HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.12.06BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Final
City Council
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, December 6, 2016
City Council Study 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 4.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to 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. - Council Chambers
Mayor Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Jennifer Pfaff led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Keighran, Vice-Mayor Ortiz, and Councilmembers Brownrigg, Colson and Beach
Staff Present: City Manager Lisa Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Community Development
Director William Meeker, and Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Sarah Feldman: Grew up in the area and attended Burlingame High School. Would travel to the Belmont
Ice Rink during her time in school. Noted that current skaters travel an hour to meet their recreational
need. She hopes that the City of Burlingame considers allowing an ice rink in the community.
5. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION (General Plan Update)
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an introduction and overview of the evening's discussion and
introduced the General Plan Update consultant team from MIG: Laura Stetson and Lily Jacobsen .
Tonight the City Council is being asked to consider the maximum conceivable growth that can be
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the land -use projections in the land -use
element of the draft General Plan which has a horizon year of 2040. The second aspect of the
discussion will be to determine what the maximum level of development should be for the City through
2040.
a.General Plan Buildout Analysis Discussion
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
Staff Report
Meeting Presentation Slides
Residential “Pipeline” Projects – Approved, Proposed, and
Preliminary
Commercial “Pipeline” Projects – Approved, Proposed, and
Preliminary
Proposed Land Use Map
Proposed Land Use Table
Attachments:
Laura Stetson led the consultant team's presentation of the growth assumptions and buildout analysis
process, including initial results, for the General Plan Update (horizon year 2040). She shared
projections from Plan Bay Area, historic population growth, historic employment growth, Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), current residential projects in the pipeline, and current
non-residential projects in the pipeline. Next, she reviewed "growth considerations" - resource and
infrastructure capacity that can impact the ability for the City to grow in the future and /or may need to be
expanded in order to permit growth. Such facilities include: roadway capacity, sanitary sewer capacity,
waste water capacity, potable water allocation, school capacity, and public safety. Also discussed were
assumptions for buildout under the preferred land -use scenario developed for the General Plan Update .
Buildout under the preferred land -use scenario does not assume "full" buildout of all properties .
Projected housing and population growth would be 2,951 dwelling units representing population growth
of 6,197-6,876. Projected non -residential growth under the preferred land -use scenario would be roughly
3,609,327 square feet, with job growth anticipated to be 1,547 jobs. All information discussed is included
in a PowerPoint presentation provided at the meeting, and included in the agenda packet for the
meeting.
City Council Questions/Comments:
>Councilmember Beach: is the population projection for Burlingame generated by ABAG (Association
of Bay Area Governments) greater as a percentage than other communities in the Bay Area? Also, is the
City required to develop the housing allocation from the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation )
during the term of the City's Housing Element - what happens if the City doesn't have the zoning
regulations in place to accommodate the housing projection? Stetson: doesn't have the information
readily available regarding the population growth of other Bay Area communities (will research). In a
worst case scenario, a Court ruling could halt the City's ability to approve projects if challenged. The City
would also not be able to complete for funds that require compliance with housing policy within the
General Plan. Gardiner: the State looks at compliance with general plan policies when considering
award of transportation funds as well. ABAG prefers growth to occur where adequate transportation
systems occur. Stetson: noted that Cupertino's RHNA is higher than Burlingame's, but its population is
also twice that of Burlingame.
>Mayor Keighran: when the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the General Plan is prepared,
what growth projection (ABAG or Census) will serve as the basis for the analysis - ABAG projection
versus census projections? Will the City receive the schools projections so that it can be compared with
Burlingame data? Stetson: will examine the level of growth that results from the analysis of the land -use
policies in the General Plan; the Council will provide direction regarding the growth projection. Will take
into account growth projections from the schools as well.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: ABAG's assumptions are based upon the number of jobs in an area and
how much an area should grow to accommodate those jobs.
>Councilmember Colson: is additional development of non -residential uses factored into the growth
projections? Stetson: yes; it is assumed that the jobs will follow the population growth.
