'
{
e,&
u*
a*
onl
c
,e<
+(o
E
(U
O)
.g
=:lm
o
-C
o)co
()
i=c
C)
no-
rU
.9
oou
o
,=
Eo
LU
oo
G
=c(gae,L?1
(,4
!a)
6
e'$
E
TEol
,&
2t
J
o.o,%.Ff*
t+e
.,,, ujol
?i.
b.!,,c0 1L
o_
%
o*
+s
%.,r*o*
;
b,
S'/bur*€
E*
'*1
{/7
,r"nn%
I
","w\
too-
'e4r.
'S/
.Q'
o!
a!
ri
€oaL
qL
F.
,"4
cI na
t)-
4,
TE
'E
o
u'o,
\"
"f -a
r\1-gc'
'a7,rtn
o
*
o
G
7
o
E
(U
o)
.g
t-
:)
m
l-or{-
a
Co
po
.9
o-
E
I
OsrON
(u
ot-
(U
m
co
o-
q
-o
*ro
6
2
o
d
a-
'Q ),,.L
,.t
v,..<t
7
7 7
Ea
%m
ABAG projects an approximate 10% population increase each
decade in Burlingame, for a total population of 38,400 by 2040.
Po lation Ereilnrth and tr ng
5CI{.I$}
400ti]
30ilm
3Oilm
r Burlingame
r{rfgl1tlty AVFrage
1Ofl10
s
JffiS 3nLil 3.m30 JS3[! il.(}m
Eurlrngame Housing filemenf
Plan Bay Area 2040 - lmplications for Burlingame
San Mateo County Scenarios
Plan Bay Area 204A Update - Scenario Planning
&nnwth $ronm tsfllt)
Burlingame Growth F Historic Patterns
Burlingame Population Growth between 1990-2014
1990 26,801
28,158 s%
28,806 23%
201 4 29,618 2.8%
2000
i"ir l lrrLr.llri t,,, I lllllrit ifll J-:lrilr\r,,tr tl.
2010
Burlingame Growth F Historic Patterns
Burlingame Employment Growth between 1 998-2012
34,216
30,27 4
33,985
-11.5%
12.3%
2003
2008
2012 0.03%33,995
ll.\ l-"'r,,lrir.lr,,,',,t,'*r',J':l "l{ll..l, ltiifi.rlr,,rr.llr l. r:ilr1{)rr)rir,,, ;.11.)lJi
1998
Burlingame Growth Current Demographic Profile
Burlingame Age Profile Bu rl ingame Race/Ethnicity
lVedian Ag e: 40.4 Native
American
L%
Pacific
lslander
0.4
Black
L%
20-24
4%
Asian
2A%
35:44
Lg%
.,r'{-ll(l .ir{"1l.,t .A(..:ii ,ii \l)iti L:sllrli,ilsr
L'L/
I
L3%
Burlingame Growth - Current Housing Profi le
Ten u re Type of Housing
Single Family Attached
2.7%
lllllll ,.rlll tl 1;..i:. ii \'i,r.,lr f-sl'rrrii,lir,lr
Burlingame Growth F Current Affordability Profile
o
a
In 2010, the median cost of a single-family dwelling was
$1,384,000. The median cost of a unit in a multiple-family
building was $654,000.
In 2014,67.8% of homes were worth $t million or more.
. The current average monthly rent for a 1-bedroom unit is
$2,420.
Bulingame Housing Element 2015-2023; American Community Survey ,-Year Estimates, 2011-2014; Apaftment List Rent Report
D ata (hflps ://www. a paft me ntl i st.co m/ren to nom ic she nt al-dat a)
't1
trt
i.1
l.
t
l,
(
ra
Burlingame Growth - Current Jobs/Housing Profi le
nr
O ln 2011 , there were
approxi mately 35,600 jobs
in Burlingame and
approximately 14,700
employed residents.
Only 12% of res i
I
dents Iive
rn9ame.
The 2011Jobs/Housing
o
o
and work in Bur
ratio wa s 2.85
Burlingame Housrng Element 201 5-2023.
UC Davis Center ficr Regional Change, "Jobs-Housing Fit in the *ay Area," ttttp:llnanprofithousing.org/wp-
ca nte ntlu pfoads/8ayA rea*J H F_CRC*Rep a rt_l p ager. p df .
to%
Work and Live in
Work in Santa
Clara County
Work
Elsewhere
3t%
Burlingame
tz%
Burl ingame RH NA : 2A$-2023
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
Household income up
to 30% of AMI
Household income
31 -50% of AIV I
Household income
51-80% of AtVl
$33,950
$56,550
$90,500
138
138
144
Moderate
Above [\4oderate
Household income
81-120% of AN/ I
Household income
above 120% of AMI
$123,600
Market Rate
't55
2BB
TO
S*rrJrmpnrnw Nm*;srngr ffilmrmmnf HS$$-#S#;$" -effiA$. Srm*xf #${S-SSS# ffimgrummmd forot;srrup NmwN,&lfmmm$rmm foy ffinurtfy vrm #$
ffilmm"rwrufs; lvrnmmrm for fmruuly mf d $mm N#S $$mfm Jmuwmm trvmifs #Sf $, wm #$ ffiJwmwm$s
Burlingame Growth E Regional Housing Need Allocation
Median lncome
Burlingame GroWth"-:Cur.rent Residential Pipeline Projects
Approved Projects
Proposed Projects
Preliminary Proj
TOTAL
ects
424
103 237
500 - 572 1,150 - t,3L6
L,O27 - 1,099 2,362 - 2,529
* Based on an average household size of 2.3 persons
B u rI i n g a m 6,G iOiiith'-, ffi rie;t won.Residentia| Pipeli ne Projectsl
Approved Projects
Proposed Projects
TOTAL
835,615
268,636
400,000
L,5O4,25L
Burlingame Growth Comparison of Projections
Historical Growth Rate, 1990-20 IO (5%l
State Department of Finance Growth Rate (L8%)
626
2,254
ABAG Projection (32%)
* Based on an average household size of 2.3 persons
4,171 9,594
L,440
5,185
6,203
tal-hhrIt-h
-dE--B
tfh
EIIrn
It
-hut
LJJ IN2Zx,o
r
-
_I I_
Hfru{tu
-tn LI
tr-gi6
=U
t ,.
;L
,*,
\
{I
aI
,
I
at,
I
:.
t
A ,.-
-t-
rc
-a
t
.2>a
***Y"ga#
*"- '*3*'e&
*" e,$r:*.4*>v*^
>{ <:
"HSftwi:n,
t flS& a*#6a
:a *tr8"?
*6 >,3 3#*2>%r.} u*s P--: &*
ryz *.
* ,; L;**5 E7a*4 L4
R.* QA'?x?1H-{E€liii l:L(} q
= ^,*,4.*E.?*:
* lvj.'.*. *, **,e.*
*x&*,**t3 k -x.{1v *ZE"qf;fia,x" ."- rr: *,k*-;2 "Vs LL! -r-
e*zz#**'Z *
<"-" * ?zO (xU&€: *7 xH!"'.* rH s*ffEiJ,* **
a* il*<t*
;x.\-rl_
-toa
# Fat
f'=
=c-:><e o
EE?UCa-u-oo;8bruu
#(-a.-Oa;o;p.- .P
-.\l -3s,
- .ct-H
bruPAJ-()r0 ()')
()=
-J1a
-C
t- fU\-
()=AU'=f'-xtO()ru
$.cC)o (- l*
rUM.FC)C9r E h6 ro fu U)
tF .^!-O=fU O l,' -f'io U mrro-
(- J-) UA'tr-Oci./,ru#rurc\99 6 iLl-(-u=CC O 6._ ._ O- (_)vl CIx\-/og () oclAi E -Eb
#-C q E CtTt t- I-g .\tt ru o ru =
aa
a
Co
{-,(u
l-o
=a
CoU
q)
.g
E.
()
(uJ
ooa aa
!
I
l\)
bl\)
I
No.!
NN)OO--l (nOO
f\)
o
*zV;*
?g€i,
e=
*?
L{g
S,ao$3<e
sL**
&
*:
3,u
,
!
I
,<?7
:az*"-
v
a*a5
€a
^Y::*qz*,
g.*
4;r,*:A
:
?**;
z€
,.
e*
?
z*
4
:.:j;
-
?
