Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.12.13 CITY O.N RLJN(iAME •Tm dMl`• CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m.—Main Library, Lane Room,480 Primrose Road, Burlingame 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Declaring election results of November 7, 2006 election b. Adoption of Resolution approving salary and benefit changes for IAFF Local 2400; Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers; and Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees c. Approval to award a sole source contract to Ross Recreation for improvements to Village Park Playground 6. ADJOURN TO STUDY SESSION STUDY SESSION a. Review of proposed El Camino North Zoning District regulations and proposed clarification to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan b. Study Session on financial options for Capital Improvements At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the Study Session. As this is a special meeting of the Council, only comments regarding the Study Session items will betaken under this Public Comments period. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. ADJOURNMENT 1 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.burtingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING- TUESDAY,JANUARY 2,2007 2 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5a MTG. MCO A�AAT..JUNE 6,000 DATE 12/13/06 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY rrhv DATE: December 5, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Declaring Results of November 7, 2006 Election RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution declaring the results of the November 7, 2006 election. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame held its November 7, 2006 election and Council should declare the final results of the election by resolution. The County Clerk's certificate is Exhibit A of the resolution. The final vote count for Measure H is: . . YES 5,765 64.0% NO 3,247 36.0% Measure H, to authorize issuance of$44,000,000 in bonds to improve aging and undercapacity flood control infrastructure and for improvements to existing City buildings, was not adopted. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7,2006 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS,a Special Municipal Election was held in the City of Burlingame,on Tuesday, the 7" day of November, 2006, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County was duly requested and did consent to a consolidated election pursuant to the Elections Code; and WHEREAS,the County Clerk was duly requested to hold the election,notice of the election was duly and regularly given as required by law; voting precincts were duly established; election officers were appointed and voting supplies furnished,and in every respect and manner the election was held and conducted,and the votes cast were received within the time and manner prescribed by the law of the State of California controlling elections in general law cities; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Elections Code §§ 10262, 10263,and 10264, the City Council of the City of Burlingame duly convened in the Lane Room of the City Main Library on the 13'day of December 2006, following receipt of the County Clerk's Certificate of Election, to accept the Certificate of the canvass of the returns of the election,to declare the results of the election, and to install the newly elected officers, and as provided by the canvass, the City Council finds that the number of votes cast,the measure for which such votes were cast,and all other matters required by law are hereinafter stated; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The election held in the City of Burlingame on the 7" day of November, 2006, was 1 conducted in the time, manner and form required by the laws of the State of California governing elections in general law cities. 2. The number of ballots cast in the election, the measure voted upon, and the number of votes given at each precinct and in the City to the measure are as set forth in EXHIBIT A attached hereto. ----------------------------- Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk U:\FILES\Elections\ELECTION2006.res.wpd 2 Pt EO CO G,L 4G Tower Road v? . Warren Slocum San Mateo,CA 94402-4098 phone 650.312.5222 Chief Elections Officer & fax 650.312.5348 Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder web www.shapethefuture.org December 5, 2006 RECEIVED DEC 0 8 2006 Hon. Doris Mortensen, City Clerk CITY OF BRURLINGAME City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Certificate of the Chief Elections Officer for the City of Burlingame Election held November 7, 2006. Dear Ms. Mortensen: Attached hereto is the final Certification in connection with the subject election held on November 7, 2006. Sincerely, WARREN SLOCUM Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Enclosures CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER In the Matter of the CANVASS OF THE VOTE CAST ) at the GUBERNATORIAL GENERAL ELECTION ) held on November 7,2006 ) I,WARREN SLOCUM,Chief Elections Officer of the County of San Mateo,State of California hereby certify; THAT an election was held within the boundaries of the CITY OF BURLINGAME on Tuesday, November 7,2006,for the purpose of submitting Measure H to the qualified electors and; I caused to have processed and recorded the votes from the canvass of all ballots cast at said election within the boundaries of the CITY OF BURLINGAME. HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that the record of votes cast at said election are set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my hand and seal this 5th day of December,2006 and file this date with the City Clerk of the CITY OF BURLINGAME. W RR N SLOCUM Chief Elections Officer& Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder 1311/2006 5:40:11PM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATEMENT OF THE VOTE Page 326 of 354 November 07, 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME (H) 41 w z z J O c m 6 U u. y J O C r (n N l0 H w O 0_ M H U >- z 3001 697 412 58.1 265 1a04601 1i�pZ 838 541 64,6 337 17 e a t \ r .✓� / ✓f Y L 493 A ��n.., i.. �'6 178 .__ ift 1004 560 370 66.1 232 120 1005 586 376 64.2 240 108 1006 607 391 64.4 234 130 oyy F ✓ .6wfmf V{ 1010 657 371 56.5 223 112 1011 635 386 60.8 231 112 1012 652 397 60.9 254 115 o,z,� me -: 2 5 ` ""q pd ::1014 �� 2Jq G''. .� ,, ..... `\��•vt T g 1016 751 485 64.6 280 175 •- 1017 754 492 65.3 293 176 1018 789 577 73.1 317 221 1020ft hy 1022 647 448 69.2 247 176 1023 685 471 68.8 268 178 Early Voting Totals 15,03 29 0.2 24 4 Absentee Totals 15,03 5,009 33.3 3018 167 Election Day Totals 15,03 4,635 30.8 2723 157 Grand Totals 1503 9,673 64.3 5765 324 12/1/2006 5:40:11PM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATEMENT OF THE VOTE Page 327 of 354 November 07,2006 Early Voting Totals CITY OF BURLINGAME(H) 41 W z Z J c M o N c m U u- 0 O a C >- 0 0 Cu F- W U af m H U } Z 12TH CONGRESSIONAL DIST 15,032 29 rp 2 24 4 38TH ASSEMBLY DIST 15,032 29 0,2 24 4 #ST§4P0.6tUaL[)(ST15,032 29 0.2 24 4 I 8TH SENATORIAL DIST 15,032 29 02 24 4 BD OF EQUALIZATION DIST 15,032 29 0.2 24 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME 15,032 29 0.2 24 4 y ULR HALTFARE D ��; 13.032 29 0.2 24 ' s 15.032 29 0,2 24'. ......a.<,<, .. NTY 15.032 29 D.2 24_ SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SC 15,032 29 0.2 24 4 Statewide District 15,032 29 0.2 24 4 Early Voting Totals 15,03 29 0.2 1 24 4 112/1112006 5:40:11PM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATEMENT OF THE VOTE Page 328 of 354 November 07,2006 Absentee Totals CITY OF BURLINGAME(H) 41 W (D af 15 Z:- 0 co LL ti 0 0 I m t: W 0 W co H U z 12TH00NG*E8%01dA1.-Dl6T,- 15,032 § "M 116 On �,i,'M",A$$EM8LY MST ,JST�SUPERVISORIAL DIST 3S< y tag ... ............... 8TH SENATORIAL DIST 15,032 5.009 33.3 3018 167C BID OF EQUALIZATION DIST 15,032 5,009 33.3 3018 1617 CITY OF BURLINGAME 15,032 5,009 33.3 3018 167 ""3M 'PEN19 All 00�WTTA ,�M kteo SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SC 15,032 5,009 33.3 3018 1670 Statewide District 15,032 5,009 313 3018 1670 Absentee Totals 15,032 5,0091 33.3 30181 167 12/112006 5:40:11PM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATEMENT OF THE VOTE Page 329 of 354 November 07,2006 Grand Totals CITY OF BURLINGAME(H) 41 Lu z V; 0 o 10 LL ca 0 % '6 0 P a) co W 0 i2THLONGREMONALI3t5T 0h,7;l, 641 5765 324 � 7 pz� 24 765 324 STH SENATORIAL DIST 15,032 9,673 64.3 5765 3247 BID OF EQUALIZATION DIST 15,032 9,673 64.3 5765 3247 CITY OF BURLINGAME 15,032 9,673 64.3 5765 3247 PENINSULA KEALTRGARE D 15,032 9,073z�,00 3247 'R -131 A 67$ SANU'ATIE0 COMMUNITY COL 15,032 9,6 6 3247 7 ' SAN MATEO COUNTY15,032, :2 64.I I '"'I'll 4A SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SC 15,032 9,673 64.3 5765 3247 Statewide District 15,032 96731 64,3 5765 3247 Early Voting Totals 15,03 29 0.2 24 4 Absentee Totals 15,03 5,009 33.3 3018 1670 Election Day Totals 15.03 4,635 30.8 2723 157 Grand Totals 15.03 9673 64,31 1 57651 3241 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V � , r a�. � Cit of Burlingame 1 02 yF 51509 100 � p. 1.0217 0 % All 4 100 a r Cartography provided by: WARREN SLOCUM, CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER & ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER CITY STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 5b ITEM# q,0 MTG. 12/13/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: December 13,2006 APPROVED FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Approving Salary and Benefit Cyanges for IAFF Local 2400,Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, and Department Head and Unrepresented Employees RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution increasing the salaries for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 2400, Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers (BAMM), and Department Head and Unrepresented Group (including the City Manager and City Attorney) in accordance with Exhibit A. These changes will be effective December 11, 2006 for BAMM and Department Head/Unrepresented employees, and December 25, 2006 for IAFF and Fire Administrators. BACKGROUND: The Memorandums of Understanding(MOUS) for IAFF, Fire Administrators, BAMM, and Department Head and Unrepresented Employees all require that the City meet and confer to determine the annual salary increases for these units effective December 2006. Each of these contracts calls for an increase in the amount necessary to bring the units to third in the San Mateo County survey market. The contracts also contain an "Ability to Pay" clause, which states that if the City projects a general fund deficit in the following fiscal year, the parties will meet on alternative options regarding salary increases. The City of Burlingame General Fund Budget Model for FY 08 & 09 indicates that there is a projected deficit in the coming fiscal years. The City therefore invoked the"Ability to Pay" clause with each of these units. The City has met and conferred with these employee groups and recommends the salary and benefit changes shown on the attached Exhibit A. BUDGET IMPACT: The current budget includes an estimated overall 3% increase for employee salaries, and the proposed increases are approximately$40,000 over the budgeted amount. This additional cost will most likely be offset by the anticipated budget underexpenditures for this year; if not, some transfer of reserves may be necessary. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving Salary and Benefit Changes for IAFF Local 2400, Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, and Department Head and Unrepresented Group 2. Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 2400, THE FIRE ADMINISTRATORS, THE BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE MANAGERS, AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES GROUP,AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUMS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2400, Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, and Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Group have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the City and the Associations and employees have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and memorandums of understanding between the City and the Associations; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the Associations; NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary and benefits of the employees represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2400, Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, and Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Group as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. MAYOR 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 13th day of December, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A The changes in existing salary and benefits for the employees represented by the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2400, Fire Administrators, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, and Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Group shall be as follows: 1. International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2400: 3.5% salary increase effective December 25, 2006. 2. Fire Administrators: 3.5% salary increase effective December 25, 2006. 3. Burlingame Association of Middle Managers: 3.0% salary increase effective December 11, 2006 4. Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Group (including City Manager and City Attorney): A. 3.0% salary increase effective December 11, 2006 (exception: 4.63% salary increase for Parks and Recreation Director to bring to median) B. Deferred compensation contribution increase to $45 per pay period effective December 25, 2006 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5c MTG. DATE 12/13/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB TTED _ DATE: December 7,2006 BY APPROVED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AWARD A SOLE SOURCE CONT CT TO ROSS RECREATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO VILLAGE PARK PLAYGROUND RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting approving the sole source contract with Ross Recreation Equipment Co., Inc. BACKGROUND: In summer 2006, Parks &Recreation requested that Ross Recreation review ADA and Consumer Product Safety Commission compliance issues on the Village Park playground. Ross Recreation is the supplier of Landscape Structures equipment, which is installed at the park. Ross representatives identified several compliance changes that were instituted in California since the equipment was installed in the mid 1990s. Ross Recreation then presented a quote for equipment and installation to bring the facility into current compliance. Ross is the exclusive supplier of Landscape Structures equipment in this area. In achieving compliance, it is necessary to use equipment from the original manufacturer. Components from different manufacturers cannot be mixed. Ross Recreation proposes to supply and install the equipment necessary to achieve compliance. Ross worked through Landscape Structures designers to assure that the resulting design was fully compliant within the available space. The installation will involve removing many of the original components and re installing those which are salvageable along with the needed new pieces of playground equipment. Ross Recreation employs certified installers who are capable of installing the equipment to full comply with any inspections. Compliance issues for this upgrade are best accomplished by using Ross Recreation as the sole source for both the equipment purchase and the installation. BUDGET IMPACT: Cost of the Ross Recreation proposal is 32,510.51. The Parks Division has sufficient funds budgeted for playground upgrades. Approval of the sole source contract before December 31" will enable the City to realize a 5% savings on the cost of the materials. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quotation from Ross Recreation T � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ROSS RECREATION TO INSTALL SAFETY AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VILLAGE PARK PLAYGROUND RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Public Contracts Code requires the City Council authorization if the City is to purchase of materials or services when a single source is being sought; and WHEREAS, Village Park Playground requires alteration of the playground equipment so that it complies with safety standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and access standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and WHEREAS, by modifying the existing equipment, these standards can be met without the need to remove the existing equipment or purchase additional equipment, and the modifications can be made promptly and at a reasonable price; and WHEREAS, Ross Recreation, the original supplier of the existing equipment, is able to make these modifications and is the only certified installer in the are capable of making these modifications; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to use Ross Recreation to modify the existing equipment at Village Park Playground, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The Director of Parks & Recreation is authorized and directed to negotiate and execute an agreement with Ross Recreation in standard City form to install modifications to the playground equipment to comply with CPSC and ADA standards. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Director. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Quote Number 39771 Ri Quotation Quote Date 10/24/2006 recreation equipment Expiration Date 12/31/2006 100 Brush Creek Road#101 Plan Number Santa Rosa,CA 95404 Page # 1 (707)538-3800 Phone (707)538-3826 Fax Customer Project Name City of Burlingame Prks Dept Village Park Retrofit 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame,CA 94010 Shipping Address: Phone 650/558/7330 City of Burlingame Fax 650/696/7216 Parks Dept Corp Yard Attn: 420 Carolan Ave Burlingame,CA 94010 Quoted By Terms Delivery Purchase Order# Jenny Ogston Net 30 4-5 weeks Product # Qty Description Vendor Extended ID Unit Price Price PLAYSTRUCT 1 12886-1-2-includes new proposed components LSI $13,885.00 $13,885.00 and posts for entire structure FREIGHT 1 Freight- $1,100.00 14 one side 6 other INSTALLATION 1 Installation-includes demolition of existing $16,380.00 $16,380.00 structure-reinstallation of exisiting equipment being saved and new equipment purchase ADD 1 ADD 5% IF ORDERED AFTER 12/31/06 Quote Conditions Total Weight: 0lbs. Material $13,885.00 Installation does not include removal of existing surfacing or installation of new surfacing Tax 8.25 % $1,145.51 Freight $1,100.00 Sub-total $16,130.51 Labor $16,380.00 Quote Total $32,510.51 ���CITY ,� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME STUDY SESSION pA 90 �HATEO JUNE 6 AGENDA ITEM#Study Session MTG. DATE 12.13.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY ( — DATE: December 6, 2006 APPROVED FROM: City Planner BY SUBJECT: Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the E1 Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Purpose: At their meeting on November 27, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended the El Camino North (ECN) Zoning district regulations and the supporting clarifications to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to the City Council for public hearing and action. Final action on zoning is take by the City Council because zoning is implemented by Ordinance. Final action on the amendments to the Specific Plan also require Council action because the plan is a statement of city land use policy. The purpose of the study session is to review with Council the proposed provisions of the new zoning and how they will coordinate with and implement the provisions affecting the El Camino Gateway Corridor in the Specific Plan. In approving the ECN zoning the Council will be implementing the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and determining that these regulations are consistent with the direction of that plan for the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor area. All reference material is attached to the staff report. It includes: • the El Camino North zoning district ordinance; • the annotated El Camino North zoning district ordinance; • the recommendations of the Planning Commission Subcommittee on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan which address issues raised regarding the ECN district and North El Camino Gateway Subarea before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 and were addressed at the November 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting; • the proposed amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; and • Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration North Burlingame Specific Plan. CEQA Review The El Camino North (ECN) zoning district regulations and amendments for to the El Camino North Area and El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea are an implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Because these changes are a part of the specific plan implementation they are covered by ND533-P and the Addendum to ND533-P prepared for that plan. ND533-P was approved by the City Council with the adoption of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan on September 20, 2004. The Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 Addendum has been recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission on the basis that with the proposed changes to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the amended specific plan. It should be noted that it is common to adopt a Negative Declaration on a Specific Plan. What it means under CEQA is that each future project proposed within the planning area is subject to separate environmental evaluation based on the specifics of that project. The evaluation of potential environmental impacts for future projects in the planning area must include the `community standards' identified for the area in the Specific Plan. The community standards are set out in Chapter 7, Development Framework, for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In the case of the ECN zoning district and El Camino Corridor Gateway Subarea the community standards which each new project must meet include hazards such as SFO height restrictions, noise (airport and transit corridor), geology, air quality, hazardous materials, cultural resources, and proximity to the existing transportation network, including maintaining appropriate levels of service at key intersections. The CEQA evaluation for each project will also include an evaluation of all the items on the mandated CEQA check list. BACKGROUND History: Since the adoption of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004, the Planning Commission and City Council have been actively working on its implementation as set out in Chapter 8 of the plan document. The implementation program is four pronged: (1) adoption of a development fee (adopted March 21, 2005) to provide funding for the streetscape improvements (page 112); (2) a new sign program for the Rollins Road Auto Row area; (3) zoning to implement the land use proposals including density bonuses, auto row along Adrian Road, residential density bonus for the El Camino Gateway area, changes to development standards to implement the design direction of the Specific Plan, and creation of creek side open space in the Rollins Road area; and (4) disposition of the residual land on El Camino Real (frontage road). To date the City Council in addition to adopting a development fee based on trip generation which is being applied to all future development in the Rollins Road and El Camino Real North planning areas, the Council has also: • adopted zoning for the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block(amendment to the Unclassified zoning), • implemented the North of Trousdale Subarea with the adoption of the Trousdale West (TW) zoning and discussed the proposed amendment of the Specific Plan to include both sides of Marco Polo (to Clarice Way) as high density residential; • determined that the current zoning, C-1, is appropriate at this time for implementing the Specific Plan provisions for the Plaza Shopping Center; • implemented the Rollins Road Area provisions by adopting the Rollins Road (RR) zoning which establishes the Adrian Road Auto Row area, the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay, and incorporates the land uses and proposed densities and design development standards of the plan. Because the proposed clarifications needed for the plan for all the Subareas have been addressed in previous study sessions; and direction regarding the specific plan given in the action with each of these zoning actions, this study session will focus on the remaining Subarea, El Camino Real Gateway Corridor, and the ECN zoning to implement that Subarea. 