>Councilmember Colson: asked if the composition of pending non -residential projects were primarily
offices? Gardiner: yes, the largest component is the Peninsula Wellness Community.
>Mayor Keighran: asked for clarification of the projects included in the pending projects. Gardiner:
provided a detailed response - the list includes approved and project in the review pipeline.
>Mayor Keighran: asked of the State Lands property is included in the projections? Gardiner: not at
this time; would need to review the latest concept and include it in the assumptions.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
>Councilmember Brownrigg: reminded all that though the Downtown Specific Plan projects the
development of over 1,200 dwelling units downtown, this full development will never happen. Stetson:
confirmed that it is best to assume a maximum development that is not necessarily anticipated to serve
a the basis for analysis so that the analysis will be adequate into the future.
>Councilmember Colson: what percentage of growth does the RHNA allocation (863 units) for
Burlingame represent. Councilmember Brownrigg: roughly seven percent.
>Councilmember Beach: with respect to the reassessment of the RHNA numbers in the future; please
clarify. Stetson: each metropolitan planning agency receives an allocation from the State that is
assigned to each county in the Bay Area. Meeker: noted that the 21 San Mateo County jurisdictions
conduct discussions to distribute the allocation fairly.
>Mayor Keighran: when are the RHNA allocations set again? Meeker/Gardiner: in eight years, 2023.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: feels that the RHNA discussion is more of a "sideshow" that is not
pertinent to this discussion.
>Councilmember Colson: does the City have a breakdown of the types of residential units included in
the estimates? Stetson: single-family units are primarily one -for-one replacements. Most of the unit
increases are multi-family units, including the below market rate units. Gardiner: the estimates represent
net new units.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: noted that the Urban Water Management Plan appears to provide for
35% population growth and 20% in jobs if the City chooses to do so. Stetson: the Plan does indicate that
there will be adequate supply, but that there is a potential for a deficit by 2040 if there are a significant
number of dry years. The Plan doesn't account for use of recycled water.
>Mayor Keighran: is development in nearby areas taken into account in determining adequacy of
transportation systems? How will potential modifications to the Peninsula Interchange be factored in?
Stetson: yes, development in nearby areas will be taken into account. Believes the Peninsula
Interchange should be addressed in the General Plan, but will not know what configuration it may take.
>Mayor Keighran: doesn't believe that Hoover School is at the design capacity yet. Why didnt the
capacity for Franklin and Roosevelt change given the opening of Hoover? Burlingame High School is not
included in the projections. Stetson: the information provided is from the School District. Mark Intrieri,
Burlingame Elementary School District: spoke to the capacities at the schools. Have been over capacity .
The consultant and the School District need to collaborate more to ensure that the right projections are
used.
>Councilmember Colson: wants to see Burlingame High School and the private school data included
in projections.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: based on his calculations looks like there is roughly a ten -percent buffer
in the school population before they are at capacity. Noted varied school occupancies since the '50s.
>Intrieri: the School District is not anti-growth, wants to be able to plan to accommodate growth.
>Vice-Mayor Ortiz: noted that the capacity of the entire High School District, not just Burlingame High
School must be considered.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: indicated that he felt the assumption for no more than 200 new
residential units in the north Rollins Road area seemed low. Stetson: assumed a density of 10 to 12 units
per acre for lower scale, live -work type of development. This was an assumption made based upon the
housing type that would be assigned to that area.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: asked what the assumption was for the percentage of buildout? Was it
assumed that all properties would turn -over; what ratio of redevelopment was analyzed? Jacobson :
assumed a lower floor area ratio than the maximum for each land -use category. The assumptions were
based upon what the existing land -use fabric exists today and applied to each land -use area. Not every
parcel will turn over.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: indicated that he feels that the development assumption under the
preferred land-use scenario may be a bit high. Redeveloping an area that already exists with buildings
doesn't happen very rapidly. Allowing housing where not is permitted currently may lead to rapid
redevelopment, but this is not necessarily the case in existing developed areas such as Broadway .