5.
:;)
7, .,
,. I:l.:l
-r -l
.: I-I;I.\ I.-Ii] tr-1 Ii'; ,:
ao
a,ro
o
fr
a
{D
-11
-toLroo(+oo-ano:l
o,
=.oa
H
EEIfrl
H
ru
W
*
".e4*-@'€E
v&.
vr.=*
(,
I
o..o
:
''.1'
=
O
I
\l
9
(,
I
bf\)
N(rt
@
I
s,\l(rl
::t
a:
u
':.:
,,: .
aw
%,
*
a
2
;.>.@=w@.
Sea Level Rise Adaptation - Current Burlingame Policies
Bayfront Specific Plan
a pen space s average of 75 feet from
the bay to th building fagade
- mtntmum wl dth of
uld equa! building height
Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from the edge of
the bay to the building fagade
Open space should extend an average of 65 feet from the edge of
Anza and Sanchez Lagoons to the building fagade
highest tidal action on the bay and an average of 65 feet from the
Channel to the building fagade
Anza Area (AA)
a
Shoreline Area (SL)
o
a
Anza Point (APN)a
Sea Level Rise Adaptation - Potential Strategies
a
a
o
I
a
a
a
Shoreline sea wa I ls/levees
Flood-control buffer areas
Wetland
p rotectio n/resto ratio n
La nd dedication
l*pact fees
Fl ood-proof i nfrastru ctu re
EIevated, floating and/or
floodable development
Restricted
developme nt/[Vanaged
retreat
a
a Plan for emergency events
lI.
IEII
IT
-h
I
dE!,E
ah
C'
Ila
->ahtII
,
zz&"
%
%
Gffi
VZ7*,
,;',
",;*
:.
wremreffi
?,,
.:
**a
z
.@
a
*
*tt\-r'
@f,*
-.@h*wb& %,wg &w@€bffiY@EeE A@uw& ruU7& wrymtr***M
&g@,\#ffiWHgB
L_e W
"P t ?rc W
School districts are separate public
agencies from the City and prepare
their own growth projections and
determine their own facility needs.
City staff and the consultant team have
been coordinating with the School
District staff to ensure they are aware
of potential land use considerations.
ii)''' "' $+ullrSur
Stu$ci$$0
a
Burlingame is served by two public
school districts: Burlingame School
District and San Mateo Union High
School District.
O
!
gt
-hhltut-h-r.c
--E
ah
CT
-lttT
-hrll
,-
a:
'.1,:
.::.
4..
*AlJ-
U3
Uxn\J
*
Lrt
-
*
*Z
jw
t3L&,-
*u
933
?-uftL-J
{;
*wxL:
4.xw1&
*e&L-ol
w
."
a?.@
re
%
::
?.
z
v
:;t'.:
..,
'z
%
ry
c
v@@
*:,
wE
x a1
':-
w
w
w
a
z
z&
%
Community Workshop #2
On [Vay 21 , 2016, ove r 7A peopl"
attended a workshop to review
and provide input on the draft
guiding principles and land use
alternatives for each study urea.
L\,L_i
*
/
{
N I
I-ryN
*Wffih
\
f f Ii
!,u
i
*
t
ICombined S rvey Resu lts
During the workshop,
participants used a
workbook to provide
comments. This workbook
and the workshop display
materials were available via
the online survey from [Vry
21 to June 26.
Combined, over 2OO
people participated !
z;u f
ln March 2015, the City initiated a
three-year process focused on a
community-led effort tr: update
the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
These documents regulate all land
use, environmental, economic
development and transportation
decisions made by City leaders"
L,/L-/L'
ProieclOvervisw
Project Overview
Combined Survey Results
Neighborhoods
What neighborhood
do you Iive in?
Burlingame
Plaza
Burlingame
Village
Ray Park
Mills Estates
Hills
Easton Addition
Burlingame
Grove
Burlingame
Terrace
Burlingame
Gardens
Burlingame Park
Burlingables
DownlovYn
Burlingame
Lyon Hoag
Othor (ploa8o
specify)
i
I
W
t
t
..,.,;i1..,.,, : .,1.t,,,,.-;....IW
II
i$.iiirir
t\ru*t
Wt
Burlingame
0o 1oo/o 2Oo/o 30%
L,/\,L_/
$
I I l{iI'; J,
i
Combined Survey Results
Guiding Principles
How well do these Guiding Principles reflect
the future you envision for Burlingame?
Not At All
2%
Well
48%
Tho Guiding Principlps are organirsd around saven topicr
that are imporlant lo the Burlingame community, Each topir
includes a list o{ specific aaions or obiectives
The toprcs inclrrde:
A. Balanced and Smart Growth
B. Community Character/Urbrn Forefi
C, Connectivity
D Economic Diver$ity and Vitality
E. HealthyPeople/HaalthyPlaces
F. Educatron
G. Civic Engagement
Purpose I Structure
, Support and encaurage tho operatlons of local,
indepandent buslnessas equally to businesses which are
regionally and nationally owned,
. Accommodate a mix o, businessos that collectively work
to maintain a stabla tax base and revenue stream {or the
City.
D. Economic Diversity and Vitality
. Pmmotc productlve partnerships with local schoolr
and othsr edu€tlonal institutions, and recognira that
lrigh-quality education contributes to overall comnrunily
success and heallh.
. Support programs that provide anrichment and lffe-long
learning.
F. Education
Very Well
Combined Survey Results
Bayfront lAlternative A: Current Land Use Policy
Bayfront Study Area
Which alternative do you prefer?
None
8%
Portions of Each
LO%
Alternative B
29Yo
{,nite l w*rhoue ns* diitrkt $tir $r.,t}li.
rii:;li$ i:tlrr$uriitul ltd irr.eil*:r!, mx*s{ u*n
huir:irry$. to ru.il al utt$-r"\ri$nlrJ $$$s
l
Aixiv+ls lhs walerf ront
cmrcid ruel
i arytront lAlternative B: Warehouse Mixed Use
Craate a warohowc rcs di5lriat w'is 5.nali
$cale iffis*cralar*l livelysi (i&d *c
buiiqng$. .r9 weil a$ o(*"orisotedusee
Ad.l lr,gher ciens,ry
.,iu:,r'ti.--
:,,:i.it iriir,lrr..r\ : riiiii,l
Bay{ront lAlternative C: WarehousE Mixed Use
\.rL-/L'
Alternatlve A
L6o/o ,
Combined Survey Results
-
.'k
i ri1,.i, .r rtr:r, .!do row i\r r r"r ,rril...r. .'a ,i,', l,ir,
i,',',riil.ti.\r.I\fi,rLili,,ftixilitirii i\,.1i,...11.:,iriiitli.tnlti
r,,il tlr!\.]i tr l,(:{lii cormt(i{l rl!\i:,
. ,,.,-\ ,r,.,,,.
mrehcueand light
industrial/oflke uses
titoughstlh6 Rcilin6
Roaci area
NB/RR lAlternative B: huto Row
North Burlinga me/
Rollins Road Study Area
Which alternative do you
prefer?
eaile.ies and ,n$-orie.rted sfficial u66
f"re.aia r re-- dorign dstrict Bl atrgitkr rrix rl
ri,: M,lirv;,i: tr:rr.irr
ll,iiii.i$,r! (:ii1,.xir,
NB/RR lAlternative C: Design District
Mriiliio existj^g light irduitrialy'o{lirn ss
d*q Roliins Road.
fIART s!atiorl,
. r,',,r,, ,rrirqj rrr'r
.r,. r ,t , r,r,r 'l r,,,' ,ri, L,i,",i\rll:,.
r,, r,.,1'.1 i., rL' ln,,
NB/RR lAlternative Dr Targeted Mixed Use
Portions of
Each
L4%
None
s%
NB/RR lAltErnative A: Current Land Use Policy
it
BAlternative
16%
Combined Survey Results
I
Downtown Study Area
Which alternative do you prefer?
Portions of
Each
LL%
Alternative E
47%
ar
klH.!i.*brtcE
leryrq\'*rrlBd
I atr.Lr,.*da- rr.'