2 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 The remaining zoning and specific plan issues to complete the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan are those addressing El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. The Subarea is bounded by El Camino on the west, Murchison Avenue on the north, California Drive and the railroad tracks on the east and the rear of the properties fronting the north side of Dufferin Avenue. Implementation of the plan for this Subarea will include adoption of the El Camino North zone as well as some adjustments and clarifications to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan as it applies to the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on November 27, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) to recommend the proposed El Camino North (ECN) zoning district regulations and the proposed amendments to the El Camino Real North Area of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to implement the El Camino North zoning. At the Commission hearing the public raised three issues regarding the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea which will be regulated by the ECN zoning: • the plan land uses and zoning should allow all office buildings at a FAR greater than 0.5; • the allowed residential density should be higher than the proposed 40 units to the acre, with a density bonus for affordable units which would allow 50 dwelling units to the acre, proposed in the specific plan and zoning; and • the required sidewalk width on El Camino Real should be less than 25 feet, because it will reduce development density, since the land within the city owned right-of-way which would be conveyed to the adjacent property for development will be a smaller area and thus reduce the acreage of the site. In their action the Planning Commission directed that offices and medical offices should be in mixed use (retail/office/residential buildings) and can occupy up to the first three floors, so long as there are at least three floors of residential use above the office use. The Commission felt that the planned 40 units to the acre up to 50 units to the acre was sufficient residential density for the area. The Commission did support increasing the residential density in mixed use projects from 30 units to the acre to 40 units to the acre to provide incentive for mixed use buildings. Finally the Commission recommended a 25 foot wide sidewalk on the El Camino frontage in order to encourage pedestrian movement and activity, by providing sufficient width for restaurants and coffee houses to offer sidewalk seating without encumbering passing pedestrians. Commission also noted that on all the other street frontages in the El Camino Real North Area, setbacks were required of development so the visual open space along the sidewalk would be 20 to 25 feet. However in the case of the El Camino Real frontage the setback is zero, so the 25 foot wide sidewalk is becomes typical in terms of the visual amenity. (See Planning Commission Minutes,November 27, 2006) The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor: The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor announces Burlingame to those traveling south on El Camino Real. On the west side is the Plaza Shopping Center which is anticipated initially to remain much the same, with the frontage road removed and converted to a linear park focused on pedestrians to encourage employees from the hospital and in the area to walk to and from BART. The vision for the east side of El Camino is high density residential or mixed retail, office residential uses; with 40 to 50 dwelling units to the acre in tall (60-75 feet) buildings which are moved forward on the frontage road area to the El Camino right-of-way. A 25 foot wide sidewalk is proposed to encourage pedestrian movement and access along the east side of El Camino. In the future, should the owners of the shopping center decide to reuse this site, the same high density residential or mixed use fronted by a 25 foot wide sidewalk is proposed for the west side of El Camino. This would require the removal of the linear park installed in the first phase of plan implementation. (See North 3 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan pages 20-25 illustrative development concepts, 36-37 Circulation and infrastructure, 51-75 design, 87-109 community environmental standards, and 111-115; * appears on pages with amendments). • El Camino North(ECN) Zoning District Regulations The ECN zoning is a redraft of the current C-1/R-4 zoning applied to the El Camino Gateway Corridor; the area bounded by El Camino, Murchison, California Drive and the rear of the lots on the north side of Dufferin Avenue. A summary of the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission including the November 3, 2006, recommendations of the Planning Commission Subcommittee(shown in italics) follows. The El Camino North (ECN) zoning district applies to the properties located between El Camino Real on the west, Murchison (the city boundary) on the north, California Drive on the east, and the rear property lines of the properties fronting on the north side of Dufferin Avenue on the south. (see El Camino North (ECN) Zoning district map) The approach in this zoning district is to create a change in uses in the area to a higher density including mixed use with offices and retail on the first, second and third floors and at least an equal number of stories of high density residential use above. There is a strong pedestrian component in the land use and design direction because of the close proximity of the Millbrae intermodal transit station nearby. The approach to regulation is a meld of traditional and less traditional standards. Because the City does not have the benefit of a redevelopment area to stimulate development in this area, incentives are incorporated into the regulations such as residential density bonuses for lot merger and including affordable housing, allowing zero front and side setbacks for development, and reducing the size of parking stalls (unistall). The components of the ECN district are summarized below. The annotated version of the proposed regulations is attached to document and includes the rationale for the various provisions. A clean copy of the proposed ordinance is also attached. Land Uses (CS 25.41.020 25.41 025 and 25 41 030) As in all zoning districts in Burlingame, the uses section is divided into permitted, conditional and explicitly prohibited uses. If a use is not listed in one of these three categories, it is implicitly prohibited in this zone. A list which compares uses allowed in the ECN zone and adjacent TW zone is attached. Permitted uses ■ Multiple family dwellings in one or more buildings; ■ Office uses including health services, and excepting financial institutions, real estate offices; office floor area ratio is limited to 0.5 in a building and only in structures with mixed uses; ■ Retail sales which achieve a contiguous,pedestrian oriented, retail frontage: ■ Retail services such as beauty parlors,barbershops, shoe repair. ■ Health services, maximum FAR of 0.5 on the first floor, only on lots with frontage on El Camino Real; ■ Accessory structures to support residential uses. Conditional uses: ■ Financial uses with an FAR of 0.5 maximum; ■ Public Utility and service structures; ■ Any structure more than 60 feet tall on El Camino and more than 35 feet tall on Trousdale or El Camino south of Trousdale. ■ Lot coverage over 50%; ■ Clubs, associations, churches, only on the first floor in mixed use buildings; ■ Extended stay hotels; 4 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 ■ Massage, bathing and similar establishments. Prohibited Uses (explicit) ■ Adult oriented businesses ■ Auto body and repair shops; ■ animal daycare, breeding, pens or kennels; ■ Dry cleaning processing plants; ■ hospitals; mortuaries; ■ Office buildings including medical office building,- Outdoor uilding;Outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted or conditional use ■ Parking structures or parking garages that occupy street frontage on El Camino Real between Trousdale and Murchison Drives. ■ Any industrial use ■ Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics; ■ Warehouses for storage; ■ Use of any separate lot to provide required parking for development on a lot. Note: Any use not listed as a permitted or conditional use is prohibited. Design Review(CS 25.41.040) ■ The current commercial design review process will be used for all new structures or structures which change more than 50% of the existing fagade; ■ The code section includes specific criteria for design review derived from the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for reviewing design in this zone. Building regulations, floor area ratio and density. (CS 25 41 050) ■ multifamily dwellings, mixed use or office uses may be located and erected in one or more buildings on any lot. ■ accessory buildings must be separated from the main structure by at least 4 feet. ■ Floor area ratios vary based on type of use: o Residential uses, 40 dwelling units to the acre. o Mixed use residential/ commercial: first and second floor retail or office, 0.5 FAR plus 40 dwelling units to the acre. o Office use: office uses including health services, maximum FAR of 0.5, properties with frontage on El Camino shall be a minimum of 40 feet deep; the height of the office portion of any mixed use structure shall be equal to or less than any residential portion of the building,- the uilding;the maximum height of any portion of the building occupied by offices uses shall not exceed 35 feet. o Group residential facilities for the elderly shall have no maximum floor area, but have a maximum beds per acre of 60 based on the number of people rooms are designed to accommodate. Development on through lots. (CS 25 41 055) ■ This section provides specific standards for developing on through lots with the front on El Camino and the rear on California. The purpose is to provide incentives for a continuous street-wall on El Camino Real. o Specific provisions are that El Camino shall be the front of such lots for interpreting all development standards; o That there shall be a pedestrian entry from front and rear for through lot development; o Any building including residential units on a through lot shall provide common open space and 5 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 delivery access from the California frontage; o A fixed 15 foot rear setback (along California) is required. Height and lot coverage limitations. (CS 25 41 060) ■ Minimum height requirements: o El Camino north of Trousdale Drive: building must be at least 48 feet; o Commercial uses on all other street frontages must be at least 35 feet (Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive and El Camino south of Trousdale. ■ Maximum allowed heights: o All residential uses maximum height 62 feet. o Residential uses which include inclusionary units, maximum height 75 feet. o Maximum height may be exceeded by 10 feet for a mechanical penthouse whose footprint is less than 5% of the roof area. o Variances to height are not allowed. ■ Maximum lot coverage: o 50% unless it is designated differently in some other section of this district. o The portion of the structure in which the commercial and office uses are located shall not exceed 35 feet in height and shall include the first floor and those immediately above the first floor. Setbacks (CS 24.41.065) ■ Front setback and build-to-line o El Camino Real, 75% of the first 25 feet in height shall be setback zero feet from the front property line. Any portion of the building over 25 feet tall and less than 50 feet tall may be setback 10 feet. The driveway width is included in the percentage of the building setback more than 75%. o Trousdale and Murchison, the front wall of the first story or porch deck more than 3 feet in height shall be setback at least 10 feet, and at least 60% of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. o California Drive, minimum front setback shall be a fixed 15 feet. o On corner lots, front setback is based on the front of the lot. ■ Side setback o Minimum side setback is based on the width of the lot ranging from 3 feet for lots 42 feet and less to 7 feet for lots over 61 feet; o For multifamily dwellings the minimum side setback is 5 feet, where greater setbacks required up to 35% of the structure may encroach up to the minimum 5 feet for articulation o f the side of the structure. o Exterior side setbacks shall equal the front setback requirement including build-to line for the block on that side of the building. o There is an exception to side setbacks for lots with lot front on El Camino Real, in this case the minimum side setback shall be zero feet for the first 35 feet of the structure; and this side setback exception may be extended to the rear setback on through lots. o On through lots with frontage on El Camino Real zero side setback may extend no farther than the rear setback line; floors above the first floor shall meet the side setback based on the width of the lot above. 6 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 ■ Rear setback: for all properties in the district is 15 feet. ■ Setbacks on through lots: for through lots with street frontage on El Camino Real and California the minimum rear setback is 15 feet; on all other through lots the setback shall be the same as that required for the street frontage. Minimum lot size, street frontage and lot combination (CS 25 41 070,) ■ Minimum lot size: 20,000 SF ■ Minimum street frontage: 100 linear feet ■ lot combination: residential density bonus of 5 units per acre which includes merger of two or more legal lots so long as the total density does not exceed 50 units per acre. No variance for lot size and street frontage (CS 25 41 075) ■ No variance is allowed for lot size or street frontage. Landscaping ( CS 25.41.080) ■ If any front setback is required, 60% shall be landscaped. ■ exterior side setback, 60% shall be landscaped. ■ On California Drive the entire 15 foot setback whether front or rear shall be landscaped; no fence shall be closer than 4 feet to the property line; no fence within 4 feet of property line shall be taller than 4 feet. ■ Access to off street parking, a landscaped buffer of 15 square feet shall be provided on each side of a driveway except on El Camino Real where no landscaping shall be provided at driveways and no at grade parking shall be visible from the street. ■ Landscape buffer for off-street parking garages. a 5 foot square area shall be provided along the street frontages of designated parking garages, except on El Camino Real where zero foot setback is allowed for the entire frontage; provisions are included for shared driveways between two properties. Special parking requirements. (CS 25 41 090) ■ Underground garages in setback areas may project into setback areas below ground. ■ Unistalls. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension 8 '/2 feet by 18 feet except for ADA required stalls; if unistall is used no compact stalls may be used. ■ Aisle dimensions: expresses the currently required back up for parking stalls at varying angles. ■ Changes to on site parking requirements: o mixed use buildings need provide no on-site parking for first floor retail. o in office or mixed use buildings where the gross square footage is larger than 20,000 SF, health service uses require 1:300 SF parking ratio rather than 1:250 SF. o Parking for all other uses is the same as current based on Chapter 25.70. • Planning Commission Subcommittee Recommendations for El Camino Real North Area At the Planning Commission's first public hearing on the ECN zoning district and the amendments to the Specific Plan on October 23, 2006, several questions were raised about the ECN district and the related amendments to the Specific Plan. The Commission directed the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee to make recommendations on these questions. The Subcommittee's recommendations were incorporated into the specific plan text and zoning. (see italics above) Specific notes on the Planning Commission's discussion of the ECN zoning district and their direction to the Subcommittee are in the Planning Commission Minutes for the October 23, 2006, meeting. Also a memo on the Subcommittee's 7 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 response dated November 27, 2006, is attached, following the minutes, for your reference. Only the revisions which address the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district and changes to the Specific Plan which address the El Camino Real North Area/El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea are included below. • North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan- El Camino Real North Area Chapter 2: Goals and Policies The proposed amendments include three revised policies and text clarification of Goal B. New wording appears in italics, wording to be removed is shown by strike euR. The recommendations of the Subcommittee have been included in the summary of revisions to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan text below in bold face italics. Goal B: Recognize that there are two distance Subareas within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road area, and each contributes to the City's economic base and offers unique development opportunities to the City; recognize the need to visually and through a pedestrian access linkage connect the two areas with each other and the rest of the city r-eeegnize the need to tie the �we areas together-, vistta!15 uuu �i �a g pedestrian s i thu� o D-3: Development on the California Drive frontage shall e residential in h and shall be aRr-aetive, pedestrian sealed and designed to ddss itom the r !T line shall support the urban design objectives of the El Camino corridor and shall provide safe and attractive pedestrian and bicycle access to the nearby Millbrae mass transit hub. H-2: Development should emphasize attractive public improvements within developments along street frontages, and along area creeks, with appropriate site landscaping and public furniture, and should create a harmonious visual environment consistent with the "tree city" image of Burlingame. H-3: El Camino Real Design District: Development in this area shall promote an active street frontage with an urban edge and an attractive and safe pedestrian environment. Chapter 3: Illustrative Development Concepts This chapter describes the concepts which demonstrate how the Subareas within the planning area might look if the currently undeveloped and/or underused parcels were to be developed as proposed in the plan. A summary of the changes is provided here with references to the page of the plan where the change is made. The proposed amendments are: El Camino North Area ■ El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea 1. Encourage mixed use opportunities with retail on the first floor in this Subarea. (page 22) 2. While the plan encourages the combination of lots for more viable development within this Subarea, it did not clearly address the existing land use and ownership pattern which creates through lots between El Camino Real and California Drive. This amendment clarifies that development of these through lots should be encouraged, such development should include small, viable open spaces to benefit the public, and developers should be given incentives to include such spaces. (page 22) 8 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 3. The amendment to this section clarifies how the public right-of-way parallel to El Camino Real should be employed for the benefit of the gateway. It establishes that while El Camino Real (the state right-of-way) should not be narrowed, development should be brought closer to the right-of-way by developing part of the adjacent city right-of-way and a pedestrian plaza should be provided on the city right-of-way on the west side of El Camino Real in front of the Plaza Shopping Center. (page 22) 4. The text was amended to establish that future sidewalks, particularly on the east side of El Camino, should be sized to facilitate pedestrian movement and support outdoor uses such as cafe seating. (page 24) 5. To address the issue of encouraging lot combination and the use of through lots with a development orientation to El Camino Real, the text has been modified to support a different development pattern on California Drive; allowing mixed uses (residential, retail and office), encouraging attractive and safe pedestrian access to the mass transit hub nearby in Millbrae by providing a consistent street wall setback from the sidewalk on California; and acknowledging the need to make provision for bicycle use as noted in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (page 24-25) Chapter 4 Land Use Designations El Camino Real North Area ■ Burlingame Plaza 1. The amended language clarifies that the development of the city right-of-way/frontage road at the front of the shopping center is expected to be phased. First it should be developed as a lineal green space and pedestrian area. Later it can be developed with buildings creating a developed urban streetscape mirroring the development pattern on the facing east side of El Camino. The text is amended to clarify that veterinary hospitals are not allowed in this area which is zoned C-1. (page 32) ■ Mills Peninsula Hospital Block 1. Since the Marco Polo street frontage was shifted into the Trousdale West Subarea, the land use description regarding Marco Polo was deleted. (page 33) ■ North of Trousdale Drive 1. The language is amended to acknowledge that the preponderance of development in this Subarea is expected to be high density, multiple family residential and office uses and that the mixed uses (retail and office with residential) are expected to occur on the west side of Magnolia facing the Plaza Shopping Center. (page 33) 2. Figure 3.2 is amended to show both sides of Marco Polo Drive in the North of Trousdale Drive Subarea. All of the figures in the plan are amended with this boundary and Subarea change. The text is also amended to clarify that high density residential and residentially related uses should be the only uses on Marco Polo Way. (page 15) Chapter 5: Circulation and Infrastructure 9 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 ■ El Camino Real 1. Minor edits to emphasize the desire to develop street frontages that encourage residential uses over ground floor retail or office uses and would frame a more deliberate pedestrian friendly entry to the city. (page 36) 2. Figure 5-1 Proposed El Camino Real cross-section plan, sidewalk widths on both sides of El Camino are increased from 15 feet to 25 feet. (page 37) ■ Trousdale Drive 1. Clarify the intention of the location of curb extensions at the corners (bulb outs) to the intersection of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. (page 39) ■ California Drive 1. Consistent with the change to the design guidelines and the proposed change in the setback/street wall on California Drive (see below) the plan is amended to provide for enhancing the pedestrian experience on this important connection to the Millbrae intermodal station by visually defining the sidewalk area with only low fencing setback from the sidewalk to create a green space between the sidewalk and the fence. (page 41) ■ Magnolia Avenue 1. The amendment to this section better describes the role and functions of Magnolia Avenue in the context of the El Camino Real North Area and includes options related to the advantages of bulb-outs to be considered in future planning. The figure 5-6 shows the intersection as it will exist when the main entrance to the hospital is installed on the south side and Magnolia on the north side. (page 42) ■ Parking ,.The text is amended to discourage visible parking areas and access to at grade parking from El Camino Real. The reason for limiting at grade parking access and visible parking lots is that they are counter to the continuous pedestrian experience fundamental to the more active, urban street edge promoted in the plan. (page 49) ■ Street Tree Recommendations 1. Street trees for the El Camino Real frontage have been modified with the proposed tree remaining the same (Princeton Elm) and the Alternate list modified to remove the Chinese