Stetson: is not a parcel -by-parcel analysis, but an analysis by land -use category. The assumption for the
non-residential development may be agressive. Can consider any comments on the methodology. Need
to reach a point where a large outside number for development is established that can serve as the
basis for the environmental analysis. The City could choose to allocate a lesser amount of development
during the period of the General Plan.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
>Mayor Keighran: if a development maximum is analyzed in the EIR and results in a number of
impacts, then a lesser development maximum could be adopted? Stetson: yes, this is correct. Need to
land on a maximum development that can be analyzed.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: is struck that in 1950 Burlingame made up 8.5% of the County's
population; today it represents 4%. There are different means of applying density for residential
development; has problems with State mandates that impose requirements, such as secondary dwelling
units. Historically, the community has been a mixture of people from different economic levels .
Affordability of housing is a serious issue. Need to do something to address the housing issues that the
City faces. Can't "roll up the drawbridge" and not accept more development. Thinks that Burlingame can
accommodate up to a population in the mid -30,000 range. Can set rules as to who can rent, set income
levels for rents, accommodate seniors. Wants to keep Burlingame accessible. Employers are having
problems hiring people due to the high cost of living in Burlingame.
>Councilmember Colson: asked about the income categories in the RHNA allocation; does the
allocation suggest the income levels? Are we anywhere near meeting these suggestions? If existing
units are converted to affordable units, do they count towards meeting the allocations? Stetson: yes, the
RHNA suggests allocations based upon income level. Meeker: we are nowhere near meeting these
suggestions. Stetson: noted that conversion of existing units to affordable units is captured through a
complicated formula.
>Councilmember Colson: asked if other communities face the same challenges meeting the income
category suggestions? Kane: can track other communities' progress through their reporting on their
implementation of their Housing Elements. Gardiner: is difficult to compel affordable housing production
absent regulations to do so.
>Mayor Keighran: will the development on Parking Lots F and N count towards the City's RHNA
allocation for affordable units. Meeker: yes.
>Councilmember Beach: after a number is set regarding residential development and employment,
would detailed traffic analysis occur? Stetson: yes.
>Vice-Mayor Ortiz: what are the consequences of not meeting the RHNA numbers? Meeker: can't
compel development of the units, must have zoning in place to accommodate the number of units.
Mayor Keighran opened the public comment period.
Public Comments:
Unidentified Speaker: noted that the maximum residential development projection will likely not be
reached. We don't have enough diversity of housing for different income levels. Understands that
Measure T prohibits imposition of income requirements.
Tom Weinberger: referenced the "Ghost-Ship" fire; the problem is that the City of Oakland does not
provide affordable housing opportunities. There is no housing in Burlingame that is affordable to the
working class. People are being displaced due to rent increases; families are being disrupted due to
heads of households having to commute great distances to get to their jobs due to the unaffordability of
housing. The City needs to develop a solution for housing affordability. Feels the projections discussed
are not enough.
Ms. Lang: concerned about senior citizens. Is there a consideration when the demographics for RHNA
are developed; is the impact of the aging population taken into account?
Art Michael: expressed disappointment that the North Rollins Road area is only slated for low -density
given its proximity to the BART station. Why isn't this area being better utilized? This is an opportunity
area.
Peter Comorato: are any federal or State funding requirements tied to housing production? Has the
presence of the power lines east of Rollins Road been factored into the housing projection for the North
Rollins Road area? Seems to be a lot of inaccuracy in the data presented - how preliminary are the
projections? How can the community be assured that the data is accurate.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
David Harris: has spoken to all of the Councilmembers regarding sea -level rise. Is on a County task
force regarding this topic. Reviewed the impacts of three and six feet of sea -level rise upon the
population of the area. Property values will be impacted; the requirement for flood insurance will reduce
property values. The County is working on a vulnerability assessment. Three-feet of sea-level rise will
affect much of the area east of Highway 101 and even the Lyon-Hoag area. Hopes that sea-level rise is
part of the discussion.