Id-
L*-elrrcrk spe*
iis r*rCeitial sits
that dso *tueas
btsid*n sp.xes lo'
tis lGidents
Th6e€( iGcluds
a{ stud.E, oifi.s,
craal prodo.li@
scao. mtimge
\]if,
ll$u
Ailsw rir.d u$
alhi, llqBald. Bit\
6if iie a<J l\ei@rl
snace en the grourd
Downtown lAlternative B:0ffica Focus on Howard
None
t"5%
\
Downtown lAlternative A: Current Land Usa Policy
Combined Survey Results
Broadway Study Area
Which alternative do you
prefer?
I !-..,.i-;*
Broadway lAlternative A: Current Land Use Policyffi"*liisN"":-
,i.., r,..:',- fr.l,,r,ll,l ,, !,.r: ,.,,.r.\.:l i .l
:, .rlr-:r..ll .-r '.ri ii - two5torie5.
M
[*! {fr ${i}d
Aiicw nixcd co
hixi.nnqE. *1rh
r*irJentiaiand olfiqe
uses ailq$red orr *,e
Al,ij!! ..rI l
()r\ { rri}\:.} ir.ir rr rii
ret loss oi pa.kiig
Ncurs)
Broadway lAlternative B: Mixed Use Corridor
W Fryting gErage
comtcid ir,is
3\rN lie t$$$i
S(:}lwry, $ilh lwo
$d ih.s ltory
irr,,jr.lts
Aririlarrnqllli] linlnr
uses oa gatcw.y
p:rcclr. *rl..J:n3 e
Blls Eix6d u*
buiidis
T16 saftm0.n |$tohi
lo. {+rietruy iarreis
vsr\ri be for rtorio.
Broadway llrlternative C: Gateway Focu*
comrcial i r..,ti
$lSrtQ liC il(IS $i
Ai or,ril,L,, ,,rrr Lvr
,rri! iir. t iir\.j..t1\\,t)
lri lli. +iit+ r)i !lp
Eroadway lAltarnative D: Office lnterssclions
LI\,L_/
Portions
Each
8%
Alternative B
26%
b
a
Combined Survey Results
El Camino Real Study Area
Which alternative do you prefer?
Fortions of Each
N u*ir$,M*lhk.jr*dd
' t. 't-h
rr,r k.iist*@Mqwk$dN
N lds rBql*rrd,&\a
El Camino Roal I Alternatlvo Al Curront Land Usa Poliry
I
r\ii ,rit\ri,r.,\t\ \.. ir.i i.i i. ri.tr.Lr il\.t,r ,rl|tlrir, tiu
' jrr.:..1 ll rl.,r ':rr,rri.'rt
AJi,iryr :ll..rh.:iali,!{r
commial luriiirrr;s
Adelin* Orlve m:llll
El Camlno Real lAltwnativo Bl Adoline Cornmercial
,i\li${ $}i\{s* t}$* Nildir$i
$n i:l i":nrriilo R$Il it
Addim D.iva md
Broadw{y, si\ll
(fl (rt\$i:,ili trNli rt\:srirL\i'l
N tixr rlr\uri:j lh'* rtirl
rt\\ri *rriiill,:iIrJ!{!
,\il riiri rll.i!r'i li.v i..l tlllsrri I ii"l'r,rr (.urr \ii$
' I \r"rrr. ili irl\r r$ririi,r
El Camino Real iAlternative C: Targeted Mixed Use
L'LrLI
I h|.ri*dh
California Drive I Alternativa A; Currsnt Land Use Fnlicy
California Drive Study Area
Which alternative do you prefer?
Portions of Each
8%
s$s jx)rr(J$, Nil\ Comrcial rrs*r r,,$iiii lLs rs(t,rir$g
l:rrrrnuL*ilrlii sr l\t ground floor, Nluin.,rlr$ideiltisl .Jr,:i,
lr, upprr {loorr.l$iai\\r t\suki hs (h.ee$t$lss.
Cairfornia Drive lAlternative B: Residential Second Story
i)srtp J hrixsd us (ilri{hl
$ril ,oridantial !$ilr lll$is{l
li,is rlluutrri rur.rir.i .rlkrs
st*ndalonr roriderti.il i\ril{iia$i
irisr! {ulihtoiu ilrru. ruil,r
\rlxt\N'i)di'ii{ il i\rei! \t$!ist
California Drive lhlternativs C: Mixed Use Corridor
Combined Survey Results
L/L'LI
lll
hb:t
:T
h
-.IE--T
fh
EI
-ltt
I
-hrll
:,
t
,
,
=-g;4
€';7 .,
&
ZlSz7.2
z3
*ffiw
?z.,
vlz7.2*%
4.
G=
,
,
il
{fl
7 a:,
,..
,
2
':
ry*
z,
,
tr*W
a
,%
%%.
V7..-
..,t:I
l,z1.'. ',=
*
ffi.ffiz
'z
'a
7-..v
re*.ft
{&x
?** 7ry#**ft
a @
fu@
*{*ffirew
€ @ruffie%ffi*wsf&a-!!. &&ea
,i:kaflt-€\J fu.&*fE@w
\:lt'
'*r.
*.
ZZ
f1li
v',a,
I
,t ,,
Emerging Land Use Concept
Purpose
Starting point fo
PIan Land Use D
oping the new Generalr deve
iagram
How was it developed?
r CAC input and meeting discussions
r City Council and Planning Commission input
I Community Input (Workshop #1 , Workshop #2
and Online Surveys)
r Staff/Consultant technical analysis
L".L/L-/
On June 29,2016, the CAC reviewed the Emerging Land Use Concept
and discussed specific land use policy alternatives to the diagram.
Their input and suggestions are incorporated into this presentation.
, ," NN$
Community Advisory Committee #10
i
35,r'ti
,li:..
';
Planning Commission Study Session
On July 13,2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the Emerging
Land Use Concept and the feedback from CAC members on each of
the proposed land use changes.
Their responses to the proposed land use changes are incorporated
in this presentation.
l
l,.z
,:,
0
s
3
a
%
,;
,
a
.9
oc.,
*
;
ep<:
&'i
:%
a
E!i
60
%s
a
us
.ac:t
->i
**
&%
T-zo
;h'
r 3=
%&
t
T
E:U
i!o9
_<i!
'a;.
; oi:J)
c*
9T't;iE3 ci.g >;Et e
;.3,;8cFo;te'Ec
300
%&
,,
*-
bE
tu!stc
azs*.aa?col';"
'L-g 4:
#zA
P
o_oU
CoU
(I)o3
E
C(oJ
(I)
C
(I)
l-o
E
LU
,
a
',,
w
*
z.:
4"
Z
*
-i
I
faj
r/,
4t*:
=f{l}F-=uE 3.q*r!ILV
€U rnarTlL-
L r v,:6 EblG a
F r1.9*E'fi
UUY-Do't
L_i: otl v.*{
.= *. s.t4cJ!al + Lr9n)
9r Lru+rr}fi's{tr -F
aa c] 't
*F $Egq]si.H1G ::* >rsBL'rfimii*r:= f;u6
.t {11 y
Vt=O tnqlct.r,0troft(]hn il {,*.Yfi]U
t/l Y- r. ''c d}4YcnItr * ro ^ta E'-o T.r'a I Pol? r?jrl - ^,FL
Z Z Z
L-Jr+; ar1
\J l9.p
o-
z_z--
Z Z Z Z
*
I
rf
a;
^l
I
Q
ar^v,11 >
u#
tu !unr +J
- uFLlo*(]a:
-C +:* E.;'fxe;
o)*l-oln(nX(Irp-E 5 3ag* IbilEx-c*tn16-yru-o()'uc
-! wlJ tu {} 11
(E- LenEu*(IJ iJ',: *
L^,-'-?u*LtU g.-POUHrfiLlUU;5 r}*- {1
L
? (J -L' {11\Vr*u*rEHb
ro n b-€
=UVui#L'-:+r(o:EJCg Ort OoxiaJt#:'/#^\
orrboaE b h-a\uJnC
d E +-'=_ F A rG.OTgo
=
eEV f ." V
O {.r c -13
H eE t.TL-L nvt r ii -t3c p*'n*.IxEo do a
*
0:
ti
ui
>>t+J*'e'z
ETfr
U(J
-:l 'u
Lr3
iYo
.-p
Q's
44:
ts, ,l-.
:a*
^'-<4)
t1
EU'*- -**{
rf0o .^-
*.J.E:UiO X:=L Ll-filU* t*oH-0: xE
L'.F (E
LnagxlAo# H.g-ii n
oa]5e.-il
L
n..