Hackberry and add the Frontier and Accolade Elms. (page 47) Chapter 6: Design Guidelines 1. Amend the Pedestrian Network section to clarify that this network will be developed gradually over time as opportunities arise to acquire right of way by acquisition or gift, and except where necessary to mitigate impacts of a particular project, no conveyance of public access rights is intended to be imposed on projects in the area. (page 49) 2. The introductory text of this chapter has been revised to clearly state the purpose of the design guidelines "to guide achievement of the vision and goals of the Specific Plan as presented in the other chapters". The guidelines which follow are intended to establish guiding principles for determining good design. These principles are set out in four summary bulleted points. (page 51) 3. Figure 6-3 is amended to change the legend from stories to feet to provide clearer direction e.g. 2 stories, 24 feet; 3 stories, 35 feet; 4 stories, 48 feet. As was noted in the Bayfront Specific Plan ,for example, a two 10 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 story building could be 24 feet tall or 36 feet tall depending upon the use it was designed for, so indicating allowable height by stories proved to be a vague direction. (Page 55) 4. In the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan four concepts guide the broad design envelop of future development: build-to-lines, minimum building heights, maximum building heights and minimum percentage frontage. Figure 6-2 is amended to remove the build-to-line requirement from the California Drive street frontage. This change is recommended to address the objective of encouraging contiguous development on El Camino on the through lots with frontage on both El Camino Real and California Drive. Note correction from previous draft, the Build-to-line on Murchison between Trousdale and California Drive remains 10 feet, the drafting error is corrected. (Page 54) The text is amended to clarify where there is no build-to line designated, the future development should be consistent with zoning regulations. (page 58). E1 Camino Real North Area ■ Mills Peninsula Hospital Site 1. Development objectives for the hospital site are revised to reflect the plan approved after the Specific Plan was adopted. (page 58) ■ Residential Use on El Camino Real 1. A contradiction exists in the plan between the build-to-line concept and the design diagrams for residential uses in areas which have a zero percent setback requirement. The text is amended to clarify the meaning of the diagrams to development in the North El Camino Area in general and specifically how to address at the street level residential development in those areas with zero percent build-to lines. (page 59-61) ■ Design criteria 1. There are a series of design criteria addressed in the plan. Edits are made to this section to clarify that these illustrated and described criteria are intended to provide guidance and to be employed depending upon the circumstance existing on the property and at the location. Several revisions were added by the Subcommittee in their second review, these changes are shown in boldface italics. (pages 62-75 for the North El Camino Real Area and pages 76 -86 for the Rollins Road area) Margaret Monroe City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Map Subareas of the Specific Plan Area, Subarea B- 2, El Camino Real Gateway Corridor(fig 3-2) Map El Camino North (ECN) Zoning District Boundary Map (Reclassification) Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt an El Camino North (ECN) Zoning District Annotated El Camino North (ECN) District Regulations, including Subcommittee Recommendations, November 15, 2006 Zoning Use Tables, Trousdale West (TW) and El Camino North (ECN) Subcommittee Report, Memo: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes, October 23, 2006 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 533-P North Burlingame Specific Plan Planning Commission Minutes, November 27, 2006, summary of public comments Written Comments Received at the Planning Commission Public Hearing: 11 Review of Proposed El Camino North Zoning District Regulations and Proposed Clarifications to the El Camino North Gateway Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. December 13,2006 o George and Marco Chavez, 1860 El Camino Real,November 27, 2006, Re: El Camino North Re-zoning o Hearing Comments by Vincent A. Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real and 11000 Trousdale, November 27, 2006 Public Notice, Mailed December 4, 2006; Published San Mateo Times, December 6, 2006 North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan with Proposed Revisions September 19, 2006 and November 15, 2006,bound separately and attached to staff report. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2006\Study Session\RevlStudySR ECN and SP NE1Cam amend 12 4 06.doc 12 ' a CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Figure 3-2. Subareas of j i -:;' I 6 t_ ~;r� _..__•.�:. I ��: the Specific ..,___ _ _�%.= - _ .��_` .,h- �-•----------..----- Plan Area r�'-'T"res 75, .�:_..aS:>i@ 1� •' - ���%: �`--_.ils"+r'—�..._._-: (_-'- LV ;;r •:Ty ; \ i--I `!'�� :&wl �r i7`'\F"3"•w„h iTk:(Y-- ..\...: -%` 5a - 3• j A �ji�L': �;' / �i i i - { ............ _ .......... ! .....�, t.S ! �.........;l� i j N•5-..1 L ..t-F `• t,0. � .."" .::::! T•Y�- t j i 1.1.: `• -�l,1�,lam. tT.Lie —. r. •. :...t:._C.i L.-� .:--t:..J .a.1 s.-t l~ ...!_i f'_i ir" y,' ='�'•w^"':::. 1 Yv:...: l , L tom.. .-t L--•F.t�_. Z•• :ls.l.iw.r{ 1: r3 ': j ♦tea 0 _ _ ....f .. l ; i.:�r••->--1;. --�j •� >�i r,:�•l•.. OY_-5.J...>.T.. it .__-.t �"'�'x•�..5--�'--•C-t!-^�:-t...t. _:>--' s_•r• rl i.r;[Y:Y_x�:1 ..1 i�1... i v^. tji...t ,..;;.nom:y' ., _ �.•.-+ ...:K- T-��i��r• +3>-•i i':''i rTj';;�.1 :� _ �i '• � --- i ,./ 1. e i C:r-?-• ->--1 '-.'���-�- . F y}..•r/jam<..l.l.•-- -;�, _.SC.:.3 _ ._r= �e l;�'��` ♦��� i Igg����.��i. {� �F I P----. .s �_-•i --i(-' .%. -+• ' a t'"•S"E:^• - tom _ I :._--•`�'t�' '�+c<<r�,t'..- "-;r'•T'i...�,.L- C.-r°--�-y t� L `' � ::.:::_. .1•:• ........... ,..:. •_ ' .lam _; Tri fli tA— t •�••+ C S j..i-; t._. j 4'• - ---- -1--jJ i t^i ; :l 1 . l -- • i./,. � ,,.l: -'���':y.... ._:t...._.: _ ...;s s....,,w.-_.:. ,:„:a -jTJu,`�..'"EA..._.���'�.:-..�,�.- .....�.� /, t.�i•-- _] _—�. _j S_. _;j_ ...j ....t.t. i 1.,..t':l 17�"_ �.:�.. '..'>' � P`..n :!f}.It,tuiT7 1 = - - .. •r- 't` ',_•_„r l t �..t i/ t. r-4 - t 1 u;.i.t:.j u:LBUILD— .....W-4 il.�.,,,.''•T:..�`'•Y•.,.s ! tzw"}: �... �.� i.�.'� may/ \ Al. Northern Gateway L i> "F' A2. Central Rollins Road ,1. ! `t • SAN A3. Southern Gateway "'T �` z: - t,i i y S.i k '1LL_ i`y '._"` 't,�-(!t! "��`�i i `.. KA�SC:.; A4. Adrian Road Auto Row District _ ` y A5. Southern Gateway Entrance Area _*—`tk i!i '..j vi j ;, it BI. Burlingame Plaza B2. EI Camino Real Gateway Corridor i?ti l_.._;.! =-z,_ �i i N. t B3. Mills Penninsula Hospital Block -`�� • ski / P =�+ " '�s" -t;��;"a_ It `6P.C:�TR�i�I•..�,; �� B4. North of Trousdale Drive 1' •L.. `- i �1� �-._ :.:`:.. _�'... ::i'^ _:j t:� <:_._ ��`• ,3 :;rim '�``' l `i i�?.'-..'7`'•,i ! t•-�!-. -<i-- t -_:1'rte _-'+i•- fir-_ ',r .•` •t t t > 0 300 600 1200 fee •� -L_ .T i; f. >r.1...'1 r r,�- -T•- � -j Ir--}.}Y" _ Y" l 'T NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 15 El Camino Real North Zoning(ECN) <- District Map ..r...mom......... ............. ..r../R......x'SSwn.. ............. ..rECN District Zoning ......•......:....•.. ............. ..r........•....•......... ............. w.r............r.........► .. .......................... .. .■......V..O.LLu.O.....0 Effective Date: - `......uu.a..uunr..uu..u.... now...noble.....r.........r...:.. ...................................... ...........•...r....r....r............ ...................................0' ..r... '...........v.........-........... .. `..........\.......r.............r....... ...........`.....r.. e...........►....'.W •...............r.............. ..•. Web . ............:..................•.......i. MEM0 PE MONEW :::::::11.......►................. .. ................... •..........`...r...r......................... •..........•....'.......•...........•....-..7..... . r..... ........................ •...............:.... ♦ . ..u.■u.■u...uv..nc:nrcuuu.uuouou... V uuu67utuv.q.ae.G■uuuu.U.....u�q.. � v■uoucuuu.v.vu:.u.uuuuuunn►au_ � ♦ v■uu...vu■w..:urn.:v........uoo.rJocv.. .uun..a..o... • v�uv0uu:0v05inn�5u:u uo.:.r. .grAnu :::i.vu.5u501, .0 .0 .i00.i.i.555551."Jori55115 . ::..1 • voounvuuouuuu.u.uunan nu.uou:u. . ::ii :::L550005055500i'R• minor on 0015:: vou.. ou ■c.■■uu■unuuu.uuna.uu ■■ n■r..:.u. vuuu a uuuuuuouuuuu.u.uu u.■■v.0 u:v. uuuu.rouuuuuuun..co.auu.uuur.uou.:u. yuuu...•.■uuuu.nnuvuu.00.uuurn.ouur.v.. .n■uo..•nnuou.ou.r.uuu.•uuuonuuuv n.►•... •■u..a uv u u u o u u v..u o n.c u u o,u n u u..a r.■:v.. .u.nuyou..uuur�.u.unnr.uru..n.urn.o.u.ao. uou■ 0011800100 u■n:v.u o■..u•.u.•.0 a n.v.. •■uu■■oau.uuu.uuuuu.u.v.ouuu.cu..,00uu.:u. •uu.uu.uuu..uuunoor.o►.uuuv uv..uoouu..r . .uu■uu.■■r.■uuuu■ur.ruu...n¢n■r.uuuuuur ...Monson u.....a...r..N..U�...IA.r.u...u......, 9 U.O.....V.O.u.a u..I...U...O.�.L.O.u...........1 �u■ou¢.uuunno.00..►vnv.■r.o■■uu..ov �uu..►uununurnuuuu.ouu.ouuuuuu, �uuucuounn..u.uouo.uu•nouuuo..v �nuuru...u..•...ouu..v.a.r..u..uu.0 , , ' �.uu.0 uu...•.......nu..u..�cnuu uuu uunuunououuuouuouuu u� ..■■u.•.ncuuo■uu.■■■u■■w■u■■■u■.r, one., uuu.uuuuuuuuuv, �u■n.:.uuu■uuou■■■uou■uuur u.uuau.ounoununn..u..ur, , vu.u►vu■n■uu■u.■■uuu' vou..vuu.nunnooun , vuunvunnn...u..un, vuu.cvu.uuuuoou vunuuoou.u.unr wwwww"8310010 so 'vnu.cu.uu........► , `.uuucuuunuv yuuuruu.nun.u, , .. �uuu.•onuuur �uuu.vuuov ■uuo,voou vuu.,v.u► � I j . I I I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 3 AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT AN EL CAMINO NORTH(ECN) DISTRICT 4 Section 1. In 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 5 to guide development and use of the northern portion of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the 6 El Camino North area, which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the 7 Specific Plan for this subarea. 8 9 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.41 is added to read as follows: 10 Chapter 25.41 11 Sections: EL CAMINO NORTH DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ECN) 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. 12 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 13 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 24.41.040 Design review. 14 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density. 25.41.055 Development on through lots. 15 25.41.060 Height and lot coverage limitations. 24.41.065 Setbacks. 16 25.41.070 Minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot combination. 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 17 25.41.080 Landscaping. 18 25.44.090 Special parking requirements. 19 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. 20 It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the 21 subarea designated as the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor as an integral part of implementing the 22 policies,objectives and design guidelines set out tin the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 23 for the Gateway Corridor area. The goal of the plan for this subarea is to create a gateway to 24 Burlingame along El Camino Real that extends the residential character and tree canopy along this 25 gateway arterial the length of the city; including the goals of transforming El Camino Real into a street 26 that is more conducive to pedestrian activity, providing opportunities for the development of new 27 housing and providing a positive entry statement for the City of Burlingame that is consistent with the 28 City's "tree city" identity; residential uses should predominate but mixed residential-commercial uses 11/20/2006 1 EL CAMINO NORTH I are encouraged to support pedestrian activity and the nearby hospital; to encourage a variety of 2 residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element and 3 California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for hospital employees,local residents and the 4 local labor force. Although secondary to El Camino Real,the objective of the California Drive portion 5 of the subarea is to put residential front doors and pedestrian and bicycle activity on this street which 6 has good connection to the nearby regional mass transit hub. The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor 7 includes the area bounded by El Camino Real,the rear of the properties fronting on Dufferin Avenue, 8 California Drive, and Murchison Drive. 9 10 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 11 The following uses are permitted in the ECN district: 12 (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; 13 (b) Office uses, including health services, if: 14 (1) In a structure with multifamily dwellings; and 15 (2) With a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5; 16 However,neither financial institutions nor real estate offices are a permitted use under this subsection; 17 (c)Retail sales uses that achieve contiguous,pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage, such as drug, 18 liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, restaurants, florists, and 19 household furnishings, but located on the first floor only; 20 (d) Beauty shops or barbershops, but located on the first floor only; 21 (e) Cleaning agencies, but without any drycleaning or laundering plant, and laundromats, but 22 located on the first floor only; 23 (f) Shoe repair shops, but located on the first floor only; 24 (g) Group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent faculties; 25 (h) Health services with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5,on the first floor only, and only on 26 a lot with a lot front on El Camino Real; 27 (i) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including green houses, lath 28 houses trellises, sheds, swimming pools,and accessory buildings to service such swimming pools,but 11/20/2006 2 EL CAMINO NORTH I not including group pools or swimming pool clubs; these accessory structures or uses shall be located 2 on the same lot as the residential use being supported. 3 4 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 5 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 6 (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 7 (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission 8 to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including transformer boxes; 9 (c) Any structure that is more than sixty(60)feet in height with a lot front on El Camino Real 10 north of Trousdale Drive,or more than thirty five(3 5)feet in height with a lot front on Trousdale Drive 11 or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive. 12 (d) Lot coverage over fifty (50)percent; 13 (e) Clubs, associations, churches, and similar uses, but only on the first floor in mixed use 14 buildings; 15 (f) Extended stay hotels; 16 (g) Massage, bathing, and similar establishments. 17 18 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 19 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this district shall be prohibited and in particular the 20 following: 21 (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; 22 (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; 23 (c) Animal daycare, breeding,pens or kennels; 24 (d) Dry cleaning processing plants; 25 (e) Hospitals; 26 (f) Office uses not located in a structure containing multifamily dwellings; 27 (g) Mortuaries; 28 (h) Outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted or conditional use; 11/20/2006 3 EL CAMINO NORTH I (i)Parking structures or parking garages that occupy street frontage on El Camino Real between 2 Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive; 3 0) Uses of any industrial nature, including, but not limited to, junk yards and automobile 4 wrecking yards; 5 (k) Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics or facilities; 6 (0 Warehouses for the storage of furniture, household, personal or other similar articles or 7 outdoor commercial storage. 8 (m) Any parking area or parking lot used to increase development density on a separate parcel 9 or parcels from the building or lot that it serves; except parking over that which is required to support 10 the density on the site. 11 12 25.41.040 Design Review 13 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 14 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 15 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the El 16 Camino Real Design District of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed 17 as provided in chapter 25.57. 18 (a) A design review application in the ECN district shall be reviewed by the planning 19 commission of the following considerations: 20 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 21 the El Camino Real design district; and 22 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement of 23 buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, off-street public 24 open spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and 25 (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, sense of pedestrian scale along 26 the street frontage, is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design 27 guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District; and 28 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El 11/20/2006 4 EL CAMINO NORTH I Camino Real Design District including building materials, roof design HVAC screens, articulation,of 2 the facades, differentiation of architectural elements, building mass and use of decorative elements, 3 including roof gardens, fenestration, entryways, awnings, and signage; and 4 (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate 5 articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the 6 directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; 7 and 8 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for 9 the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping, including roof treatments that address long 10 distant views from the hills,such as enclosed roof structures or roof gardens,and pedestrian circulation 11 which enriches the existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, 12 as well as those structures with only residential uses. 13 (b) When any part of a commercial or mixed use structure is subject to design review, any 14 awnings on the commercial structure or mixed use structures shall be included in the design review. 15 (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: 16 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the ECN district 17 filed before 18 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above 19 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 20 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 21 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 22 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade. Changes to, 23 additions of,or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under 24 this subsection. 25 26 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio and density. 27 (a) Multifamily dwellings,mixed use,or office uses may be located and erected in one or more 28 buildings on any one lot. 11/20/2006 5 EL CAMINO NORTH I (b) More than one permitted or conditional use may be located on a single lot or in a single 2 building, so long as each use conforms to the requirements and limitations of this chapter. 3 (c) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of the main building,nor 4 shall any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4) feet distant from any other building or 5 structure on the same lot. 6 (d) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density of 7 development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: 8 (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any first or second floor retail or office use on 9 the lot shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5,and the maximum residential density shall be forty 10 (40) dwelling units to the acre for that lot; office and retail uses on the first floor shall be a minimum of 11 forty (40) feet deep as measured from the property line on El Camino Real or from the property line 12 along the public street at the front of the lot. 13 (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot: The residential use shall have no maximum floor 14 area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty(40) dwelling units to the acre. 15 (3) Office use: Office use, including health services, shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 16 0.5; on properties with frontage on El Camino Real, first floor office uses shall be a minimum of forty 17 (40)feet deep as measured from the front property line on El Camino Real. The maximum height of the 18 office use portion of any mixed used structure shall be equal to or less than the height of any residential 19 use of the structure, and in no case, shall the height of the office use of the structure exceed thirty-five 20 (35) feet. 21 (4) Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes: Group residential 22 facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes shall have no maximum floor area ratio,but shall have 23 a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed 24 to accommodate. 25 26 25.41.055 Development on through lots. 27 (a) Any lot with street frontage on two sides shall be considered a through lot. 28 (b) Development on any through lot with frontage on El Camino Real shall conform to all of the 11/20/2006 6 EL CAMINO NORTH I following requirements: 2 (1) The portion of the lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be considered to be the front 3 of the lot and shall conform to all setbacks and standards applied to properties with frontage on El 4 Camino Real; and 5 (2)Any structure designed on a through lot shall have an entry from each street frontage; and 6 (3) Any structure which includes residential units on a through lot with frontage on El Camino 7 Real shall provide required common open space and on site delivery access from the rear property line; 8 and 9 (4) Any through lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be required to have a fifteen(15) 10 foot rear setback from the adjacent public street. 11 12 25.41.060 Height and lot coverage limitations. 13 (a) Minimum required heights. 14 (1) El Camino Real north of Trousdale Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or 15 commercial use with a lot front on El Camino Real north of Trousdale shall be at least four(4) stories 16 or forty-eight (48) feet in height, whichever is greater; 17 (2) Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive, and El Camino Real south of 18 Trousdale Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale 19 Drive,California Drive,Murchison Drive,or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive shall be at least 20 thirty-five (35) feet in height. 21 (b) Maximum allowed heights. 22 (1) Residential structures without any commercial uses shall have a maximum height of 23 sixty-two (62) feet; 24 (2) Residential structures that meet city inclusionary housing requirements shall have a 25 maximum height of seventy-five(75)feet,if the inclusionary units are provided for a minimum of thirty 26 (30)years; 27 (3) Mixed use, commercial, including office, and residential structures shall have a maximum 28 height of seventy-five (75) feet; 11/20/2006 7 EL CAMINO NORTH 1 (4) The maximum height on any parcel may be exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a 2 maximum height of ten(10)feet as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covering no more than 3 five (5)percent of the roof area; 4 (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, maximum heights are also subject to 5 further limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 6 (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variance shall be granted or approved 7 to exceed the maximum heights established in subsections (b) and (c) above. 8 (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent,except as expressly 9 provided in section 25.41.025. 10 11 24.41.065 Setbacks 12 (a)Front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling, commercial,or office 13 use shall meet the following front setback and build-to requirements; 14 (1) El Camino Real. 15 (a) A minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the first thirty-five (35) feet in height of a 16 structure at the lot front on El Camino Real containing a dwelling, commercial, or office use shall be 17 set back zero (0) feet from the front property line; 18 (b) Any portion of the front of a structure over thirty-five(35) feet and less than fifty(50) feet 19 in height with a lot front on El Camino Real may be set back up to fifteen (15) feet from the front 20 property line; 21 (c) The width of any driveway access only to below grade parking shall be included in the 22 calculation of the portion of the building determined to be set back more than zero (0) feet;there shall 23 be no driveways providing access to at-grade or surface parking from the El Camino Real lot frontage. 