Joanneh Nagler: would like the City to be responsible for building more housing proportionally with the
increase in jobs in the area. There is not a clear path from being a renter into becoming an property
owner. Families are forced to live in studio and one -bedroom apartments due to cost. Would like to see
the City develop affordable housing on property it already owns; for example on the City Hall property,
the Library commons. The capacity to accommodate more variety of housing can occur.
Jennifer Pfaff: there is a tipping point regarding maintaining the qualities that are Burlingame. More
density can be provided when there are better transit opportunities; the City is not there. Not everyone
can live in Burlingame; we are extremely small and cannot accommodate a great amount of growth. Not
happy about regulations requiring the City to allow secondary dwelling units. Believes there will be more
of this type of units. This type of development doesn't create the same impacts upon the infrastructure.
Alicia Ruiz: agrees with everything said, with the exception of placing a high -rise on the City Hall site .
Likes the concept for the North Rollins Road area; could be a creative approach to developing in this
area. Is very expensive to live in Burlingame. Need to change with the times, but do so responsibly.
Sandra Comorato: would love to see the parking lots east of Highway 101 be convened to housing use,
perhaps for teachers, firefighters, etc. Need to be creative, innovative to create opportunities.
Wayne Lee, Councilmember from the City of Millbrae: provided an overview of the new residential
development occuring in that community. Encouraged cooperation between communities to develop
vibrant areas. Looking at teacher housing on the Mills High School campus.
Mike McCourt: Burlingame is a special community. Everyone wants it to be like it was when they first
moved here. The ambiance is changing; there is a lot of growth. The population has been pretty steady
as there is not a lot of land to develop. The traffic increases are not caused by the number of people
living here, but are reflective of commerce in the area. Need to find ways to provide more residential
opportunities for people, particularly for those of lower incomes. Find ways to reduce impacts; promote a
less "car-centric" way of living.
Mayor Keighran closed the public comment period.
City Council Discussion:
>Councilmember Colson: thanked the community members for participating. Facing a challenge to
managing incremental growth while maintaining the community's character. One of the most concerning
problems is the affordable housing issue. Forcing developers to provide housing for various income
levels is difficult with such high property values; they may not develop their properties. The Community
is going to have to decide if it wishes to commit funds, resources and assets to accommodate those of
lower income levels in the community. The Council and community will need to jointly figure out how to
solve this problem; will require community engagement and much discussion over the upcoming years .
Likes the notion of adding housing and density in the North Burlingame area, particularly increasing
density in the north El Camino Real area. Artists need places to live too; need to ensure that creative
places exist for these people to produce. Not every area needs to be super dense. Wishes that
Hillsborough would be more creative in providing housing. Not sure about linking housing production to
job growth. How are we going to provide opportunities for first time home buyers.
>Councilmember Beach: wants the community to understand that the Council knows that the
community does not have an unlimited appetite for growth. Is heartened that by focusing on the north
Rollins Road area and the north El Camino Real area is a responsible approach to growth. Would
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
consider having a higher density in the north Rollins Road area for purposes of the EIR analysis. Need
to work on policies to promote a diverse housing stock. Perhaps create policies that encourage "green"
development that will reduce environmental impacts. Is important to provide for green space in the areas
in north Burlingame that are guided for increased development. Is very eager to see how these areas of
greater density may be impacted by sea -level rise; this will be evaluated in the EIR. Should consider the
pace of how office space is built in relation to housing production. The problem we are encountering is
the increased traffic; excited that these impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. How do we promote
alternative transportation infrastructure that can reduce traffic impacts. Need to consider a
comprehensive parking strategy for the community. Is comfortable with examining the projected growth
presented for purposes of the EIR.
>Vice-Mayor Ortiz: believes that neighborhoods should be protected. Still have a lot of room for
growth where it will not impact the neighborhoods. Likely will create more congestion that must be dealt
with and managed. Noted that the Peninsula Health Care District is already building senior housing and
planning or additional housing. Look at the impacts of sea level rise, particularly upon the Bayfront. Need
to be mindful of our location when creating more housing. Feels that new housing will not be affordable;
need to step in and do something to encourage the production of affordable housing. Housing
affordability is a huge regional problem. Parking Lots F and N are an example of how the City can
promote the development of affordable housing. Believes that growth needs to be limited, but the
numbers presented this evening are manageable. Need to look at other means of transportation that can
reduce traffic impacts. Not in favor of housing in the Bayfront, primarily due to sea -level rise. The
projections need to be based upon the vision for Burlingame's future and take into account regional
forces as well.