*
* tl\**S+;
-n (J
{i rv
>.7na
L.' llC-
t-L
tL fl)*.
L* S}
rr rJ
;-. (-J
LJil+; g)
4)C
L_-+dr
7:: q<.s 26+tuHv >*, -"rn rs .Yqari.U'#IUiu:- a1,^
>r* f
6 .S::
*J) A)rr;fN
*<n*>.'P€6gYra#l 66
d!
F}
tl\ r
c.ytvy
a {I1
Ur:--i'
ICJV;#!-i* i-ru
L!l(J,L+-E-
Lfl).*
LLlfA=\,1J L.' rY1
Pr
:=Fal+-; i:1ru-nl u.1Y{J
*{l
fu1u'r
:= \v L-nr*A-fl1 >
-./Lk\=tn
4#Bar=E d6
,t-"tvrc-44
r., !{1 41ar ',: xr,J]YJ* Y*J fr
Y}VCGu'o
-l--pd*aq c'p
rs L.=LrSA
* cna-
*
tq/.r,i E'e +r
3*
*J(I) r,,r.EoaX:f _i:o{JL,,.!,,- LnOUUrrr L1lfrp
f,):l
L.' U{rp-nE5(nv>
.nE{}:/U'] L
HU
;J(o'tr o)t()-a
E.:a,EJr-5ac >,
+r;i
$apsi
fA r*lOE
0a>s+.- c)gt*
CrE^iO:Xap b
>;*OY''J.!Oa
(.r
#o.)n'frn)-
C
Ciu
.!Ll-C
rr1
\; -*
(.JU(U
>L% tt\Jl L/ X
rn :: (\
J'M
va!*v
j-+r'!
I-JLJ
a! A,
u-(,rvl
A.L mX, C-x(}:rF5 >o
v (J \,r
fI|6uat(ll ar+rnyr
oEi-Cl , Lr
ln:-i rqrbx
-=>, 1! k+I J -:Y
|l/' v.*
o EiLJCc
n*9
=55
CN
Copo
C(I)
'-a
on
(,o
:)
E
C(uJ
CD
C
(I)
I-o
E
LU
%
%
z'
^
H2fiY:At
=-l.-..+r,5Hg
c}*j--ut:]t,x ?an! r A:s *XYA
:\sbt?: *;' {!rtr, ^5f1r.?
,b
vi-l-l rx.r
*'*L* </,
tu
?,t
u*r/huft
x-d:J ;t'
fi "3* 'x'
iJ1
^ilY*qd
\!
a,! A5rD
aft
3r)
*4*a
-:. ar
u
*;srru :: .tiHst'(}0-(ua
.1 =t=- fi' Slo =-\<{od3gl; x6HBeJlO-Q r
e=u!
u 'I,] ry
J-uUfqq3
s-F bC) I,lJ v
;\JY
^L 1'\
L)L'
n+viEP*frY5jdn=7-vtJNaa
V^L
X' -+' r'!
^n-frv "h*.o;'wo
:m n}c05
* ;i'*
!l- at) 1u
.a U) g.
/i\+Y* X ;-,'
Lt x;frv;
;5.
r+ i'i *
? !.€
-\ a')
At[rJo,q<
= r+r-..t nio
(}r+
q:- *kxfilDuc-
t,jo
li'a?tP
'tT:=
(o'5
5rO .t?
11 :-1 U
LDa/t! U1
iua
Jjnt') rr1
J
J lt1*-.mo-"fi
3*.
;*
u
*_
-u*fr
n
PJ4 Q Gi:tra)tl- !Y x r<
_ (J \Y .+lJ(D.l.tar 'a; Ot't- u
-. r
-.J)Afrhor":iA
rt a 1lUtUAaVU(.'Jqa-qd 1u - J1Uq)x,3# { E;]qroifl
:3. fJ ! f,,q x {:-l:iElOGtnTlge;{\
ruJnv3Er>
?{$AcnO{rei$5'Ord
un(JJ.J Q_.AU Ut,
(iJ i:: Jvr^gs;t
61 J
d{-
oJ-I'dsr*1.{-$ n
fli i*Yq >ln i;ATHEOt 'i* u :_l_d:oJn9EcmtnHru
Ll@-i
TJ \J A
,*-.4y 11 '--Lr.o n
AL) Yrn
:-o
C '+rg. lt3{g
-aYl{Gu'lfi
};o-s} fi
6_*
n,ft=_-*x**"**1**
i'{rtoo
.i' O6ru
ng,i- r-
9>t)-n {f
x r/,
t,7
{bj
tJ*
fi
:fJC
7,
t
=)
#gq I{H:1! o.ro 5Loia L r, <J{/)ua.ta a -.o-ix J u
L<\r;nd 1*Q i o
J Vr- ( r, lrl
LlJ LIW A
+ilJ - ad r o-5
- i.
='*lnnrJ-.
*r,:,(, 6Lu eA^
:.(/' (n X:: f,* o
.3{ *c\ rr -T- Ulo_5 5 .D
tu*^a.oH:{n$,x*n-1-L/1.*i.., s
,= 6 +g7 o-R -ufforiioX(r-aHrr o.r 3
_o) , d
Q I q6
U o Ta-t +IJ r6'qr;'ili^o$:-xal ur
L.,':r=1',gYa-
='iCa(lDf!a
fr\U-< \ua1fo
,-VJd5 ;'o)9< F'oJ-0c
Ol ,i:Y
:,o
tU ar
Yi l+(}0
aq
uc.
=tl)**.1
*.*
i\
li{ €
'3
(.}$
a) Lr
t_9aUO* ,r'
13:o
=rt6s6-;
Qo-
u*
*.*5:]al$
o)(D
{* j'
:f sl
$nr(,a0='
='3 Od3>)oat6gaoi7i.
Cral-
-Ii{
='11vY'*r OPt$ =-+!oaTtt
#c
r+ lf
<taf0 =.f,L-
af(-
(/l 1l
o'(.e '
\tt
J
_r{-
;'5'
n-*9.ac
a\ ;'
L-
r\-
u-<aD=
-)s.q
d^
-.r g{t _*
an€*qI
*.
*
,
*
N)
P
J
,
L.n
O
z,-\)
{}I
ru
*
N
*O
i-l
I*
*
Z
>'
q'CI- Q (]6eqi>.
=-
<\ *dn Lr ci'
AU'" -f] :.I (/,
AqddG I !,o)
tftalJ1il5 -. Aq fr Nd))*dl-,n
J*=r nt ;'J
-iXtu
?a'*
ani)Lt)t){}n
-
..
:.:
7:%=
'*tto'7.%'={:1%*.
%,_e7%Z'?lz7z7ry,2ffi7:::%aa*re'%
%
L-,
IPCol-\+
(U
m
4
e
a
,rt
t
,
t&?*..t"
e
6.- *-,.q8*' \-{"-
-:\ ?a
,.4*#
&
.a
.,
.:
t1,'h
*
*
lb
,
-.-,!-'
:2.
-.:_
JF
t',
.
i
!.:
t
t
a
,*w
Bayfront I Emerging Land Use Concept
Proposal:
Bayfront Commercial W LiveZWork
Bayfront Mixed Use ffi erUtic/lnstitutional
ffi Open Space
W Parks and Recreation
W Baylands
Create a Live/Work
district along the
lnner Bayshore to
promote reuse of
existing warehouses.
Promote waterfront
commercial/hotels and
active recreation along
the northern Bayfront.
Create a Bayfront IVlixed
Use District that might
allow high-density
residential uses in addition
to hotel and office uses.
Bayfront CAC Feedback
North Bayfront
lVost CAC members support Live/Work
development in the lnner Bayshore, but
emphasize the need for services to
support residential uses.
L_.1
CAC Response:
North Bayfront
Some CAC members suggest a public
open space requirement along the
northern Bayfront for large development
projects.
, ,.ri
Bayfront ICAC Feedback
CAC Response:
Bayfront I Planning Commission Feedback
m o
f Bayfront Commercial W LiveAtuork
North Bayfront
Planning Commission Response;
r Sea level rise is a concern.
r The creative ideas were good.
: The area needs to be vigorous
and vibrant.
I The live/work uses were good,
but with small units sizes.
r A ferry terminal would have a
large impact on the area.