24 (2) Trousdale Drive and Murchison Drive. The front wall of the first story or porch deck more 25 than three (3) feet above adjacent grade of any structure containing a dwelling unit and the first story 26 wall of any commercial or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive or Murchison Drive shall be 27 set back at least ten(10) feet from the front property line; and an average of at least sixty(60)percent 28 of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. 11/20/2006 8 EL CAMINO NORTH 1 (3) California Drive. The minimum front setback for any structure with a lot front on California 2 Drive shall be fifteen(15)feet as measured from the lot front. The measurement shall be taken from the 3 front property line to any wall or any covered projection of any existing or proposed structure. 4 (4) On corner lots,the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the 5 lot front is located. 6 (b)Side setback. 7 (1) The minimum side setback shall be as follows: 8 Side setback line (in feet) 9 Lots 42' wide or under 3 feet 10 Lots over 42' and up to 51' 4 feet 11 Lots over 51' and up to 54' 5 feet 12 Lots over 54' and up to 61' 6 feet 13 Lots over 61'wide 7 feet 14 (2) The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be a minimum of ten 15 (10) feet, and up to thirty-five (35) percent of the structure may encroach up to three (3) feet into this 16 minimum side setback in order to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. 17 (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front 18 setback and build-to-line for the adjoining street. 19 (4)In case of conflict between any provision of subsections(b)(1),(2),or(3)above,the greatest 20 minimum side setback shall be applicable. 21 (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection(b) 22 (4)of this section,the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story 23 above the first story. 24 (6)Notwithstanding any provision of subsections b(1), (2),(3), (4),or(5) above,on lots with a 25 lot front on El Camino Real,the minimum side setback for the first thirty-five(35)feet in height of any 26 structure shall be zero(0)feet. In addition,on through lots with a lot front on El Camino Real,the first 27 floor side setback shall be zero(0)feet and may extend at that distance no farther than the rear setback 28 line. 11/20/2006 9 EL CAMINO NORTH I (c) Rear setback. All structures located,erected, or rebuilt in the ECN district shall be setback 2 from the rear property line by at least fifteen (15)feet. 3 (d) Setbacks on through lots. For through lots with a lot front on El Camino Real or California, 4 the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen (15) feet; on all other through lots the setback on the street 5 frontages shall be the same as the required build-to-line for each street frontage. 6 7 25.41.070 Minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot combination. 8 (a) There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and a minimum 9 street frontage of one hundred(100)feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into 10 a lot with less area or less street frontage. 11 (b) There shall be a residential density bonus of five(5)dwelling units per acre for any mixed 12 use,residential and other use,or residential-only use when a project includes the merger of two or more 13 existing legal lots, so long as the total density proposed does not exceed fifty (50) dwellings per acre. 14 15 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 16 Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variances for lot size or street frontage shall 17 be granted to any property within the ECN district. 18 19 25.41.080 Landscaping 20 (a) If any front setback is required,at least sixty(60)percent of the area of the front setback shall 21 be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. 22 (b) At least sixty (60) percent of any exterior side setback shall be landscaped to provide a 23 transition to the sidewalk. 24 (c) All properties with frontage on California Drive shall be required to landscape their entire 25 fifteen (15) foot setback area on the California Drive frontage to provide a transition to the sidewalk, 26 and: 27 (1) No fence shall be placed closer than four(4) feet to the property line on California Drive; 28 and 11/20/2006 10 EL CAMINO NORTH 1 (2) No fence located within four(4)feet of the property line on California Drive shall be taller 2 than four(4) feet. 3 (d) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep 4 perpendicular to the sidewalk with a length of at least fifteen(15 )feet parallel to the sidewalk shall be 5 provided at all access points to at-grade, off-street parking, except on El Camino Real where no such 6 landscaping shall be provided. There shall be no at-grade parking visible or accessed from El Camino 7 Real. 8 (e) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five(5)feet deep 9 and in no case, less than five (5) feet long parallel to the sidewalk, shall be provided along the street 10 frontages to designate parking garages, except on El Camino Real where a zero (0) foot setback is 11 allowed for the entire frontage. 12 (f) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as 13 required by the design guidelines for the subarea and by the zoning if development on two or more lots 14 sharing access to on-site parking,the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on its 15 property and shall have irrevocable cross-access easements for the access. 16 17 25.41.090 Special parking requirements. 18 (a) Underground garages in setback areas. Garages maybe constructed entirely below ground 19 level and such underground garages may project into any required yard or building setback area,subject 20 to the following limitations: 21 (b) Unistalls. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension,eight and one-half(8 1/2) 22 feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in length, except for required disabled accessible parking spaces 23 which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in effect at the time a project 24 is submitted for city review; no compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall 25 is used. 26 (c)Aisle Dimensions. All aisles within a parking area shall be as follows: 27 Parking Space angle Required Back Up Aisle 28 90 degree 24 feet 11/20/2006 11 EL CAMINO NORTH 1 60 degree 18 feet 2 45 degree 13 feet 3 (d) Except as set forth in this section, all uses shall provide parking spaces in accordance with 4 the applicable provision of Chapter 25.70 of this code. 5 (1) In mixed use buildings,retail sales and service businesses on the first floor may provide no 6 on-site parking. 7 (2) In office or mixed use buildings including office uses where the gross square footage of the 8 structure is greater than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, health service and office uses shall 9 provide on-site parking at a ratio of one (1)parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of 10 office or health service use; 11 (3)Parking for all other uses on a site shall be provided on site as required in Chapter 25.70. 12 13 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 14 15 Mayor 16 17 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 18 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 19 , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20 —day of , 2006, by the following vote: 21 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 City Clerk U:\FILES\Planning\elcaminonorth 112006.ord.wpd 24 25 26 27 28 11/20/2006 12 EL CAMINO NORTH November 15, 2006 Annotated El Camino North (ECN) District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations Following the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2006, the Commission directed the El Camino North zoning district regulations back to the North Burlingame Subcommittee so that they could address certain issued raised at the hearing, and make recommendations on them to the Planning Commission. This annotation addresses only those issues (PC Minutes October 23, 2006). New wording is shown in italics. Previous wording to be deleted is shown by strike thfough. Annotations are presented at the end of each code section where there is a change. ORDINANCE No. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT AN EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN) DISTRICT Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to guide development and use of the northern portion of the City. Among the Subareas in the Plan is the El Camino North area, which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan for this Subarea. Section 2. A new Chapter 25.41 is added to read as follows: Chapter 25.41 EL CAMINO NORTH DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ECN) Sections: 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 24.41.040 Design review. 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density. 25.41.055 Development on through lots. 25.41.060 Height and lot coverage limitations. 24.41.065 Setbacks. 25.41.070 Minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot combination. 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 25.41.080 Landscaping. 25.44.090 Special parking requirements. 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the Subarea designated as the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor as an integral part of implementing the policies, objectives and design guidelines set out tin the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 Specific Plan for the Gateway Corridor area. The goal of the plan for this Subarea is to create a gateway to Burlingame along El Camino Real that extends the residential character and tree canopy along this gateway arterial the length of the city; including the goals of transforming El Camino Real into a street that is more conducive to pedestrian activity, providing opportunities for the development of new housing and providing a positive entry statement for the City of Burlingame that is consistent with the City's "tree city" identity; residential uses should predominate but mixed residential-commercial uses are encouraged to support pedestrian activity and the nearby hospital; to encourage a variety of residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element and California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for hospital employees, local residents and the local labor force. Although secondary to El Camino Real, the objective of the California Drive portion of the Subarea is to put residential front doors and pedestrian and bicycle activity on this street which has good connection to the nearby regional mass transit hub. The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor includes the area bounded by El Camino Real, the rear of the properties fronting on Dufferin Avenue, California Drive, and Murchison Drive. 25.41.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the ECN district: (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; (b) Office uses, exp including health services, if (1)In a structure with multifamily dwellings; and (2) With a floor area ratios of no more than 0.5; However, neither financial institutions nor real estate offices are a permitted use under this subsection; (c) Retail sales uses that achieve contiguous,pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage, such as drug, liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, restaurants, florists, and household furnishings, but located on the first floor only; (d)Beauty shops or barbershops, but located on the first floor only; (e) Cleaning agencies, but without any dry cleaning or laundering plant, and laundromats, but located on the first floor only; (f) Shoe repair shops, but located on the first floor only; (g) Group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent faculties; 2 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 (h) Health services with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, on the first floor only, and only on a lot with a lot front on El Camino Real; (i) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including green houses, lath houses trellises, sheds, swimming pools, and accessory buildings to service such swimming pools,but not including group pools or swimming pool clubs; these accessory structures or uses shall be located on the same lot as the residential use being supported. CS 25.41.020 Annotation: The issue raised was whether office buildings, whether they served the medical professions or just various professionals, should be allowed on El Camino Real in the El Camino Corridor Subarea; or through out the Subarea. The Subcommittee members recommend that office uses be allowed throughout this area and be regulated by (1) being required to be located in a mixed use structure; (2) be limited to the first 35 feet of any structure; and (3) that it be required that there be residential uses to an area of at least the same height as the office/commercial uses in the building, e.g. 35 feet of office (first three floors) and 35 feet of residential (second three floors), total building height 70 feet. The Subcommittee recognized that in applying this standard to the entire area zoned ECN would make some existing office buildings non-conforming. They determined that this was acceptable because the over riding planning intention for the area is to provide more housing units close to mass transit, and hopefully at the more affordable end of the market. Further most of the existing office buildings in this planning area are approaching the end of their life span and are seriously under parked, in part because they provide medical office space. Because of the emergence of a strong market for medical condominium office space close to the hospital and the many inadequacies of the medical and professional office space in many of the existing office buildings, the Subcommittee felt that this area is being ripe for change in the next 3 to five years and could be used to encourage the transition of this planning area to higher density housing. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including transformer boxes; (c) Any structure that is more than sixty(60) feet in height with a lot front on El Camino Real north of Trousdale Drive, or more than thirty five (35) feet in height with a lot front 3 Annotated El Camino North (ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 on Trousdale Drive or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive. (d) Lot coverage over fifty(50)percent; (e) Clubs, associations, churches, and similar uses,but only on the first floor in mixed use buildings; (f) Extended stay hotels; (g)Massage, bathing, and similar establishments. 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this district shall be prohibited and in particular the following: (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; (c) Animal daycare, breeding, pens or kennels; (d) Dry cleaning processing plants; (e) Hospitals; (0 Office buildings including medical office buildings; (g) Mortuaries; (h) Outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted or conditional use; (i)Parking structures or parking garages that occupy street frontage on El Camino Real between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive; (j) Uses of any industrial nature, including,but not limited to,junk yards and automobile wrecking yards; (k) Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics or facilities; (I) Warehouses for the storage of furniture,household,personal or other similar articles or outdoor commercial storage. (m) Any parking area or parking lot used to increase development density on a separate parcel or parcels from the building or lot that it serves; except parking over that which is required to support the density on the site. CS 25.41.030 Annotation: The Subcommittee determined that the preferred use in this Subarea is multiple family residential in single use or mixed use structures. They recommended that office-only structures not be allowed, either professional office or medical office. It is clearest to add office buildings to the explicitly prohibited uses list. 25.41.040 Design Review Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50)percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the 4 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in chapter 25.57. (a) A design review application in the ECN district shall be reviewed by the planning commission of the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the El Camino Real design district; and (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, off-street public open spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, sense of pedestrian scale along the street frontage, is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District including building materials, roof design HVAC screens, articulation of the facades, differentiation of architectural elements,building mass and use of decorative elements, including roof gardens, fenestration, entryways, awnings, and signage; and (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping, including roof treatments that address long distant views from the hills, such as enclosed roof structures or roof gardens, and pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, as well as those structures with only residential uses. (b) When any part of a commercial or mixed use structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure or mixed use structures shall be included in the design review. (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the ECN district filed before (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) 5 Annotated El Camino North (ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade. Changes to, additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio and density. (a) Multifamily dwellings, mixed use, or office uses may be located and erected in one or more buildings on any one lot. (b)More than one permitted or conditional use may be located on a single lot or in a single building, so long as each use conforms to the requirements and limitations of this chapter. (c) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of the main building, nor shall any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4) feet distant from any other building or structure on the same lot. (d) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density of development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any first or second floor retail or office use on the lot shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, and the maximum residential density shall be forty(40) dwelling units to the acre for that lot; office and retail uses on the first floor shall be a minimum of forty(40) feet deep as measured from the property line on El Camino Real or from the property line along the public street at the front of the lot. (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot: The residential use shall have no maximum floor area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty(40) dwelling units to the acre. (3) Office use: Office use, including health services, shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; on properties with frontage on El Camino Real, first floor office uses shall be a minimum of forty(40) feet deep as measured from the front property line on El Camino Real. The maximum height of the office portion of any mixed use structure shall be equal to or less than the height of any residential use of the building, and in no case, shall the height of the office use of the structure exceed thirty-five (35)feet. (3) Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes: Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes shall have no maximum floor area ratio,but shall have a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. 6 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 CS 25.41.050 Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that commercial or office uses in a mixed use structure should clearly be subordinate to the residential use. For that reason it is suggested that the maximum height of any portion of a mixed use building used by office uses is 35 feet. Further if the office area occupied the first 35 feet in height, then there must be, at least and equal additional height in multiple family residential uses. For example, based on the maximum heights, the .5 FAR office space may be arranged in three stories equaling 35 feet in height, over that must be three floors of residential uses at 35 feet, for a total building height of 70 feet. 25.41.055 Development on through lots. (a) Any lot with street frontage on two sides shall be considered a through lot. (b) Development on any through lot with frontage on El Camino Real shall conform to all of the following requirements: (1) The portion of the lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be considered to be the front of the lot and shall conform to all setbacks and standards applied to properties with frontage on El Camino Real; and (2) Any structure designed on a through lot shall have an entry from each street frontage; and (3) Any structure which includes residential units on a through lot with frontage on El Camino Real shall provide required common open space and on site delivery access from the rear property line; and (4) Any through lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be required to have a fifteen (15) foot rear setback from the adjacent public street. 25.41.060 Height and lot coverage limitations. (a) Minimum required heights. (1) El Camino Real north of Trousdale Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on El Camino Real north of Trousdale shall be at least four(4) stories or forty-eight(48) feet in height,whichever is greater; 7 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 (2) Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive, and El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive, or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive shall be at least thirty-five (35) feet in height. (b) Maximum allowed heights. (1)Residential structures without any commercial uses shall have a maximum height of sixty-two (62) feet; (2) Residential structures that meet city inclusionary housing requirements shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet, if the inclusionary units are provided for a minimum of thirty(30) years; (3) Mixed use, commercial, including office, and residential structures shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet; (4) The maximum height on any parcel may be exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a maximum height of ten (10) feet as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covering no more than five(5)percent of the roof area; (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, maximum heights are also subject to further limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no variance shall be granted or approved to exceed the maximum heights established in subsections (b) and (c) above. (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50) percent, except as expressly provided in section 25.41.025. 25.41.060 Annotation: The maximum height section (b) (3) has been amended to reflect that in mixed use structures commercial and office uses may locate only within the first 35 feet, and residential uses above must occupy, at a minimum, the same number of feet, e.g. 35 feet. If the commercial uses occupy only two floors or 24 feet, then the residential uses above must occupy as a minimum 24 feet but may also occupy more floors if the developers wishes. This code change is made to reinforce the proposed change in CS 25.41. 050 (3) Office uses in mixed use buildings above. 