>Councilmember Brownrigg: we are part of a region. There appear not to be infrastructure constraints
upon the growth projection presented. Burlingame used to be the outer -orbit of the centers of innovation
in San Francisco and Silicon Valley; the community is now at the center of growth in the area. Don't
have much control over the commercial growth. The schools will plan for whatever growth the City
projects. The growth projection is a policy decision. Need to accommodate seniors and others without
children; our Downtown area provides this opportunity. Need to think creatively about the north Rollins
Road area as an opportunity for new residential growth. Should be highly prescriptive and ensure that
the new neighborhood that is created reflects a vision. Need to ensure that green space is provided for
in this new neighborhood. Urges being agressive with policies for the new neighborhood that will be
created.
>Mayor Keighran: when comparing the density of all Peninsula cities, are we the fourth or fifth
densest? Gardiner: Burlingame is one of the more dense cities on the Peninsula. Believes that a balance
needs to be struck; need to plan for growth, but not sure what the percentage of growth should be. Can
always set a lower number following analysis of impacts from the projections presented this evening .
Traffic is a huge regional problem. Need to take alternate routes into account when analyzing traffic. Not
certain what impact will happen if Peninsula Interchange is modified. Must take into account the impact
of development in other communities. Has always been a proponent of more housing in the north end .
Expected a higher density within the north Rollins Road area. Has always been supportive of live -work.
Can be a bit more dense in this area. Will be having discussions with the Peninsula Health Care District
in the future regarding senior housing. Hopefully development of Parking Lots F and N will move forward
and will provide more senior housing and work -force housing. Perhaps look into rent subsidies to
tenants that use alternative means of transportation (e.g. Uber). Concerned about school impacts both
upon public and private schools. People move here because of the schools; want to maintain the quality
of the schools. Need to strike a balance between growth and maintaining the quality of the schools .
Need to ensure continued dialog with the school districts as this process moves forward. Commended
the San Mateo Union High School District on its efforts to identify opportunities for teacher housing. The
Bayfront is not suitable for housing since it is so isolated. It is also susceptible to sea -level rise. Is a large
revenue producing area as well. Need to look at revenue producing uses to provide funding for capital
improvement needs. Want to maintain the City's reputation as a great place to live. Willing to consider
incremental growth. Focus on growth in areas where building is easier and where transit opportunities
exist. Will not have as great an impact as on the established neighborhoods. Referenced an upcoming
January 17, 2017 meeting to discuss the County's efforts to promote housing production. May wish to
look into condominium conversions as a means of promoting home ownership and housing stability .
Need to offer density bonuses in order to promote development of more affordable housing units.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017
December 6, 2016City Council Meeting Minutes - Final
Consultant Responses to Questions (Laura Stetson):
>The Housing Element does discuss the needs of seniors in particular. Seniors tend to be of lower
income and are included in the income categories in the RHNA, though not specifically as seniors. Other
policies address specific needs.
>Appreciated the comments regarding the live -work housing density and character in the north
Rollins Road area. Will refine the policy direction based on the discussion.
>There are all types of State programs that the City and developers may be able to apply for to
promote the development of different housing types, will research opportunities for housing near transit
stations.
>With respect to the powerlines in the Rollins Road area, will examine this as part of the ongoing
review.
>Will review the data presented to ensure that it is accurate. If there are particular concerns, please
advise the consultant team.
>Sea-Level rise will be considered as part of the ongoing discussions.
>Clarified that the housing in the north end of the community also includes the north El Camino Real
area.
>Confirmed that there is consensus to continue with analysis based upon the projections presented
this evening.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)
558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public
review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the
meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are
available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday,
December 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 Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2017