Bayfront ICAC Feedback
CAC Response:
South Bayfront
Vlost CAC members are opposed to
residential uses in the south Bayfront,
particularly high-density development.
There are concerns about the area's
isolation and the importance of maintaininq
the waterfront experience.
Bayfront I Planning Commission Feedback
South Bayfront
Planning Commiss i on Response;
r Sea level rise is a concern.
r The City/consultants need to
study the feasibility of the
residential concept, given this
a rea is ve ry " ca r centric. "
I The area has poor
infrastructure.
r Residential uses north and
south of Airport Boulevard
would function very differently.
il
W
W
Bayfront Mixed Use
Public/lnstitutional
Open Space
Parks and Recreation
Baylands
'r
I7.
ztr
...7.2,--...---....2*
,
::a.aav-,aaa,/-.az-::.;:
7
M.
M.
mZ
-o
(o
o
M.
a
.=
ou.
o
E(u
O}
C
l-fm
-c#l-oZ
Proposal:
I Corrercial/Residential Mixed Use
I Offi."/Residential Mixed Use
t Hign Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)
I Publi./lnstitutional
I lnnouation/lndustrial
Allow mixed-use,
tra nsit-oriented
development on the
east side of El Camino
Real and on Ogden
Drive.
Create an
I n novation/l ndustria I zone
to encourage a "design
district" while maintaining
industrial and commercial
recreation.
Allow commercial
and some
residential uses at
the south end of
Rollins Road near
Broadway.
I
ili r,rD r..l
NB/RR I Emerging Land Use Concept
VA
{
NB/RR ICAC Feedback
CAC Response:
Rollins Road
lVost CAC members
would like to see
housing at the
northern end of
Rollins Road within
walking distance of
BART.
I
Some CAC members support
high-density housing at the
southern end of Rollins Road,
while others are concerned
about traffic impacts along
Broadway.
\..
I
I
$il:
$"
CAC Response:
Rollins Road
Some CAC members
suggest a designation
similar to the proposeC
ln ner Bayshore
Live/Work district to
create greater
flexibility for Rol I ins
Road.
NB/RR ICAC Feedback
.4,y"
.t
lr
t
\
f
NB/RR I Planning Commission Feedback
.fl
Rollins Road
Plannin g Commiss ion Response;
r That increased densities at the
southern end would be a
concern, but would be okay at
the northern end.
That live/work units would
work well.
The "FunkZone" idea is good.I Cormercial/Residential Mixed Use
I Publi./lnstitutional
ffi lnnouation/lndustrial
\
\
North Burlingame
Planning Commission
Response.'
r The land uses and
ideas presented
were good for this
a rea.
ig
I Corrercial/Residential Mixed Use
I Ofi.e/Residential Mixed Use
I Higl', Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)
I Prbti./lnstitutional
NB/RR I Planning Commission Feedback
1
I
(o
=
-o
ool-m
!t
1,
g
--e
-{
a
I
&wt
?
t_
,."
''-:.
'
t
'I
:
,1__\
t
I
li
i
I
I
I
t
II
I
d,
{*
t*,
EI
e
*,
.-:.
g ,
"l
IBroadwayEmergi g Land Use Concept
-
I
Proposal:
Create a Broadway Mixed Use
district that allows ground-floor
commercial and residential on the
second floor.
Al low ground-floor office
uses on side streets.
Allow taller buildings at the
intersections of El Camino Real
and California Drive.
t Broadway Mixed Use
U California Mixed Use
I High Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)
rit
loquna
L_/J
nuta vtsta
b
{rt
a
CAC Response:
Some CAC members are not
in favor of mixed-use
development along the main
corridor, but support it at the
corners of El Camino Real
and California Drive.
beCArnino;dl
slv
ffi,
Broadway I CAC feedback
t,
CAC Response:
Some CAC members suggest a
density cap of 30 du/ac in the
High Density Residential area
south of Broadway. Existing
zoning allows 50 d u/ac.
Broadway I CAC feedback
I
t
Broadway I Planning Commission Feedback
Pl anni ng Commission Response.'
I
That densities should not be
increased at the southern node.
That gas stations " control" the
nodes.
Overall, the gateways concept
ma kes sense.
I lr'l' ',
WW
Broadway Mixed Use
California Mixed Use
High Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)b
L-/k/LI
T
I
l.,i
l.:i 1"r , ,1 ,
*
I
1
t
I
G'
.4.
\:1
4
a ,r
S
**.t
-*,**'
I
.z
I
a
A1.
a
G
l-
L
?.&
\
*tt
2
,i g&
w
;4*'
oo
E.
o
C
E(u
U
LU
FE"o*"t\
..
a
3
.1'
!
?
.1
)t.
El Camino Real I Emerging Land Use Concept
Proposal:
UJt., .)
!t" .::i"
I
n
$
., $i", ;l,li : ,:..,,1
,i
x
$
x:r*.
{:}
0s
s
it
'I
il
ll'
.$
.:f('i
$,:'
"$,
s
r').i:
-r$'
\,
$i
,ii
^lrt
$
i*ilr
$
n
*::
H
x)l)
*ti
$
$
s
$
h
;!
$
900 Fett 0
Low Density Residential (4-B du/ac)
W Medium Density Residential (8.1-20 du/ac)
W High Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)
tt Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
W Broadway Mixed Use
m Public/lnstitutional
Allow mixed-use
development at the
corner of Adeline Drive
to provide services for
nea rby residents.
lVaintain the residentia I
focus of the corridor;
and preserve existing
residentia I densities.
[L CAMINO R[At WNWNNWNNNW
'***NNNNNN.NNNNNNNN\NNNNNN NNNWWWW NNWNNNN$NN\\ .
L/L_/J
El Camino Real CAC Feedback
Response:
.: i :" i.. .r i i l
Some CAC members are
not in favor of mixed-use
development at the
corner of Adeline Drive,
and would prefer stand-
alone residential.
N
,'u&n'
;-[
rt
$l
L_.i
!
H3z_2
ae J
x
3
5
6
s
6
o
o
d)
;t'it
n(
E
of
tz
d
:
p
o
o
3
ot
d
24
LU2
.s
.*'
{.)
$i"
()$
ii "$,Y
.s()
:*0 .*i"
o
p
#
,Y
u
t:i
s
"t
;l
1;
(.)
9m
,, Low Density Residential (4-B du/ac)
m Medium Density Residential (8.1-20 du/ac)
f High Density Residential (20.1-50 du/ac)
I Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
I Broadway Mixed Use
I Public/lnstitutional
Foot \t
Pl anni n g Com mission Response.'
The market at Adeline Drive is an asset to the neighborhood; this node
should be maintained for commercial uses only.
Parking and traffic in the area are of concern.
\\i lilllrl$t $1r
.NNNN,NN$s\NNNINNN
WWWWN$$NWNW$WNNN NW$W$$NWM **NNWW
EL CAMINO REAL
$NW$$$NNW$NNNN
El Camino Real I Planning Commission Feedback
a
mffi
.-*u
W
il
t'ffi"''t'* t"''t->L,i
i l','z>- . _,, r,\.r-, ._.,i,):\rrl:
!
I
Ir.l
fu}tr,
I
r
*",
,
1 :
&€**
**
o5
Co
-o
l-
(U
=o
:E
I
C
=o-P
C
=on
,
t
1€
r-i
L-
{i l-
t
w
a
-4
2
,=
E,
cn
LL
bq.)
l-
,1
t5
?
2M ttt4:
22Jra3n
J
htu
.{
-'!
J
J
'{
r
;
-,*
. -r,is*
!
a-z-J
g4
Downtown - Howard Ave. I Emerging Land Use Concept
Proposal:
IVlaintain the
Downtown Specific
Plan land use
boundaries, but
amend the policy to
allow live/work
spaces and office
uses on the ground
floor along Howard
Avenue.
i,
,/,b/
I
li
I
I
Ilrti,
i!'
-t
I
.{
tr
\
N
I
A
i3,,i
rY! I
l_
I
I
\
I
".-tL
II
t
,tl lt n
f... .l
1
{r
.It,[
3 I
Downtown - Howard Ave. I Planning Commission Feedback
Planning
Commission
Response.'
r That office and
live/work along
Howard Avenue
would be a good
thing, and they
agreed with the
concept.I/
/b
L/L/L'
I,
i\\i\,i,1\i\\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\\\N
37.**e.z
d
{'t
:',.