24.41.065 Setbacks (a)Front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling, commercial, or office use shall meet the following front setback and build-to requirements; 8 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 (1) El Camino Real. (a) A minimum of seventy-five (75)percent of the first twenty five (2-5)thirty-five (35) feet in height of a structure at the lot front on El Camino Real containing a dwelling, commercial or office use shall be set back zero (0) feet from the front property line; (b) Any portion of the front of a structure over twenty five(2-5)thirty-five (35) feet and less than fifty(50) feet in height with a lot front on El Camino Real may be setback up to ten ("fifteen (15) feet from the front property line; (c) The width of any driveway access only to below grade parking shall be included in the calculation of the portion of the building determined to be set back more than zero (0) feet; there shall be no driveways providing access to at-grade or surface parking from the El Camino Real lot frontage. (2) Trousdale Drive and Murchison Drive. The front wall of the first story or porch deck more than three (3) feet above adjacent grade of any structure containing a dwelling unit and the first story wall of any commercial or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive or Murchison Drive shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the front property line; and an average of at least sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. (3) California Drive. The minimum front setback for any structure with a lot front on California Drive shall be fifteen(15) feet as measured from the lot front. The measurement shall be taken from the front property line to any wall or any covered projection of any existing or proposed structure. (4) On corner lots, the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the lot front is located. CS 25.41.065 Annotation: It was noted at the Planning Commission that there was an inconsistency between the allowed height on the portion of the front and side setbacks at zero lot line. This has been corrected by requiring that when there is a zero setback requirement it applies to the first 35 feet of the structure, after that the structure may step back up to a maximum of 15 feet. The code sections addressing setbacks on El Camino above have been corrected to reflect this direction from the Subcommittee. See 25.41.065 (1) (a) (b). (b) Side setback. (1) The minimum side setback shall be as follows: 9 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November I S,2006 Side setback line (in feet) Lots 42'wide or under 3 feet Lots over 42' and up to 51' 4 feet Lots over 51' and up to 54' 5 feet Lots over 54' and up to 61' 6 feet Lots over 61'wide 7 feet (2) The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be a minimum of fire(5)ten (10) feet, and when-e a greater .cic�i side thaek i`� a; up to thirty-five (35) .�auv percent of the structure may encroach up to three (3)feet into this minimum side setback in order to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front setback and build-to-line for the adjoining street. (4) In case of conflict between any provision of subsections (b) (1), (2), or(3) above, the greatest minimum side setback shall be applicable. (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection (b) (4) of this section, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story above the first story. (6)Notwithstanding any provision of subsections b(1), (2), (3), (4), or(5) above, on lots with a lot front on El Camino Real, the minimum side setback for the first thirty-five (35) feet in height of any structure shall be zero (0) feet. In addition, on through lots with a lot front on El Camino Real, the first floor side setback shall be zero (0) feet and may extend at that distance no farther than the rear setback line. CS 25.41.065 Annotation: The Subcommittee was concerned that in all residential buildings which do not have the requirement of zero lot line development, that given the height and mass of the structures 7 foot side setbacks with balconies encroaching would not allow sufficient light and air into the windows on the side of the structure. For this reason the minimum side setback for a multiple family residential structure was increased to 10 feet. To encourage articulation on the side of the tall buildings, the regulations allow 35% of the side setback to encroach up to 3 feet into the required 10 foot side setback. The distance between the 35% with a 3 foot encroachment and the property line will be 7 feet, which is the minimum side setback which is required in the R-4 zone for lots of the size of the lots on El Camino; so these changes are consistent with the regulations currently governing residential development in the ECN district. (c) Rear setback. All structures located, erected, or rebuilt in the ECN district shall be 10 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 setback from the rear property line by at least fifteen(15) feet. (d) Setbacks on through lots. For through lots with a lot front on El Camino Real or California, the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen (15) feet; on all other through lots the setback on the street frontages shall be the same as the required build-to-line for each street frontage. 25.41.070 Minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot combination. (a) There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of one hundred (100) feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. (b) There shall be a residential density bonus of five(5) dwelling units per acre for any mixed use, residential and other use, or residential-only use when a project includes the merger of two or more existing legal lots, so long as the total density proposed does not exceed fifty(50) dwellings per acre. 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the ECN district. 25.41.080 Landscaping (a) If any front setback is required, at least sixty(60) percent of the area of the front setback shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. (b) At least sixty(60)percent of any exterior side setback shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. (c) All properties with frontage on California Drive shall be required to landscape their entire fifteen (15) foot setback area on the California Drive frontage to provide a transition to the sidewalk, and: (1) No fence shall be placed closer than four(4) feet to the property line on California Drive; and (2) No fence located within four(4) feet of the property line on California Drive shall be taller than four(4) feet. (d) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep perpendicular to the sidewalk with a length of at least fifteen (15 ) feet parallel to the sidewalk shall be provided at all access points to at-grade, off-street parking, except on El Camino Real where no such landscaping shall be provided. There shall be no at-grade parking visible or accessed from El Camino Real. (e) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five(5) feet deep and in no case, less than five (5) feet long parallel to the sidewalk, shall be provided along the street frontages to designate parking garages, except on El Camino Real where a zero (0) foot setback is allowed for the entire frontage. (f) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as required by the design guidelines for the Subarea and by the zoning if development on two or more lots sharing access to on-site parking, the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on its property and shall have irrevocable cross-access easements for the access. 11 Annotated El Camino North(ECN)District Regulations Subcommittee Recommendations November 15,2006 25.41.090 Special parking requirements. (a) Underground garages in setback areas. Garages may be constructed entirely below ground level and such underground garages may project into any required yard or building setback area, subject to the following limitations: (b) Unistalls. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension, eight and one- half(8 %2) feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in length, except for required disabled accessible parking spaces which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in effect at the time a project is submitted for city review; no compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall is used. (c)Aisle Dimensions. All aisles within a parking area shall be as follows: Parking Space angle Required Back Up Aisle 90 degree 24 feet 60 degree 18 feet 45 degree 13 feet (d) Except as set forth in this section, all uses shall provide parking spaces in accordance with the applicable provision of Chapter 25.70 of this code. (1) In mixed use buildings, retail sales and service businesses on the first floor may provide no on-site parking. (2) In office or mixed use buildings including office uses where the gross square footage of the structure is greater than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, health service and office uses shall provide on-site parking at a ratio of one (1)parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of office or health service use; 25.70. (3)Parking for all other uses on a site shall be provided on site as required in Chapter U:\ZoningIssues\NorthBurlingame Subarea Zoning\El Cam North(ECN)\Rd3 AnnotationDraftl PC review 11.15.06.doc 12 Draft: Base draft June 1, 2006 with amended changes: from June 29, 2006 Subcommittee Meeting(CA comments included) from July 13, 2006 Subcommittee Meeting from August 17, 2006 Subcommittee Meeting First Planning Commission Study Draft, September 1, 2006 Planning Commission Action Draft, October 23, 2006 Annotated El Camino North Zoning District Subcommittee Revisions The base document for these edits is the May 31, 2006, draft. Revisions from the .June 1, June 29 and July 13 reviews are shown in italics with annotations. On August 17, 2006 the Subcommittee completed their review of the entire ordinance. Proposed changes to the zoning which would affect the specific plan were taken to the Planning Commission for discussion on August 28, 2006. Included in this annotation are consistency clarifications which resulted from the Planning Commission's review of the August 28, 2006 draft. These changes are shown in bold face italics. This draft also includes notes where the proposed zoning would require an amendment too the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan as adopted in September 2004. Chapter 25.41 EL CAMINO NORTH DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ECN) Sections: 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 24.41.040 Design review 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density. 25.41.060 Height limitations and lot coverage. 24.41.065 Setbacks 25.41.070 Minimum lot size and street frontage 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage 25.41.080 Landscaping 25.44.090 Special parking requirements. Annotation: The subcommittee determined that an overlay zone (CS 25. 41 . 035) was not necessary for the California Drive frontage. 10123106 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 2 However, the subcommittee did add provisions for ' through lots ' to address the impacts on lots with double frontage on California caused by the gateway emphasis for contiguous, pedestrian friendly development on EL Camino Real which would also impact California because of the large number of through lots. (6.29. 06) 25.41.010 Scope of regulations. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the subarea deigned as the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor as an integral part of implementing the policies, objectives and design guidelines set out tin the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Gateway Corridor area. The goal of the plan for this subarea is to create a gateway to Burlingame along El Camino Real which extends the residential character and tree canopy along this gateway arterial the length of the city; including the goals of transforming El Camino Real into a street that is more conducive to pedestrian activity, providing opportunities for the development of new housing and providing a positive entry statement for the City of Burlingame that is consistent with the City's "tree city" identity; residential uses should predominate but mixed residential-commercial uses are encouraged to support pedestrian activity and the nearby hospital; to encourage a variety of residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element and California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for hospital employees, local residents and the local labor force. Although secondary to El Camino Real, the objective of the California Drive portion of the subarea is to put residential front doors and pedestrian and bicycle activity on this street which has good connection to the nearby regional mass transit hub. The El Camino Real Gateway Corridor includes the area bounded by El Camino Real, the rear of the properties fronting on Dufferin Avenue, California Drive, and Murchison Drive. Annotation CS 25.41.010 Scope of Regulations: The Subcommittee wanted to make clear the importance of El Camino as an entrance and gateway focal point; and that California Drive was clearly secondary and should be used to facilitate the achievement of the El Camino Corridor development goals.(6.29.06) 25.41.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the ECN district: (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; (b) Office uses, except health services, financial institutions, and real estate offices, and with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5; (c) Retail sales uses that achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage, such as drug, liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, restaurants, florists, and household furnishings, but located on the first floor only; (d) Beauty shops or barbershops, but located on the first floor only; (e) Cleaning agencies, but without any dry cleaning or laundering plant, and Laundromats, but 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 3 located on the first floor only; (f) Shoe repair shops, but located on the first floor only; (g) Group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent faculties; (h) Health services with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, on the first floor only, and only on a lot with a lot front on El Camino Real; (i) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including green houses, lath houses trellises, sheds, swimming pools, and accessory buildings to service such swimming pools, but not including group pools or swimming pool clubs; these accessory structures or uses shall be located on the same lot as the residential use being supported. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. CS 25.41.025 Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including transformer boxes; (c) Any structure that is more than sixty(60) feet in height with a lot front on El Camino Real north of Trousdale Drive, or more than thirty five (35) feet in height with a lot front on Trousdale Drive or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive. (d) Lot coverage over fifty(50)percent; (f) Clubs, associations, churches, and similar uses, but only on the first floor in mixed use buildings; (g) Extended stay hotels. (h) Massage, bathing and similar establishments. Annotation CS 25.41.025 Conditional Uses: Because there are a number of therapeutic massage/health services already located in this area, it was determined that this use should be allowed in the ECN district. The use had previously been prohibited. The use is shown as conditional because this would also allow day spas in this area, and their impacts on traffic and parking could be unexpected, depending upon their size and hours of operation. (6.1.06) 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this district shall be prohibited and in particular the following: (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; (c) Animal daycare, breeding, pens or kennels; (d) Dry cleaning processing plants; (e) Hospitals; (f) Mortuaries; (g) Outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted or conditional use; 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 4 (h) Parking structures or parking garages which occupy street frontage on El Camino Real between Murchison and Trousdale Drive; (i) Uses of any industrial nature, including,but not limited to,junk yards and automobile wrecking yards; 0) Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics or facilities; (k) Warehouses for the storage of furniture, household,personal or other similar articles or outdoor commercial storage. (l) Any parking area or parking lot used to increase development density on a separate parcel or parcels from the building or lot that it serves; except parking over that which is required to support the density on the site. Annotation CS 25.41.030 Prohibited uses: The Subcommittee felt that one of the most important objectives of the Specific Plan was to stimulate mixed uses with active retail street frontage on the block of El Camino between Murchison and Trousdale. For this reason they felt strongly that parking structures or garages should not be allowed to occupy actual street frontage in this block; parking structures/garages were added as a prohibited use. (6.01.06) Annotation (e): On further discussion the Subcommittee did feel that it would facilitate future development to allow some less expensive to build at grade parking for structures with frontage on El Camino. They suggested that a minimum depth of commercial (retail/office) development be required on the El Camino frontage and behind that there could be a first floor parking area. The minimum depth suggested was 40 feet. This option has been added to the revisions to the development provisions below. (6.29.06) Annotation (1): The Subcommittee did not think that property owners should be able to increase the density of uses on their sites by purchasing near by property to use to meet the on-site parking requirements. In addition the Subcommittee members did not think that at grade parking lots were consistent with the more 'urban' design image which the Specific Plan is focused on establishing in the North Burlingame subarea. For these reasons this use was added as prohibited. (6.01.06) Annotation CS 25.41.035 Uses on Properties on California Drive (Overlay zone) - deleted : The Subcommittee felt that because of the number of'through' lots particularly in the first block of El Camino (south of Murchison), the development of the area along California in town house, or lower rise residential development was not likely or appropriate because of the close proximity of the BART tail track and CalTrain tracks. In reality the Subcommittee felt that much of the California frontage, especially in this first block, would be related to, and the result of development standards uses on the El Camino frontage. For this reason they felt the land use standards for the entire ECN area should be the same e.g. no emphasis on residential only development on California Drive and allow mixed uses there as well. Moreover, to give the California Drive frontage greater separation from the tracks and a more uniform appearance, given the possible combination of front and 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 5 rear yards, the Subcommittee suggested a standard 15 foot front setback along California rather than a build-to-line. With amendment of the setback provisions for through lots, the 15 foot standard could be established as the required rear setback on a through lot with a lot front on El Camino (see through lot requirements below). (6.01.06) ******Need to amend North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to recommend a diversity of land uses along the California Drive frontage rather than just residential as is now the case, and amend appropriate maps if change setback from build-to/percentage to fixed setback standard. (Page 54 for land use and maps)*************************************************** 25.41.040 Design Review Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in chapter 25.57. (a) A design review application in the ECN district shall be reviewed by the planning commission of the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the El Camino Real design district; and (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, off-street public open spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, sense of pedestrian scale along the street frontage,is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District including building materials, roof design HVAC screens, articulation of the fagades, differentiation of architectural elements,building mass and use of decorative elements, including roof gardens, fenestration, entryways, awnings and signage; and (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping including roof treatments which address long distant views from the hills such as enclosed roof structures or roof gardens and pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, as well as those structures with only residential uses. 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 6 (b) When any part of a commercial or mixed use structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure or mixed use structures shall be included in the design review. (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the ECN district filed before (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection (1) above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection(a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade. Changes to, additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. Annotations 25.41.040 Design Review: The subcommittee suggested that the design guidelines for this area should encourage addressing certain features, by citing mandatory elements e.g. roofs, HVAC screens, building design including fenestration, entryways without being to prescriptive. (6.01.06) Annotation: The Subcommittee members felt strongly that because of the existing hillside development which will look down on the new development in the El Camino Corridor, every effort should be made to improve the long distance view of this area. There was debate over whether this view improvement could be better achieved by roof gardens or enclosed roof structures. Both options are intended to be included in this revision. (6.29.06) 25.41.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio and density. (a) Multifamily dwellings, mixed use, or office uses may be located and erected in one or more buildings on any one lot. (b)More than one permitted or conditional use may be located on a single lot or in a single building, so long as each use conforms to the requirements and limitations of this chapter. (c) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of the main building, nor shall any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4) feet distant from any other building or structure on the same lot. (d) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density of development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any first or second floor retail or office use on the lot shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, and the maximum residential density shall be forty 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 7 (40) dwelling units to the acre for that lot; office and retail uses on the first floor shall be a minimum of forty(40) feet deep as measured from the property line on El Camino Real or from the property line along the public street at the front of the lot. (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot: The residential use shall have no maximum floor area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty(40) dwelling units to the acre. (3) Office use: Office use, including health services, shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; on properties with frontage on El Camino Real, first floor office uses shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet deep as measured from the front property line on El Camino Real; (4) Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes: Group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent homes shall have no maximum floor area ratio, but shall have a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. Annotations Section 25.41.050 Building Regulations: Section (d) (1): Developers interested in building in the ECN area have noted that the reduction in residential density from 40 to 30 dwelling units per acre for mixed use development, forces them away from mixed use into all residential. They note that the residential must carry the retail, especially since additional below grade parking is required to support the mixed use office. They also feel that retail without any on-site parking would not be leasable at higher rents, so the cost of some on-site parking needs to be spread over first floor retail use a well. Generally they feel that 40 units to the acre with the affordable unit inclusionary bonuses will work financially. (6.01.06) Annotation: (d) (1) continued: the Subcommittee wanted to provide developers with as much flexibility as possible and incentive to develop mixed use projects, particularly on El Camino, so recommended that parking be allowed at grade, so long as a continuous wall with active retail or office uses was created along the street frontage. The direction was to establish a minimum depth for commercial use (office or retail) along the street frontage, with the tacit suggestion that parking or residential uses could occur behind. (6.29.06) Annotation: (d) (3) Office use. This section encourages office uses, including health services on El Camino, by allowing them to be a shallow as 40 feet with at grade parking behind that on the lot. Impact of this may be to have at grade parking on the California frontage on through lots. With the fixed 15 foot setback the parking lots at the rear would not go to the property line on California. First floor office development on other street frontages would not be required to be at least 40 feet deep, parking might be at grade at property line for part of the lot on lots with other street frontages. (6.29.06) ****** The change in the dwelling units with mixed use (section (d) (1)) would require a Specific Plan amendment, Page 32, B2 EI Camino Gateway Corridor Land Use: Mixed use 0.5 FAR for commercial uses, 40 dwelling units/acre.