1',
@.
7
.,,2,u
|..
.. z1,za
aza
,:,
.,
1
,
',4,
z
z
z
'z
zzza*
zz'z
'z
z,*,
,1
a
a,
:=
a
a
a',
,a
o
.zl-o
.g
CL-o
ts$U
a
,
%
..--.-..a
,
a.a
a
:
a
i:,
',
,'
'2.:
California Drive I Emerging Land Use Concept
Proposal:
Low Density Residential (4-B du/ac)
NNN Medium Density Residential (8.1-20 du/ac)
W Broadway Mixed Use
California Mixed Use
I Public/lnstitutional
W Rail Corridor
Create a California [Vixed Use district
between Broadway and Oak Grove that
allows ground-floor commercial uses with
residential above.
Allow existing residential uses to
remain with an overlay zone.
L-lL'LJ
b
California Drive I Planning Commission Feedback
b
Low Density Residential (4-B du/ac)
M Medium Density Residential (8.1-20 du/ac)
TI Broadway Mixed Use
California Mixed Use
f Public/lnstitutional
n RailCorridor
Planning Commission Response:
That residential mixed use would make sense in this area.
That any changes to land uses need to be closely tied to mobility
enhancements.
Vlore commercial in this area would bring foot traffic- a good thing.I
L-/L'LI
T
Land Use Concept I Planning Commission Feedback
ln addition, the Planning Commission also suggested;
r The General Plan process needs to fully analyze and
address impacts due to sea level rise and flooding.
r The City needs to reach out to the school districts and
make sure potential impacts are addressed.
I Realistic housing projections and assumptions tied directly
to Burlingame need to be understood.
r Parking standards should be refined on a neighborhood
level (e.9., through zoning).
tL_i
I.aIhhttrI-b
I.lEE-E
E
CIIrrt
I
-hltl
,e
t,
{fl
7
1
,
7.*v,
,
I
€
z
a
:
,,:,
,
*z',2
3t':l
!
z
ffi
:
,r
@-.,
4
7z
2;
*_
*"
:
a
1I
1,
?
%,,*,
?E
*
1nE'
jz
ffi
&dffiLJ
&rc
*
*s3g! IEEEH
%hu rm*t\,9 m
@\d&?
& s*5ru
@ &s&ut& * )mwt'MwYffi*ales U*
NILJ retg4*gU \G
"z
a
t
va,
t
t
Questions to Consider
1 What policv considerations does the General PIan
need to adbress related to sea level rise?
2.
3
What is a realisti c/ appropriate level of housing and
employment growth?
Do the refined Land Use Designation descriptions
and densities/intensities seem appropriate?
4. Does the Emer g rn9 Land Use Conce t reflect the
community S VISION for the next 20-3 yea rs ?
5. Are there additional ke
the consu ltant team sh
draft General Plan?
v policy issues Citv staff and
ould evaluate /incllde in the
\/L/L_/
I..
-hbE
lg
Ih
I
d
*TdE
t
ErrilT
=-hrll
r
f*rw
ae
*l?
,rz
ruA_vd
tl\tlr ArnH
@
a* rk
tJ, h
#l* t--oe;n -.LJ\r/ F() bv*3
**r tJ-
a- Attt \lJa I 'frL- -J 1A I
BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
LAND USE WORKBOOK
July 1 3, 201 6
background and process:
This workbook is an informational packet {or discussion about the emerging land use concept for
the Burlingame General Plan Update. The diagram illustrated on pages 2-3 is based on extensive
community feedback gathered over the past year, including the work of the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC), input collected at Community Workshops #1 and #2, and over 240 responses to
Online Community Survey #2.The CAC provided feedback on this proposal during their meeting
on June 29.The Planning Commission Study Session on July 13 provides an opportunity for
Commissioners and members of the public to weigh in on the proposed land use concept, which will
'-form the upcoming presentation to the City Council, as illustrated in the diagram below:
JULY SEPTEMBER
how to use the workbook:
The middle pages of this workbook show the emerging land use concept with specific "chanEe
areas" highlighted. lmages and descriptions accompany these change areas to illustrate the types of
development that could occur based on updated policy.
On the back side of the workbook is a complete list of the proposed land use designations with
their descriptions and density/intensity ranges. Accompanying this workbook is a copy of the
r. €Se ntdtion that will be presented at the July 13 study session, which includes CAC feedback on
the proposed land use concept. Please review all of this information priorto the session, and come
prepared to discuss the working draft land use plan with the project team.
ffi II
u llnE m
JUNE
I
I
t l
t
EMERGING LAND USE CONCEPT ,sirrr l*-
EnutSt0n
IURlINGTME
north bayfront
. Create a Live/Work
district in the lnner
Bayshore to {oster reuse
of existing warehouses
r Promote waterfront
commercial/hotels and
active recreation aionq
the northern Bay{ront
rollins road
r Allow residential and commercial
uses at the south end of Rollins
Road, near Broadway
. Create an lnnovation/lndustrial zone
to encourage a design district and
promote entrepreneurial uses while
keeping industrial and commercial
recreation
north burlingame
e AIlow mixed-use, transit-oriented
development on the east side of El
Camino Reai and on Ogden Drive
howard avenue
. Amend the Downtown Specific
Plan regulations to allow live/
work spaces and office uses
on the ground floor of parcels
fronting Howard Avenue (between
Primerose Road and California
Drive)
in!burllngame general plan
emerginq land us€n m.d,lod6iilyr6d.nii.l I oni../r.i nird u*
Ihgnd6r[yrs&nri.l Ib/,&rffm<d
I
I
Ibryfrodm@dc€ I
I[./e* I
I nnovatdrdGt,.l Y i!l
I tub[dErnudmal
IBitcdri&r
el camino real/adeline
. Allow mixed-use development at the
corner o{ Adeline Drive to provide
services for nearby residents
broadway
r Allow mixed use buildings along Broadway,
with commercial required on the ground floor
and residential permitted on the second floor
o Allow taller buildings at the intersections of
California Drive and El Camino Real to create
gateways for the commercial district
. Allow ground-floor office uses on side streets
california drive
. Create a new California Mixed Use
designation along the west side of
Cali{ornia Drive between Broadway and
Oak Grove that allows ground-floor
commercial uses with residential above
. Allow existing residential uses to remain
via an overlay zone
2
(((
. Create a Bayfront Mixed
Use district in the South
Bayfront to allow {or mid-
to high-rise hotel and
office uses
south bayfront
Allow high density
residential uses
A)
.tl lr
{
,,t'
N/A NIA
Open Space (OS) Applies to natural habitat areas and other properties
supporting environmental resources and protected via easements or other means.
Development is not permitted except for facilities such as restrooms, interpretative
exhibits, and other improvements that support the open space uses.
N/AN/A
Parks and Reqreation (PR) Applies to regional parks, community and
neighborhood parks, and special use facilities such as community centers, golf
courses, and trails.
N/A NIA
Bay and Baylands (BAY)
areas subject to bay tidal
authorized by State law.
Applies to wate6 in San Francisco Bay and other water
influences. No development permitted except as
N/A 1.5; 3.0 for
hospitals
Public and Ouasi Public (POP) Applies to utilities infrastructure and easements;
governmental, educational, cultural, and health care related facilities; and unique
private institutional uses (such as Mercy Center Burlingame).
4.0 - 8.0 N/A
Low Densitlr Residential (LDR) Permitted uses include detached housing units on
individual lots, accessory units, and related ancillary structures. Correlates to the
R-1 zone.I
8.1 - 20.0 N/A
Medium Density Residentia! (MDR) Permitted uses include detached housing
units on individual lots, accessory units, multi-family dwellings containing two or
more units, and ancillary structures. Correlates to the R-2 zone.
20.1 - 50.0 N/A
High Density Residential (HDR) Permitted uses include a mix of multi-family
housing types and ancillary structu.es, with preferred Iocations along or with
immediate access to arterial streets and/or near major activity centers. Correlates
to the R-3 zone.
20.1 - 50.0
0.6 for stand-alone
commercial; 2.0 for
developments that
include residential
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use (CR-MU) Permitted uses include retail,
service commercial, dining establishments, offices, and limited low-intensity auto-
related uses. Residential uses may be permitted as part of a cohesive master ptan
Maximum building heights will vary depending upon location.
1.020.1 - 80.0Office/Residential Mixed U;e (OR-MU) Allows {or either office or multi-family
housing as stand-alone or mixed-use development.
3.0
Bayfront Commercial (BF-C) Allows local and tourist commercial uses, including
entertainment, restaurants, hotels and motels, and retail. Also allows public open
space and open space easements to achieve local and regional trails, recreation,
and habitat preservation objectives.
N/A
40.0 - 80.0 3.0Balrfront Mixed Use (BF-MU) Allows for office, residential, and supportive
commercial uses in mid- to higher-rise developments.
40.0 2.O
Broadway Mixed Use (BMU) Aliows commercial, office, and residential uses, with
residential not permitted on ground floor. Ground-floor use is restricted to retail/
service along Broadway frontage. Ground-floor office is altowed on side streets.
0 - 20.0 0.6
California Mixed Use (CMU) Allows an eclectic mix of retail/service commercial
and second-story residential. Existing stand-alone residential accommodated via a
zoning overlay.
Live/Work (LW) Allowed uses include light industrial, service commercial, retail
commercial, studios for creative industries, and limited medium-density residential
as live-work units.
20.0 1.0
0.5Innovation/lndustrial (l/l) Permitted uses include light industrial, creative industry
businesses, design businesses, indoor sports and recreation. and wholesale uses.N/A
!
:
\-
Gity of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:00 PM Council Ghambers
SPEGIAL PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLLCALL
Present 7 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
4. PUBLIC GOMMENTS, NON.AGENDA
Sandra Lang spoke on this item:
> Serves on a county commission on aging.
> Has concems with decisions being made regarding senior citizens, and effects planning could have.
5. STUDY ITEMS
a. Envision Burlingame (General Plan Update) - Led by Representatives of the General
Plan Consultant Team from MIG
Attachments: Staff Report
Emerqino Land Use Workbook
Studv Session Slide Presentation
Planning Manager Gardiner introduced the item.
Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden of MIG consultants made a presentation, covering the following items:
> Project Schedule and Update
> Community lnvolvement, including workshops and online survey
> Regional Growth Trends
> Emerging Land Use Concept> Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Feedback
Commission questions:
> Wat engagement has there been with the school district on land use and population projections?
(Sfefson: There is a representative from the school district on the CAC. There needs to be follow-up, as
we are aware of concerns with additional school children.)
> /s the Emerging Land Use Concept a reflection of the survey primarily, or is it a reflection of the CAC
City of Budingame Page 1 Printed on 9/1/2016
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 13,2015
recommendation? (Stetson: Combination of the workshops, CAC, intercept surueys, and stakeholder
interviews. The consuttant team synthesized the input, then presented it back to the CAC for specific
comments.)> Vt/hy was the CAC not in favor of mixed use at the corner of Adeline Ddve and EI Camino Real, and
instead favored stand-alone residential usez (Stefson; lt was not a vote, but various CAC members had
concems that commercial uses could crcate a nuisance. El Camino Real is primarily residential in
Burlingame.)
> VVhy did CAC members suggest lowering the residential density south of Broadway? (Sfefsoni /f's a
nuance. The high-density category has a range from 20 to 50 units per acre. lt is a large range. The
areas south of Broadway are presently zoned for multifamily development up to 50 units per acre, but
are probably not built to 50 units per acre. Concem may be that if the high-density designation is
retained in the area, it may encourage consolidation of lots to build something bigger that would be out
of character with what exists today. lf the cap was 30 units pet acrc the current land use pattem would
continue and remain stable. Could be implemented through an overlay.)
> Does the term "Emerging Land Use Concept" refer to future trends of what land use is heading
towards? (Stetson: No, it refers to the land use plan not being settled yet. lt could be considered a
"draft." The term "emerging" because input is still being sought.)
> ln the future when sfreets are dlscussed will it have been vetted through traffic studles? (Stetson;
Yes. Preliminary studies werc done before any concepts were discussed.)
> How much land is within the anticipated "change" areas versus the areas that are considered stable
and not anticipated to change? (Amsden: Has not done the calculation. The Downtown Specific Plan
area is also not expected to change significantly, given the plan was adopted relatively recently.)
> Have the projects in tha residential pipeline been projected on a map to see where they fa ?
(Stersonr Staff has mapped the locations of the vaious applications and approved projects. Cunently
residential development is allowed in a lot of areas.)(Gardiner: None of the cunent Noiects require
General Plan amendments - they are all accommodated within existing zoning. The City has a lot of
zoning capacity, in theory, howevet most of the land is already built on.)
Questions from the public (submitted on question cards):
> Given that schoots are already at capacity, how would schoo/s be factored into the discussion?
(Sfetsoni /l is a critical pai of the d/bcusslon. Schoo/s are required to accommodate the students that
are generated by new development, but there needs to be balance to have a vibrant, healthy city. Some
of the housing may not generate school children, such as senlor housirg. Schoo/s need to be addressed
in the planning.)
> Do general plans ever have a development 'cap' in population or numbers of units, if the community
decides on what would be the ight number for future growth, even if there is more land zoned that could
accommodate more growth? lt could be based on capacity issues such as schoo/s, infrastructure, etc.
(Amsden: Yes, it can be a policy decision to limit groMh based on capaciry of facilities, ot constraints.
The environmental analysis would include the cap/threshold. There could be a later policy decision to go
beyond the cap, but then there would need to be fufther environmental analysis on the potential
impacts.)> To what degree have FEMA flood zones and Sea Level Rlse been a consideration or will be a
consideration going foMatd? fsretsonr Sea Level Rise is a consideration in new proiects submitted on
the Bayfront, and FEMA regulations apply to new proiects in the flood zones.)(Amsden: There may be
specific overlays to address requirements such as raising of buildings.)
> What if any reduced parking reguirements are being considered for mixed use projects? (Stetson:
The plan can set a policy framewotk for parking regulations. The regulations themselves will be included
in the zoning update, which will be done in coniunction or right after the General Plan.)
> t/Vhat is the City's current jobs/housing balance? (Stetson: Approximately 33,000 jobs, and just over
12,000 housing units, for a ratio of approximately 2.75 jobs per housing unit.)
> Does the General Plan include patus and green spaces lor luture growth, pafticulaly if there is an
increase in population? Would there be provisions for more parkland? (Stersori fhere could be a policy
direction to have a parkland ratio per 1000 residents. There would be a need to find places for additional
parks if that was the policy.)
> What is the thinking behind reducing density near Broadway if there is also a desire is to make
City of Bur ngane Page 2 Printad on 9/1/201a
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 13, 2016
\-
\-
Broadway successfu/Z (Sfefson; lt is a policy question reflecting comments from CAC members. The
question is whether to keep the neighborhood at the intensity it is today, or allow additional intensity to
create more activity on Broadway.)> Have there been calculations to determine if there would be adequate infrastructure if all properties
were developed to their maximum capacity under cunent zoning? How is the maximum potential
determined if both residential and commercial are allowed? (Stetson: There will need to be a build-oul
analysis for all uses in the city. Some assumptions will need to be made including how many existing
parcels would turn over, and the proportion of residential and commercial uses. Over a 25 year period
not all parcels are going to turn over. However there would not be an exercise fo see what would happen
if every single parcel turned over because it is not a credible scenario to consider.)
Chair Loftis opened the public heaing. Public comments:
Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
> The Housing Element prepared two years ago expressed skepticism towards ABAG projecflons as
they applied to Burlingame. Burlingame's population has remained flat over the past 40 years.
> Forecasts have been wrong in the past.
> Do we blindly approve transit-oriented development defined loosely around High Speed Rail and
electrified Caltrain that are unfunded? They may no longer exist with autonomous driving technologies.
> Through regional pressures may have to decide how to absorb housing requirements and what to
protect in existing quality of life.> Bayfront is underutilized, whereas infill development west of Highway 101 and along the El Camino
Real corridor is contentious. Bayfront housing in exchange for protecting areas that are already
constrained.> Hillsborough is exempt from ABAG requirements; Burlingame has agreed to accept all externalities
and cosfs of high-density development, while Hillsborough is allowed to count nanny units as housing
grovtth.
> Residential developers should contibute to shoo/s, fire and police.