**** 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 8 Annotation (d) (2): This change is a correction. The specific plan notes that multiple family residential uses in this area should have a maximum density of 50 dwellings per acre. As has been previously discussed, because of the density bonus allowed by the state for inclusion of affordable units, the zoning maximum has been set at 40 units to the acre which would allow the additional bonus, should a developer choose to take it, to stay within the maximum 50 proscribed in the plan. The City's inclusionary housing provisions, while required, do not at this time include a density bonus. However, it should be noted that one incentive provided by the city is to increase the percentage of compact parking spaces, which will increase the number of units a site can accommodate; so in that sense city incentives do provide for more density on site. (6.01.06) Annotation: (d)(3): The Subcommittee felt that the focus of the plan was on contiguous, pedestrian friendly land uses along the El Camino street frontage, but that there should be flexibility and even incentive for developers to provide parking where it was cheaper (at ground level). With this regulation both objectives are met. (6.29.06) 25.41.055 Development on Through Lots. (a) Any lot with street frontage on two sides shall be considered a through lot. (b) Development on any through lot with frontage on El Camino Real shall conform to all of the following requirements: (1) The portion of the lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be considered to be the front of the lot and shall conform to all setbacks and standards applied to properties with frontage on El Camino Real; and (2) Any structure designed on a through lot shall have an entry from each street frontage; and (3) Any structure which includes residential units on a through lot with frontage on El Camino Real shall provide required common open space and on site delivery access from the rear property line; and (4) Any through lot with lot frontage on El Camino Real shall be required to have a fifteen (15) foot rear setback from the adjacent public street. Annotation 25.41.055 Through lots: Subcommittee felt that because of its importance to the gateway to the City development on El Camino should take precedence over that on California. For this reason, the committee felt that on through lots the El Camino frontage should take precedence reinforcing the planning goal to make El Camino a tree lined gateway with continuous, contiguous development. The designation of E1 Camino as the front of the lot on through lots also addresses the design problems created by the existing slope down from El Camino to California. To achieve a consistent development pattern on California where development on lots fronting on California would mix with development on through lots which fronts on El Camino, the Subcommittee suggested that a fixed 15 foot front setback be established on 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 9 California rather than using a build-to-line; and a rear setback be established for through lots fronting on El Camino of 15 feet. (6.29.06) 25.41.060 Height limitations and lot coverage.. (a) Minimum required heights. (1) El Camino Real north of Trousdale Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on El Camino Real north of Trousdale shall be at least four(4) stories or forty-eight (48) feet in height,whichever is greater; (2) Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive, and El Camino Real south of El Camino Real. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Murchison Drive, or El Camino Real south of Trousdale Drive shall be at least thirty-five (35) feet in height; ******Specific Plan Amendment: In the plan heights are defined in terms of stories, the zoning is based on feet. For consistency the places in the plan that refer to stories should be edited to refer to measurements in feet: 2-3 stories, 35 feet; 4 stories, 48 feet; 5 stories, 60 (b) Maximum allowed heights. (1) Residential structures without any commercial uses shall have a maximum height of sixty- two (62) feet; (2) Residential structures which meet city inclusionary housing requirements shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet,providing the inclusionary units are provided for a minimum of thirty(30) years; (3) Mixed use, commercial, including office, and residential structures shall have a maximum height of seventy-five (75) feet; (4) The maximum height on any parcel may be exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a maximum height of ten (10) feet as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covering no more than five(5)percent of the roof area; (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, maximum heights including penthouses are also subject to further limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variance shall be granted or approved to exceed the maximum heights established in subsections (b) and (c) above. (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent, except as expressly provided in section 25.41.025. Annotation CS 25.41.060 Height limitations and lot coverage: This provision contains two issues for discussion. First is the reference to three stories. In looking at the APN zoning district regulations it rapidly became apparent 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 10 that regulation by stories is a problem. If you have a parking garage three stories can be about 25 feet; if you have a biotech building three stories can be 51 feet plus. In order to make this review line meaningful it needs to be fixed to a measurable point, e.g. 35 feet. Because of the confusion caused by using stories rather than heights, the staff was directed to amend the Bayfront Specific Plan to show heights in feet intended. (6.01.06) Annotation 25.41.060 (a) (1) (2): The Subcommittee felt that because of the mix of existing uses, the real potential for development on a number of existing through lots, and the close proximity of both the BART tail track and railroad tracks, California Drive should be subject to the same development guidelines as the rest of the area. The majority of the ECN area has a minimum 35 foot height limit. (6.29.06) Annotation 25.41.060 (b) (1), (2), (3): As became an issue in the APN district, whether mechanical penthouses are included in determining the overall height of the building, is an issue which needs clarification. The same provision is added here as was used in the APN district. This wording parallels that in the definition of height in the zoning code. It should be noted that the FAA approval over-rides all of this. In other words, if FAA says the maximum height allowed is 60 feet MSL and the proposed building with penthouse is 65 feet MSL, then 5 feet will have to be removed from the building. (Note: FAA measures from Mean Sea Level, the city from average top of curb, so some minor translation is needed between the two.) Another issue is how maximum height should be handled on a through lot when the maximum height limits are different for each frontage. (6.01.06) Annotation 25.41.060 (b) (1),(2), (3): The subcommittee felt that height should be used as an incentive particularly for mixed use development. With this in mind, the subcommittee recommended that the maximum height for single use multiple family structures should be lower than for mixed use structures. The Subcommittee members did feel that height for multiple family buildings could be an incentive if the city's inclusionary requirements were met. Because inclusionary units may be provided for as few as 10 years and the height of a building is permanent, it is suggested that in order to benefit from the height incentive, the affordable units provided (at least those required by the city) should be provided as affordable for the maximum number of years, 30. (6.29.06) 25.41.065 Setbacks (a)Front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling, commercial, or office use shall meet the following front setback and build-to requirements; (1) El Camino Real. 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 11 (a) A minimum of seventy-five (75)percent of the first twenty-five (25) feet in height of a structure at the lot front on El Camino Real containing a dwelling, commercial or office use shall be set back zero (0) feet from the front property line; (b) Any portion of the front of a structure over twenty-five (25) feet and less than fifty(50) feet in height with a lot front on El Camino Real may be setback up to ten (10) feet from the front property line; (c) The width of any driveway access only to below grade parking shall be included in the calculation of the portion of the building determined to be setback more than zero (0) feet; there shall be no driveways providing access to at grade or surface parking from the El Camino Real lot frontage. (2) Trousdale Drive and Murchison Drive. The front wall of the first story or porch deck more than three (3) feet above adjacent grade of any structure containing a dwelling unit and the first story wall of any commercial, or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive or Murchison Drive shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the front property line; and an average of at least sixty(60) percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. (3) California Drive. The minimum front setback for any structure with a lot front on California Drive shall be fifteen (15) feet as measured from the lot front. The measurement shall be taken from the front property line to any wall or any covered projection of any existing or proposed structure. (4) On corner lots, the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the lot front is located. Annotation CS 25.41.065 Front Setbacks: The build-to-line has been one of the hardest concepts to implement from the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The changes to this section reflect the interpretations of the build-to-line recently or currently being considered by the Planning Commission. This interpretation distinguishes between build to lines for all residential developments and mixed use. It would not allow porches to count in the build-to-line for mixed use with commercial on the first floor. In addition the property at 1800 Trousdale presents a unique problem where the front property line is at an angle and, in order to fit the lot, the structure is placed squarely on the lot. The result is that with the articulation on the front of the structure and the diverging angle on the property line, 60% of the walls are not at the build-to-line, but in a case like this one an average might be met with some points at 8 feet and others at 11 feet. (6.01.06) Annotation (a) (1) (A -C): The Subcommittee felt that requiring only a 0' setback along El Camino Real was not sensitive to the needs of various land uses, particularly all residential buildings which need a visually identifiable entrance. In addition the 0' setback did not address how access to parking garages was to be addressed. The Subcommittee felt that if 75% of the front of the building were required to be a the 0' setback, that would provide opportunity for entryways and access to below grade parking, particularly for buildings which were not built on through lots. However, to insure that the street wall was adequately defined the 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 12 subcommittee recommended that the first 25 feet in height of the 75% of the wall built at the 0' setback line must also be at 0' setback. After the 25 feet and up to 50 feet, the front wall could be setback 10 feet within the 75% area. No setback limits were established for the first 25 feet or upper floors for the remaining 25% of the front of the building along El Camino Real. This would provide the designer with opportunities for articulation or other facade variation on the exterior of the building. Finally, a building may be built entirely to the 0 foot front property line for its entire height, should the property owner wish to do so. It should be noted that the subcommittee intended that only driveways which access below grade parking would be allowed off El Camino Real. If at grade parking is provided behind the 40 foot deep street fronting retail or office use, then if it is accessed via a drive way from El Camino Real, the user must travel through the below grade parking and take a ramp up to the at grade parking; or access the at grade parking from California Drive.(8.17.06) Annotation (a) (2): The Subcommittee did not think that the measurement of compliance with the build-to-line should be changed. The concern was if an average setback from points on the building was used it could result in a really big setback at one point on the property in exchange for a too close area at another point. There was no discussion about what would count as a structure for build-to- line. Annotation (a) (3): The Subcommittee felt that the build-to-line was an effective tool to accomplish the objectives of the continuous, pedestrian friendly front setback along El Camino, but would not work as well along California where, because of through lots, there may be a mixture of development fronting on California and development with its front on El Camino Real and its back on California. Because of the narrow width of California, the minimal berming on the east side of the street between the public right-of-way and the rails, and problem of the fronts and rears of development mixing, the Subcommittee felt that a standard setback of 15 feet which could be required as a front or rear setback, would be more effective in creating a safe, pedestrian friendly experience for those walking along California to mass transit. (6.29.06) ******The Specific Plan design guidelines will need to be amended to remove the build-to-line and percentage of frontage requirements for California Drive*** (b)Side setback. (1) The minimum side setback shall be as follows: Side setback line (in feet) Lots 42'wide or under 3 feet Lots over 42' and less than 51' 4 feet Lots over 51' and less than 54' 5 feet Lots over 54'and less than 61' 6 feet 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 13 Lots over 61'wide and over 7 feet (2) The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be a minimum of five(5) feet, and where a greater side setback is required, up to thirty-five (35)percent of the structure may encroach to this minimum side setback in order to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front setback and build-to-line for the adjoining street. (4) In case of conflict between any provision of subsections b (1),(2) or(3) above, the greatest minimum side setback shall be applicable. (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection (b) (5) above, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story above the first story. (6) Notwithstanding any provision of subsections b(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, on lots with a lot front on El Camino Real, the minimum side setback for the first thirty-five (35)feet in height of any structure shall be zero (0)feet. In addition, on through lots with a lot front on EI Camino Real, the fist floor side setback shall be zero (0)feet and may extend at that distance no farther than the rear setback line. Annotation CS 25.41. 065 Side Setbacks (6.29.06) The Subcommittee determined that to preserve the uniform street wall on California Drive on through lots, the first floor zero side setback should not extend into the 15 foot rear setback. Also that on exterior side setbacks (corner lots) the side setback for buildings with lot front on El Camino Real should comply with the front setback/ build-to-line established for the side street. (7.13.06) Finally the subcommittee members felt that in order to establish an urban street wall along El Camino Real the first 35 feet in height of all buildings should be placed at side property lines so structures would be continuous. After 35 feet in height the building would be required to meet the side setback based on the width of the lot, typically 7 feet based on the preponderance of existing lot frontages in the area. Question: Should the emphasis on the continuous urban wall be limited to the block on the east side of El Camino north of Trousdale; or include both blocks on the east side of El Camino in the ECN zoning district? (c) Rear setback. All structures located, erected, or rebuilt in the ECN district shall be setback from the rear property line by at least fifteen(15) feet. (d) Setbacks on through lots. For through lots with a lot front on El Camino Real or California, the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen (15) feet; on all other through lots the setback on 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 14 the street frontages shall be the same as the required build-to-line for each street frontage. Annotation CS 25.41.065 (c) Rear setbacks: Since a number of lots in this zoning district are through lots with street frontage at each end, how the front and rear of the lot are determined becomes important, especially when considering that an important planning objective is a continuous developed frontage on El Camino Real. If this is the case and the rear setbacks are on California, there will not be continuous development along the California frontage. (6.01.06) Annotation (d) Through lots: the Subcommittee felt that the impacts of through lot development on the street wall is unique and should be treated differently in order to maintain the pattern of development for each street frontage established by the design guidelines. This provision (d) is added to make it clear that El Camino should never be anything but the front of a through lot to California and that on other through lots (any lot with double street frontage) the pattern of development established by the setback/build-to-line for each street frontage should be adhered to. (6.29.06) It should be noted that the Subcommittee is recommending that the build-to-line on California be abandoned and replaced with a fixed 15 foot rear/front setback line. This change was driven by the number of through lots and the advantage, in terms of achieving desired increased residential and mixed use densities on El Camino, achieved by encouraging the merger and development of these through lots as single lots. This incentive required that front and rear setbacks be merged and that this be accomplished in a visually consistent manner.(7.13.06) 25.41.070 Minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot combination. (a) There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of 100 feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. (b) There shall be a residential density bonus of five (5) dwelling units per acre for any mixed use, residential and other use, or residential only use when a project includes the combination of two or more legal lots, so long as the total density proposed does not exceed fifty(50) dwellings per acre. Annotation 25.41.070: The Subcommittee members felt that future development in the El Camino North area would benefit greatly if some of the smaller lots were combined so that better design concepts and particularly mixed use developments would be more advantageous to build. Moreover, the additional units could help to off set the cost of the more expensive building site. The suggestion is to base the addition of dwelling units (bonus) on acreage. Therefore if the combined lots create a new lot which is half an acre, the applicant would be entitled to 2.5 additional dwelling 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 15 units. No other development requirements would be waived. This issue of minimum lot size has been discussed by the Subcommittee before. There is considerable variety among the lot sizes within the ECN district. There are two as small as 6,000 SF and a number over an acre. Almost all appear to have 100 foot frontages on the public street. The question remains should development be encouraged by allowing the larger parcels to be divided, as occurred on California Drive where half of a one acre site was developed with multiple family condominiums and half with a convalescent home. Or should the code force a single type of development on a site, e.g. multiple family or a mixed commercial/residential use? The same number of parcels will be nonconforming whichever of the two alternative minimum sizes is chosen. 