> Mixed-use development at Adeline Drive and El Camino Real beyond what exists now will create
more controversy than the condominium proposed at 1509 El Camino Real. lt should be zoned R-2
Residential.
Michael Barber spoke on this item:
> Was on the school board for 16 years. The schools have not been included in this process.
> lf the concept plan was built out, there would need to be a place for another school.> The schoo/s are at maximum capacity. ln 16 years grew from 2200 students to 3400 students now.
Wthout a new school, the existing schoo/s would have to become denser with larger class s2es.> Countywide Sea Level Rise assessment will be completed in September. Should be careful about
putting resrdenfs into a flood-prone area.
Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item:
> lf some areas are allowed to have residential development where they do not cunently, need to
consider trend of losing local control. Lafesf is the Govemols by+ight housing proposal to fast-track
housing that includes 10-20% attainable units.> Local review is strong, which is why Burlingame looks the way it does now.> Trend is towards regional rather than local.> lf rezone areas to allow multifamily residential, may lose control over how the City looks.> Would advocate having a development cap.> While current plan is from 1969 there have been updates including the Downtown Specific Plan.
Plans can be altered over time.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
\-,
City of Budingame Page 3 Printed on 9/1/2016
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 13,2016
Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden facilitated the commission dlscussrbr, with the discussion organized by
geographical area.
Bayfront.
> Have the flood zones been considered? (Sfersonj yes, they arc discussed in the background
repofts, and have been factored into the consideration process.)
> The distinction is attowing the possibilry ot something to happen, as compared to proposing it. There
arc many layers of rcgulation including FEMA that would apply to a prcject. Codes and regulations
would need to be followed.
> The Bayfront and Rotlins Road areas have underutilized properties. lt's almost like these areas have
been "poisoned," whether by policy or economics.
> Likes thg proposals that have been put forward such as live/work, and that they are not the standard
approach. Wotthy of being studied fufther.
> The area cannot be ignored just because it is within a flood zone, since there arc already uses in
place. The issue needs to be addressed rcgardless.
> Would like to see something vigorous and vibrant, since that would not describe the area cutently.
Likes the dircction of what is shown in the concept.
> Schoo/ lssue is a "chicken and egg" situation, since a school won't be built until there is residential
development, but therc cant be residential development until it can be accommodated wilh schoo/s.
Would like to see residential development on the Bayfrcnt but understands the challenges with the
schoo/s.> Live/work would not necessarily generate a lot of school children. They are more likely ta aftract
young professionals and single people. They would be smaller units that would be less likely to
accommodate families, not single family homes. fstelsonr Cannot dictate who could live in the units, but
could limit the size of live/work units.)
> The area is underutilized and there is a desie for the parking lots to be developed.
> Concem ovet how to make the desired development happen, since zoning in itself won't necessarily
bing the development. (Stetson: One tool is to create land use rcgulations that provide flexibility and
attract the twes of users desired. The other is going out and seeking the developers and letting them
know where the oppoiunities are. One or two catalytic projects can staft things.)
> Likes the direction of the concept on the Notth Bayfront. However residential on the south end would
be out of charactet with the rest of Burlingame. lt's like Redwood City compared to Redwood Shores,
they are so disconnected from each other. lt would also be more car-centric than the rest of Burlingame.
> There have been lots of developers wanting to build residential on the Bayfront, but since it is not
allowed it is not clear what would be the next highest use. Typically it defaults to dlscussrg hofels.
> Would not expect development to have the character of Foster City or Redwood Shorcs. lnstead it
would be pioneering development that would cohabitate with what already exists, such as live /work or
condo hotels. Should think about the form and character of development to inform the vision, and is
wotth studying fufther.
> The Shoreline area will have a different impact compared to the lnner Bayshore industial area.
Anything east of Bayshore Highway and Airpoft Boulevard will have a different look and feel than
anything west.> Should consider the preferences of millennials, such as telecommunting and ordedng goods online.
ls that being considered? (Sletsoni /l is always a challenge to predict how the next generation wants to
live. lf land uses are adaptable and flexible, and buildin$ are adaptable and flexible, different ways of
living and working can be accommodated. The proposed concept creates that flexibility.)
> Need to befter understand population grov"th projections. (Sfetsonr The 5% historic growth
represerts the availability of land and what could be accommodated with the zoning. Meanwhile the
rcgional economy has been booming, creating more demand for housing and therefore there have been
more requests for residential development in Burlingame based on the region changing. The ABAG
projections take in the regional factors.)
City of Buningamo Pinte.t on 9/1n01 6
Nofth Butingame/Rollins Road :
> More dense housing at lhe southern end of Rollins Road will be a problem in terms of traffic, the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 13, 2016
train, the traffic generated by Burtingame Point. Should not bo placing morc dense development that will
bring more cars. lf more residential developent needs to be accommdated, the nodhem end of Rollins
Road makes more sense since it is near the Millbrae station.
> A design district with live/work seems to fit.
> Concept is good. Makes rrore sense to have higher density at the nodh end, but there ought to be
some at the south end too. Also likes the innovation distict.
> The nofth end of Burlingame is not active at night and is underdeveloped. Focusing on the noihem
end of Ro ins Road is a good idea.
> The approach in the concept to the Notlh Burlingame area on El Camino Real is good.
Broadway:
> The photo illustrating the development at the "nodes" or ends of Broadway is too intense, but having
three gas stations out of the four comers doesn't seem right. At least one of the property owners has
interest in doing something other than a gas slalion.
> Would not want to intensv the El Camino end but the Califomia Dive end could be intensified.
> lt doesn't need to be intensified, iust needs to be different.
> Ihe gas staflons are successful so not sure how likely they are to redevelop.
> Conceptua y the gateway developmenl makes sense.
> Understands interest in having less density in the blocks south of Brcadway since there is
competition in parking between the residential uses and the commercial uses on Broadway. Therc are
other areas of emphasis in the city that can be the focus for increased density.
El Camino Real at Adeline Drive:
> Having the mafuet and small bus,inesses there adds a lot to the neighborhood. Would be unfortunate
to zone them out of existence.
> Parking and tralfic is a problem for the corner, given how busy it is.
> lf it changes to residential it wi feel like a the other blocks on A Camino Real. The market is a
great spot and should be developed as more of a commercial area.
> Depends on intensity. Term "mixed use" evokes intensification with more traffic and impact, but if it
is not intense can be a benfit for having local commercial uses and not always having to dive to a
shopping center.> Accommodating parking on the corner lot wi limit the potential for how intense the development can
be. Not likely to be more than two stories.
The suNey had many responses from Easton Addition residents, and the response was wanting
seruices for nearby residences.
> Commercial use would be good provided it is not intensive.
California Drive coridot:
> Seems there is potential as a connector befureen Broadway and Budingame Avenue. (Stetson: This
is an instance where having a change to the road configuration together with a land use policy change
will allow some transformation. Currently it is not friendly to pedestians.
> The roadway is odd, in that it is four lanes to sprint beh/,teen two lanes at each end.
> Makes sense to have some residential on the upper floors.
> lt is a long corridor. Sorne of the uses s uch as automotive are not things people would walk to.
> The chad showing grovrlh trends fot San Mateo County is not helpful. The chaft should show
Burlingame instead, since growth in Bulingame is flat.
Ciry of Bu ingame Page 5 Pinted on 9/1/2016
Downtown:
ln agreement with the concept plan.
Other considerations:
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft July 13,2016
> There has been talk of having a fetry terminal on the Bayfront. That would change the dlscusslon of
whether to put development on the nofth ot south side of Rollins Road.> The Bayfront is disconnected from the rest of the City. Need to dlscuss the above ground grade
separation on Broadway, which wi separate the area even more.> There have been discuss,bns with the school, including representation on the school district's
master plan committae.
> Needs to look at pafuing standards for transit-oriented development and other uses lhaf would not
have as much impact. Perhaps a subcommiftee with the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.> Dichotomy between millenials prefering to walk or bike to wofu rather than drive, versus concerns
with development at south of Rollins Road creating traffic- Needs to take a position. The Millbrae Avenue
end may be just as busy.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjoumed at 9:08 p.m.
Any witings or documents provided to a majoity of the Planning Commbsion regading any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection duing normal business hours at the
Communw Developmennlanning counter, City Ha , 501 Primrose Road, Budingame, California.
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON WILL BE HELD
ON MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016.
City of Budingane Printed on 9/1/2016