25.41.075 No variance for lot size and street frontage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the ECN district. Annotation CS 25.41.075: The Specific Plan sketches show what appears to be townhouse or attached residential units in the California overlay area. If this type of development is to be encouraged it should not be prohibited by the minimum lot size and street frontage requirements. Two approaches can be taken- allowing attached dwellings or townhouses. Either approach would require adoption of a definition for the term. Annotation 7.13.06: The Subcommittee reviewed the existing subdivision pattern and ownerships, particularly in the block between Murchison and Trousdale, and noted that many of the parcels with frontage on California Drive are lots paired with lots fronting on El Camino Real and have the same ownership (e.g. currently provide required parking for uses on El Camino but were never legally merged). Since the over riding objective of the plan is to create a higher density, more urban edge along El Camino, efficient and cost effective higher density mixed use or residential development will require the combination of these through lots. The design guidelines in the Specific Plan did not address this issue adequately. The Subcommittee felt that the plan should be amended for California Drive (e.g. fix setback so front or rear would be the same), and to actively encourage lot combination which will promote higher density development (e.g. provide a density bonus of 5 DU not to exceed 50 DU on combined parcels). (7.13.06) ******Amend the Specific Plan design guidelines and text to remove reference and guidance toward 'townhouse' appearing development on California Drive. Replace with diagram which shows a street wall consisting of a mix of 15 foot front and rear setbacks************* 10123/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 16 25.41.080 Landscaping (a) If any front setback is required, at least sixty (60) percent of the area of the front setback shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. (b) Al least sixty (60) percent of any exterior side setback shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. (c) All properties with frontage on California Drive shall be required to landscape their entire fifteen (15) foot setback area to provide a transition to the sidewalk,within this area: (1) No fence shall be placed closer than four (4) feet to the property line on California Drive; and (2) No fence located within four (4) feet of the property line on California Drive shall be taller than four(4) feet. (d) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep perpendicular to the sidewalk with a length of at least fifteen (15 ) feet parallel to the sidewalk shall be provided at all access points to at grade off-street parking, except on El Camino Real where no such landscaping shall be provided. There shall be no at grade parking visible or accessed from El Camino Real. (e) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five (5) feet deep and in no case, less than five (5) feet wide parallel to the sidewalk, shall be provided along the street frontages for designate all off-street parking garages, except on El Camino Real where a zero (0) foot setback is allowed for the entire frontage. (f) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as required by the design guidelines for the subarea and by the zoning if development on two or more lots share access to on-site parking, the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on its property and shall have irrevocable cross-access easements for the access. Annotation 25.41.080 (b) : A minimum percentage of landscaping (60%) is required in the front setback. This raises the question about the amount of landscaping expected on exterior side setbacks on corner lots. The Subcommittee determined that because these exterior side setbacks continue the street wall of the front setbacks on the adjacent streets there should be the same minimum 60% landscaping requirement as for the front setback. (8.18.06) Annotation 25.41.080 (c): The Subcommittee was concerned about the pedestrian experience on California Drive, particularly since the Specific Plan encourages much greater density in the area and California Drive is the most direct pedestrian access to the near by BART/CalTrain station in Millbrae. The Subcommittee felt that if fences were not allowed to crowd the sidewalk and were kept to a height which could be seen over, it 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 17 would visually widen the sidewalk area and substantially enhance the pedestrian experience along California Drive. This section establishes the fence location and height along California Drive. It is done in a manner that the requirements would apply whether the 15 foot area was the front setback of development facing California or the rear setback of a through lot with its lot front on El Camino Real. (8.17.06) Annotation 25.41.080 (d): Access points to off-street parking: The Subcommittee modified the provisions of this section to make it clear that the use of landscaping to identify the entrances to at grade parking areas would not apply to properties fronting on El Camino Real. In fact the code section was amended to make it clear that there would be no accesses to at grade parking from EI Camino Real. The reason is that the development objective along El Camino Real is a continuous, urban street wall. The Subcommittee felt that access to below grade parking on El Camino Real should be allowed because was visually different and may be necessary to develop a lot which does not go through to California Drive. The reference to California Drive is removed since the concept of 'townhouse' development along the street is no longer recommended. (8.17.06) Annotation 25.41.080 (e): Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage: because of the objective of a continuous, urban street wall along El Camino, the Subcommittee recommended that the landscape markers proposed in the design guidelines to designate driveway entrances should not be required on El Camino Real, in fact they should not be allowed at all along El Camino Real where a 0 foot setback is required. (8.17.06) 25.41.090 Special parking requirements. (a) Underground garages in setback areas. Garages may be constructed entirely below ground level and such underground garages may project into any required yard or building setback area (b) All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension, eight and one-half(81/2) feet by eighteen (18) feet dimension except for required disable accessible parking spaces which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in effect at the time a project is submitted for city review; no compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall is used. (c)All aisles within a parking area shall be as follows: Parking Space angle Required Back Up Aisle 90 degree 24 feet 60 degree 18 feet 45 degree 13 feet 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 18 (d) Except as set forth in this section, all uses shall provide parking spaces in accordance with the applicable provision of Chapter 25.70 of this code. (1) In mixed use buildings, retail sales and service businesses on the first floor may provide no on-site parking. (2) In office or mixed use buildings including office uses where the gross square footage of the structure is greater than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, health service and office uses shall provide on-site parking at a ratio of one (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of office or health service use; (3)parking for all other uses on a site shall be provided on site as required in Chapter 25.70. Annotation CS 25.41.090 (b): Unistalls: After considerable discussion the Subcommittee is recommending unistall parking in this zone as an option to provide incentives to developers to invest in higher density projects within a transit corridor. This provision is written to offer an option; however if unistall spaces are used in the parking layout, compact spaces may not be used. As written an extra foot for unistall spaces confined on two sides is not required; the resulting dimension for confined spaces would be closer to the current compact width requirement. A unistall space is 8 1/2 feet by 18 feet, compared to our standard 9' x 20 and compact of 8' x 17 feet. One additional foot is presently required for parking spaces confined on two sides or more. From the developers point of view the unistall approach provides spaces which fit between structural support members best. Also if all spaces are unistall dimension, more spaces can be fit in than with a mix of standard and compact. Disabled accessible spaces to CBC/Federal standards still would be required, as would appropriate ceiling heights. It should be noted that no change to the city's required 24' back up aisle is proposed.(See (c)) (8.17.06) Annotation CS 25.41.090 (c): This code section makes it clear what the back up aisle, or any access aisle, dimension is for unistall spaces. Unistall spaces are not required to be perpendicular to the access aisle, for that reason the back up requirements for angled parking needed to be included. There are the backup/access aisle standards the city has required for many years. (8.17.06) Annotation CS 25.41.090 (d): This section addresses parking incentives. The Subcommittee felt that if a building was of a certain size, then the parking pool would be large enough to absorb the difference between medical office (1:250 SF) and non-medical office (1:300 SF) parking requirements. The building size chosen was based on the city's experience in the Bayfront area, 20,000 SF minimum size. This code section also provides for no parking requirement for first floor retail on El Camino Real. The Subcommittee felt that this street level retail would primarily serve people living in the area or walking to mass transit; and there would be some support parking provided by on- street parking on El Camino and the other nearby street frontages. The high cost and inconvenience of providing on-site parking for these retail uses could very well 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 19 discourage the property owner from including the retail use at all. Office uses at grade would have to be supported by on-site parking. (8.17.06) Parking Options Considered in Addition to Allowing Unistalls: As a part of preparing the zoning, the Subcommittee asked staff to evaluate a different approach to calculating on site parking: Gross Square Footage of the structure, with out regard for the use. That analysis follows for your information. After reviewing this data the Subcommittee decided continue to use the current methods of calculating parking with two exceptions, the option of using a unistall parking dimension and using the same parking ratio 1:300SF for medical office and other office uses when the building the uses are located in is larger than 20,000 GSF. Staff was asked to investigate the option of using a fixed parking ratio based on the size (square footage) of a mixed use or residential building rather than basing parking on bedroom count or square footage of commercial/office use as we do now. The Subcommittee suggested that this be a special parking requirement for the North Burlingame area because of the higher densities and proximity to the BART/CalTrain stations. Staff looked at two projects proposed in the Trousdale West district which are proposed at densities similar to those which would be permitted in the ECN district. The Subcommittee suggested a parking ratio of 1 space to 500 GSF of building area. A comparative table follows: Project 1800 Trousdale 1840 Ogden Size (square footage) 59,970 GSF 69,933 GSF Number of dwelling units 25 45 Currently required parking residential 56 94 Currently required all office use 200 233 Parking based on 1:500 GSF 120 140 Percentage change in pkg req'd residential + 114% + 49% Percentage change in pkg req'd office - 40% - 40% Note: Project sizes are based on proposed residential projects. Current residential requirements are based on number of bedrooms, the figures given are based on the breakout of the bedrooms/units proposed for these two projects. Parking for office use is current based on the GSF of the building at a ratio of 1:300. Table provides comparison based on extremes of all residential and all office uses in the buildings. No mixed use assumption was made. Using a ratio of parking to square footage (1:500) clearly penalizes an all residential building when compared to current code parking requirements. Using these two sample residential buildings the current code would translate to parking ratios of 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 20 1:1070 SF for 1800 Trousdale and 1:744 SF for the Ogden project. Since the office parking ratio is smaller (1:300 SF) than 1:500, the parking provided at 1:500 SF would be substantially less, about 40% less. Condominium Guidelines: The Subcommittee recognized that because of the urban environment created by the design guidelines and implementing zoning regulations the commercial and residential condominium guidelines adopted for the remainder of the city would need to be amended. The issues that they identified as needing adjustment were: ■ providing common open space interior to the building rather in useable outdoor areas. The Subcommittee suggested that when open space was provided on the interior of the building in meeting rooms, exercise rooms etc, it be counted as half the value of that provided outside. For example, a 20 unit condominium would require 2,000 SF of common open space outside and 4,000 SF if the same common open space were provided only in common use areas within the building. ■ Common open space should be encouraged to be provided in roof gardens and atriums open to the air and counted against the open space requirement square foot for square foot. ■ Mixed use buildings should not be required to provide any private open space. ■ All residential buildings which are built as condominiums should be required to meet all of the city's current residential condominium requirements. ■ Off Street drop off, delivery and pick up areas should not be required for buildings fronting on El Camino Real unless they are built on through lots, and then such area would be provided at the rear of the building. UAZoningIssues\NorthBurlingame Subarea Zoning\E1 Cam North(ECN)\Rd2Annotation Dft7 forPC action 10.17.06.doc 10/23/06 Planning Commission Action Draft EL CAMINO NORTH 21 ZONING USE TABLES FOR TROUSDALE WEST AND EL CAMINO NORTH ZONES TROUSDALE WEST EL CAMINO NORTH Trousdale Marco Polo EI Camino California West Overlay North Overlay dropped Adult-oriented Expressly Expressly Expressly Businesses prohibited prohibited prohibited Air Courier Ambulance Services Animal Daycare, Expressly Expressly Expressly Commercial Breeding, prohibited prohibited prohibited Kennels Pens Apartment hotels Auto repair/body shop Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Auto Wreckers Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Auto Storage for Car Rental Companies Automobile Dealers Automobile Sales Lots Accessory structure-res. Permitted Permitted uses Automobile Rental Desk in Hotel or Motel Automobile Rental Building Materials/Supply Buildings taller than 35 feet Churches Expressly Expressly Conditional prohibited prohibited Classes Cleaning Agency Permitted on 1st Floor Clubs,Associations Expressly Expressly Conditional prohibited prohibited Commercial parking lots Commercial Recreation Conference/Exhibitions Contractors Convalescent Facilities Permitted Permitted Permitted Convents,parish houses Permitted Expressly Conditional prohibited Ad*ks Day Care Facilities Conditional Delivery/Freight Forwarding Dry Cleaning Plants Expresslyhrohibited xpressly Expressly prohibited prohibited -1- TROUSDALE WEST EL CAMINO NORTH Trousdale Marco Polo EI Camino California West Overlay North Overlay dropped Drug Store Permitted Duplexes Extended Stay Hotels Conditional Expressly Conditional prohibited Financial Institutions Conditional Conditional Conditional Food establishments, free standing specialty Food establishment, incidental Food establishments, Free Standing Gasoline Service Stations Group Residential Permitted and Permitted Permitted Facilities for the Elderly Conditional (1769) Health Services Permitted Expressly Permitted on ECR prohibited only Hospitals Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Hotels and Motels Light Industrial and Expressly Expressly Expressly Manufacturing prohibited prohibited prohibited Laboratories and clean rooms Limousine & Livery Long Term Airport Parkin Massage, Bathing, Expressly Expressly Conditional Tanning prohibited prohibited Mixed Permitted Expressly Office/Residential prohibited Mortuaries Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Motor Freight Terminals Multifamily Dwellings Permitted Permitted Permitted Offices, Supporting uses on-site Offices Permitted Expressly Permitted prohibited Outdoor Storage Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Park and Fly at Hotels, Motels Personal services, Expressly Expressly Permitted on 1st includin barber/beau rohibitedprohibited Floor -2- TROUSDALE WEST EL CAMINO NORTH Trousdale Marco Polo EI Camino California West Overlay North Overlay dropped beau /barber Pet Stores Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited Public Utility Structures Conditional Conditional Conditional Public Recreation Areas Publicly Owned Recreation Facilities Real Estate Offices Explicity Prohibited Rentals of Goods or Equipment Residential Uses Retail Services Permitted (shoe repair) Retail sales accessory Retail Sales Expressly Expressly Permitted on 1st prohibited prohibited Floor(ped oriented RV/Truck Rental Schools Schools for Disabled Conditional Service Businesses Expressly Expressly non-retailprohibited prohibited Technical Schools Training facilities Veterinarian Hospitals Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited Warehouses Expressly Expressly Expressly prohibited prohibited prohibited RELATED REGULATIONS Structure - 35 feet plus Conditional Conditional Conditional (Trousdale & ECR south Lot coverage 50% plus Conditional Conditional Structure - 60 feet plus Conditional Conditional (Trousdale & ECR south Parking on a separate Conditional Prohibited if parcel required pkg Structure with zero permitted on ECR setback Date:September 29, 2006 Note: California overlay zone was removed, entire ECN area subject to the same zoning use requirements. U:\Zoninglssues\Zoning Use Charts\NoBgame Use Tables TW ECN 9.29.06.doc -3- CITY , SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BURLINGAMI MEMORANDUM oA�Tm�uw[/6' DATE: November 27, 2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Tim Auran, Michael Brownrigg, and Stan Vistica RE: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan. Following the public hearing and Commission comments at the October 23, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed that the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee meet, review the issues identified on both the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district. Staff was directed to bring the Specific Plan and ECN zoning back to the commission with recommendations on the issues by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee recommendations have been included in the revised draft of the Specific Plan amendments attached to this staff report (shown in boldface italics) dated November 15, 2006. The Subcommittee recommended changes have also been included in the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district annotations dated November 15,2006, in this staff report (shown in boldface italics). The issues and the Subcommittee's recommendation follow: El Camino North(ECN) Zoning District Recommendations • Conflict between required side and front setback for properties fronting on El Camino Real: The Subcommittee recommendation: On the zero lot line front and side setbacks that the first 35 feet must be at zero lot line, above that the front of the building may be setback up to 15 feet and the side of the building shall be setback 10 feet. For fagade articulation 35 percent of the side wall of the building over 35 feet in height may encroach 3 feet into the side setback for fagade articulation. • Should the same office use restrictions and unistall requirements proposed in the ECN district be included in the TW district? Subcommittee recommendation: o Office use regulations in the TW district should remain as they are: all office buildings and mixed use buildings with two floors of office and residential uses Memo: North BurlingamelRollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan November27,2006 above (any number of floors). o Unistall parking requirements should be added to the TW zoning district. This would allow all parking stalls to be 8 % ` x 18' rather than a mix of standard(9'x 20') and compact (8' x 17'). • Clarify the definition of`health services' to be clear that they apply to human beings only. Subcommittee recommendation: To be explicitly clear the definition should be amended to read "Health service"means an office,clinic,laboratory or any other facility which serves human beings and is engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services.... Note: the changes to the TW zoning district and the definition section of the zoning code are not included as a part of the ECN district action this evening. They will be brought back to the Planning Commission as a separate action after they have been duly noticed. North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Amendments • El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. Office Uses: should office uses include health service/medical office and professional office uses; should office buildings be allowed or should office only be allowed in mixed use buildings with residential uses;should the office use regulations apply to the entire zoning district or just the El Camino Real street frontage. Subcommittee recommendation: o Office uses should include all types of office, including medical/health service; o Office uses should only be allowed in mixed use buildings with an equal match of commercial office use with residential use e.g. maximum of 3 floors of commercial and office use must have at least 3 floors of residential use above. o The office use standards should apply to all properties in the zoning district e.g. all street frontages. Note: Existing office buildings in the ECN district would become non-conforming and could continue until they are removed or damaged beyond 50% of their value. • El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. Would all residential buildings be allowed in the El Camino Corridor Subarea? Subcommittee recommendation: Yes. This area is close to mass transit(BART and CalTrain)and much of it is within the one half mile TOD so eligible for grant money to the city. Finally, the City's housing element identifies this area for high density residential development which includes below market 2 Memo: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan November27,2006 rate units. • Rollins Road. How are`public services'defined?Are animal shelters included if the plan is approved as amended? If public service includes animal shelter, how does that relate to veterinary hospitals? Are veterinary hospitals without boarding the same as animal shelter? Burlingame ordinances are violated by keeping wildlife in the RR area. Subcommittee recommendation: The Subcommittee agreed that public service uses such as fire stations, city corporation yards, vocational schools, are appropriate in the industrial area subject to review e.g. a conditional use permit. Also agreed that an animal shelter is a public service use but should be subject to performance criteria and a conditional use permit to insure that the use as proposed does not infringe on the `right to be industrial' of the other properties and uses in the RR zone. Suggested that staff add a standard condition to all actions in the RR zone that makes it clear that no use can be operated in a manner which does not preserve the right of the properties in the RR district to be industrial. Committee members discussed briefly the history of veterinary hospitals in Burlingame,noting that they used to be allowed in the C-1 and C-2 commercial zones next to residential uses. Because of complaints, veterinary hospitals as a use was moved from the C-1 and C-2 zones to the M-1 zone because there would be no problem of adjacency to established residential uses since residential uses were not allowed in the M-1 zone. The RR zoning district regulations are built on the M-1 district regulations. Attached is the City Attorney's memo of April 20, 2006, which addresses animal rescue and shelter facilities and summarizes how other communities address this use in their land use and zoning. A list of how other communities in the bay area regulate animal related uses(zoning)is attached to the memo. (CA Memo April 20m,2006) He notes that "it would certainly appear to be consistent with zoning practice and light industrial development in the Bay Area to allow kennels in the Rollins Road District." Also attached is a news release from the City of Santa Clara dated November 14,2006,regarding the opening of their new animal care center in an industrial area one block from Bayshore Highway. • Rollins Road. Southern Gateway Entrance portion of Southern Gateway Subarea issues including: text modified not to require conditional use permit for industrial uses in overlay area;change footnote 4 from`community approved'to`City approved'or delete reference to review in footnote all together and rely on text for Southern Gateway Entrance area on page 30 and 31. Subcommittee recommendation: o Do not change industrial land uses in this overlay area from conditional to permitted and conditional, want to preserve the policy of encouraging upgrading the uses as 3 Memo: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan November 27,2006 well as facilitating the inclusion of`gateway features' in future development of the entrance to the Rollins Road industrial area. o Change "community"to "City" in footnote 4. o Retain footnote 4 for those who may only look at the land use density table and not read the text of the plan. • Design Guidelines. Review the choice of`should' and`can'in the design guidelines text to be sure that they convey the proper direction. Subcommittee recommendation: The Subcommittee went though all the passages in the design review guidelines text where `can' appeared and recommended changes. Please check pages 59 — 89 in the attached North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Amended Draft(November 15,2006) Pages with an * at the page number are those on which changes were made. • Circulation and Infrastructure: Diagram 5-6 does not reflect bulb-outs of the sidewalk at Magnolia at Trousdale. Subcommittee recommendation: The Subcommittee directed that the diagram be left as it is, and that the text be clarified to indicate that bulb outs would be an appropriate tool to use to narrow the walking distance across the street at Magnolia,but leave flexibility in how this might be accomplished. (page 42) • Circulation and Infrastructure. Clarify the implementation of the pedestrian network. (page 49) Subcommittee recommendation: Add the wording proposed in the October 23,2006,staff report to make it clear that the city does not intend to use eminent domain to acquire this pedestrian network. • Circulation and Infrastructure.Clarify sidewalk width on major arterials in the planning area. Subcommittee recommendation. The plan should include the following sidewalk widths: o El Camino Real—25 feet o California— 10 feet with a 15 foot setback for development o Trousdale -- 10 feet with a 10 foot setback for development o Murchison-- 10 feet with a 10 foot setback for development 4 Memo: North BurlingameIRollins Road Subcommittee Recommendations to Planning Commission on October 23, 2006 Questions Raised by the Commission on the El Camino North Zoning District and Clarifications to the Specific Plan November27,2006 • Circulation and Infrastructure. Tree species on El Camino Real should reflect the tree selection made with CalTrans after the plan was approved. Subcommittee recommendation: Add Frontier and Accolade Elms and remove Chinese Hackberry on table on page 47. Choice of particular tree would depend on the size and shape relative to the location and uses along the street frontage. At the time any project is reviewed, the City Arborist would review the suggested species for the street tree(s) and determine their appropriateness for the chosen location and conditions e.g. sidewalk,size of planter area, city maintenance obligations, etc. U AZoningIssues\NorthBurlingame Subarea Zoning\Subcommittee Mmos\NBRR Sub recom PC on ECN and Plan 11.13.06.doc 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006 to request the relocation of the line between Subareas A and B or to add a new definition to the code,cannot wait a year to have the study of the downtown completed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Sounds like cosmetology that is very careful and professional,what you would like to see in such a business where surgery is included; agree sounds like cosmetology rather than health care until discussed insurance, doctor and nurse both require medical malpractice insurance which is what is required for a health service. Think this use is between personal service and medical, if personal service there is no regulation of the extent of the business, someone with a Botox clinic could locate in Subarea A, leery that there would be no regulation of such use at all. Regulation is inherent in the licensing process with this type of use, cosmetic services being attached to it, without Botox this is a cosmetic/skin treatment personal service. If this is called cosmetology then we will have Botox clinics all over town. If a registered nurse is required then this does not look like a normal hair and nail care salon. This proposed use will generate more traffic and parking than a beauty salon. Have relatives who are doctors,if need an doctor and a registered nurse it is a health care business, can debate the classification of the business but registered nurses consider themselves health care professionals whatever they are doing. Opposed because need something more than a permitted use to have proper control of this use,need to provide guidelines for hours, staffing level, intensity of use because a lot of businesses come and go, replaced by similar uses. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to uphold the City Planners determination that this proposed use is a health service use as defined in the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Auran, Terrones, Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 9. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND ` RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA(271 NOTICED). PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 23,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report reviewing the background of the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the need to clarify the language in the plan adopted in September 2004. She noted that three zoning districts implement the plan Trousdale West(TW)and Rollins Road(RR)already adopted and El Camino North(ECN)which is included for review and action at the public hearing tonight. The staff report includes a summary of the proposed amendments to the specific plan and the text of the ECN zoning district, compliance of the amendment with CEQA including Addendum to the Negative Declaration ND533-P,and compliance with the adopted General Plan. She pointed out that there are three questions regarding the zoning that the commission should address tonight after the public hearing. Three communications regarding the plan were received after the packet was delivered and are at the Commissioner's desks this evening: David Moutoux, letter,October 23,2006;Eileen Chow,CSE Investments,letter,October 19,2006;Larry Anderson,memo, October 20,2006. Commission asked if the second letter submitted from Mr.Moutoux this evening is also included in the correspondence; CA responded that the subject of that letter is not on the agenda for discussion this evening. Commission asked if the portion of this planning area along El Camino Real would be eligible to be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor plan and what would that mean to the city. CP noted that this area could be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor Plan, and after that plan was accepted by C/CAG and MTC a Burlingame El Camino Corridor plan would make the city eligible for Transit Oriented Development(TOD) funds for each bedroom built within the corridor in the future. This 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006 money would be used by the city to make the public improvements necessary to support future development in the city. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Albert Guibara, property owner in Rollins Road area; Jim Knapp,representing a client in the Rollins Road area; Eileen Chow, 1206-1220 Rollins Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater spoke. Am a sculptor in the Rollins Road area do not feel that animal shelters fit with industrial/warehouse/office uses or with the city's noise and odor ordinances. Object to the proposed amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan because commission made a determination in 2005 that a veterinary hospital without boarding was similar to an animal shelter,40 petitions and letters from property owners were submitted that suggested that the animal shelter use does not fit when changed zoning in 2006;now you want to amend the specific plan,have filed a lawsuit against the city,now amend general plan for animal shelter where everyone does not want one; feel that this use would impact the area tremendously,not realize the impact of the sound,feel you are being fed information, wherever it comes from,that is misrepresentative,want to give you direct information so you can be educated and realize the impact,note letter from Mr.Moutoux submitted this evening points out that there was not proper notice of your October 10, 2006, meeting, no study to speed this process which will result in more litigation. Is this the first reading of this ordinance before the Planning Commission. CA responded yes. Feel Brown Act not subscribed to by limiting comments to three minutes and fact no more staff reports for this item are available at the rear of the chambers tonight, feel Bay Area Air Quality requirements are violated by odor with PHS application, Burlingame city ordinances are violated with housing of wildlife in that project, and city ordinances for noise and odor are also violated with that project so any conditions will be violations, hope all commissioners will read the PHS environmental document including the appendixes on the enclosed disc, see that standards are being violated. Concerned about the Southern Gateway Entrance area in Rollins Road areas: would like the wording for this area modified to promote continuation of existing industrial uses,do not want conditional use permits to be required for small industrial tenants, and change wording in footnote 4 on page30 to remove words 'community approved' before gateway features since the review needed is discussed in the text,if cannot remove the words replace 'community with'city. Comments on ECN district,medical office use should be expanded along El Camino Real and allowed on more than just the first floor,existing medical office buildings may need to be replaced in the future and should be allowed to do so? Plan does not allow health services on Marco Polo;does this include the land owned by the hospital? How will veterinarians be handled in Burlingame Plaza,there is one there now, there is also a pet store in the plaza? Concern is trees on El Camino Real, the street tree recommendations on page 47 do not include the tree species selected since adoption for the reforestation of El Camino, they should be changed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Chair Brownrigg apologized and noted that he had to leave and turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Deal.C. Brownrigg left the dais and Council Chambers (10:05 p.m.). Commissioner comment: feel that limiting health services to the ground floor is not the best use on properties so close to the hospital; intent of ECN zone is to encourage mixed use;questions is should stand alone office buildings be allowed; regarding animal shelters,they are called public services would public services be expanded to include animal shelters if act tonight,appreciate comments heard,need more time to consider and get a number of clarifications before can vote; also concerned about animal shelter is not a veterinary hospital which is a medical type use with a different parking impact, feel should allow office use in ECN up to two floors to encourage mixed use, existing medical offices can remain, ECN would then allow stand alone residential uses and mixed use office and retail. CA noted that if the Commission wanted to revisit animal shelters the plan and zoning need to be returned to the Subcommittee for study to change 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006 the definition and amend the adopted Rollins Road zoning regulations; noted have been at the process of planning for this area since 2002, ECN is the last implementing zoning district, there are a couple of applications for large projects in the ECN area which need to be addressed, Rollins Road and Trousdale West zoning ordinances have been adopted, this request tonight is clean up language to be clear what is expected and to clear up Southern Gateway Entrance issues. Commissioner comment continued: clarify direction to the subcommittee regarding medical office in ECN, do not want to encourage stand alone office buildings in this area, agree that can have medical office up to 35 feet in a building (0.5 FAR); in the design guideline criteria understand that want to establish that guidelines are not regulations,but feel that in the language the'should'should not be changed to'can', `can' includes too many inferences; front and side zero lot line setbacks should hold to 35 feet;need to determine if the additional setback over 35 feet on the front and sides is optional or required, and how it should be determined,diagram 5-6 does not show the bulb outs on Magnolia at Trousdale,should be corrected.These issues should be referred to the subcommittee. Vice-Chair Deal noted that this item would be continued to another meeting after the North Burlingame/Rollins Road subcommittee has met and made recommendations on the issues raised this evening. CP Monroe noted that since this item was being continued to a date uncertain,when it is brought back for action staff would renotice the item in a newspaper of general circulation and send post cards to all property owners in the specific plan area as they did for this item this evening. This item was completed at 10:25 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI PROPERTY OWNER) 63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked what the required width of the driveway is; 9'-6" clear width is required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Kendrick Li,2212 Hillside and Ben Behravesh,4 West Santa Inez Avenue, San Mateo,project architect,presented the project,presented photographs of other homes in the neighborhood; felt that this project would be compatible. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; and Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue spoke;noting that the applicant's first project in Burlingame was in my neighborhood,disappointed in how it turned out,it does not relate to the neighborhood, the details on front appear very flat, a hodge-podge of styles, it looks cheap, it was designed from the inside out; Hillside is one of the first views of Burlingame and its charm, connects between Freeway 280 and El Camino Real,the proposal does not fit,would be a good house for Telluride, but not on Hillside Drive,in direct conflict with the new house going in across the street;proposing a 700 SF basement,what is to prevent this from becoming sleeping quarters,this extra 700 SF is exempted from floor area; concerned with the Magnolia trees, on his other project the applicant did not install tree protection, need to make sure measures are in place here before work begins; live right next door to project facing Columbus,very concerned about the detached garage in the rear of the lot;none of the other houses on this 10 ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND-533-P FOR NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN— PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN A. INTRODUCTION This Mitigated Negative Declaration addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), which permits a lead agency(in this case, the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new(or a subsequent)mitigated negative declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,this addendum may be included in,or attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review. B. SUMMARY On September 20,2004,the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration(No.ND-533- P) and approved the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. As part of the implementation program identified in the Plan, a series of zoning actions have been proposed and implemented to bring the zoning in the planning area into conformance with the adopted plan. As the new zoning districts evolved, it was determined that clarifications needed to be made to the plan based on the specific implementation decisions made for each of the zoning districts. The zoning districts to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan are Trousdale West(TW),El Camino North (ECN) and Rollins Road(RR). The proposed amendments to the specific plan consist of the following changes: • Provide options for complying with the zero setback"build-to"line for residential uses in the El Camino North area; • Refine the options for development on through lots with frontages on both El Camino Real and California Drive; • Extend the boundaries of the Trousdale West portion of the planning area to include the west side of Marco Polo Way, which is already designated for medium-high density residential use; • Reduce the residential densities allowed in the El Camino North and Trousdale West areas to accommodate density bonuses for affordable housing within the planned densities as allowed by State law; • Changed the incentives offered for providing a gateway feature in new development in the Rollins Road Southern Gateway Entrance area; • Refine the boundary of the Adrian Road Auto Row overlay to exclude parcels on Adrian Court; and • Provide clarifications to the text of the Goals and policies,and add policies which recognizes the need to protect the drainage basins within the Rollins Road area, define industrial uses and integrate public service facilities. ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.ND-533-P NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN It should be noted that the changes to the text and maps within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan did not alter the allowed land use structure or densities of development that provided the basis for the environmental review contained in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan identified potential significant impacts in the areas of air quality,hazards and hazardous materials,and public services. The Initial Study prepared for the plan document contained a summary of potential development which was expected to occur in the planning area over the next 20 years. Based on these projections and the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the plan document as community standards,it was determined that adoption and implementation of the proposed North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan would not result in any significant environmental impacts. In general, the land uses and densities proposed include incorporating residential uses into the El Camino North and Trousdale West areas, to replace existing office development. The land uses proposed in the Rollins Road area would be replacing existing light industrial and service businesses with similar uses and densities. The residential uses would generate less traffic during peak hours than the existing development in the area. Therefore, the impacts of the potential development, particularly on traffic circulation and air quality, were determined to be less than significant. The proposed amendments to the plan would not change the development assumptions contained in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the plan and,therefore,no additional environmental review of the plan is required. D. PREMISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan assumed that future development would occur within the parameters outlined in the plan. As individual development projects are submitted for review,each project will require the preparation of an environmental document. The environmental review for the individual projects will analyze the environmental impacts of the individual project in the context of the Specific Plan as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. E. CONCLUSION The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan including the proposed amendments identify potential impacts in the areas of air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and public services. All of these potential impacts were determined to be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the initial study prepared for the plan. With the proposed changes in the project, no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the amended specific plan. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissionerprior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3a. 711 LINDEN AVENUE ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT OF A CARPORT(KURT MEISWINKEL,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 3b. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2007 - SENIOR PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience,on the Commission or staff wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe did note that on the 711 Linden Avenue project there were two conditions added to require that the driveway pavement be installed and the accessory structure be inspected for the removed pipes before a final inspection can be scheduled. C.Deal noted that the applicant appears to have made changes on the engineering drawings and there is no letter from the Civil Engineer giving permission for these changes,he asked that a condition be added to require the applicant to submit a letter from the Civil Engineer granting permission for the use of his plans before a final inspection is scheduled. CP also noted that there was a change to the Commission Calendar and the Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting will be held Saturday March 24, 2007. C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar with the added condition to 711 Linden Avenue and the change to the Planning Commission's Calendar for 2007, based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report for 711 Linden with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2(Cers,Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 23, 2006) (271 RE-NOTICED AND NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report November 27,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed the Subcommittee's recommendations noting how they were incorporated into the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district and into North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and included in the addendum to Negative Declaration 533-P. All the documents are attached to the Staff Report. She noted that tonight is a continued public hearing from the October 23,2006,meeting. The public hearing includes the amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,the El Camino North zoning district regulations, and the reclassification of the area currently zoned C-1/R-4 to ECN. Commissioners asked staff. the Subcommittee recommendations include integration of public service facilities in the industrial area, feel that people who work in the industrial area need nearby services including services for animals,and medical 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 clinics,are public services restricted in size to meet the immediate needs of people in the area? Staff noted not specifically in the plan. Are restaurants allowed in the ECN zone along El Camino? Yes,restaurants are mentioned specifically in the examples of permitted retail uses. Clarify how the sidewalk recommendation works; does it include the build-to-line? Yes. The visual opening for the sidewalk includes the minimum sidewalk width on public property plus the required setback of any structure on the private property, for example on Trousdale the side walk is 10 feet and the build-to-line is 10 feet so the visual opening is 20 feet. It is not the intention to widen the sidewalks on to private property. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg noted that the first meeting on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was 4 '/2 years ago, over that time the Commission has spent a lot of time thinking about the North El Camino Gateway Corridor and the Rollins Road industrial area;there were some 15 public meetings on the plan and zoning plus 5 public hearings before the City Council; Commission has worked hard on the rules and plan and now it is time to bring the plan and its implementation to closure and move forward. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Al Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road; David Lewn, 1333 Bayshore Highway,Hyatt Hotel;Victor Baiz, 1750 El Camino Real;Henry Keikler,owner 40-50-60 Edwards Court; Representative of Stanley Moore,1400 Capuchino Avenue; Dave Moutoux, tenant 1400 Rollins Road; Herman Christensen, 1429-1499 Rollins Road; George Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real; Marco Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real, Vincent Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real and 1100 Trousdale Drive; Oscar Braun,1589 Higgins Canyon Road; Tony Musich, Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center; Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability; John Levi, 1116 Hamilton Lane; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Do not like the new addition of animal shelters to the plan will hurt the industrial area long term, Commission should look at the plan longer to see the impacts on the area, what is the purpose of putting animal shelters in the area if not for SPCA,the odors will go across the freeway to the business/hotel area and across the tracks to the residential areas, violates the current city ordinance which only allows 2 dogs on a site or 3 with neighbor permission,here we were not notified, even if allowed in the plan do not think shelter will ever be built,violates too many things,need an EIR,this amendment is not consistent with the General Plan which says nothing about this use. Chair Brownrigg noted that he is aware that people are concerned about a specific project, this hearing is not about that project; the question of that project will come before the Commission at another time; this hearing is about the planning now and the future for the Rollins Road industrial area and the El Camino North zoning district, and the zoning for the North El Camino Corridor. Public comments continued: Enjoy the static sound of the freeway and the pleasant smell from Guittard Chocolate,do not want any change that would not be positive to the hotels and to the tax base,do what you can to protect us. Questions about the zoning of El Camino North: how were people noticed for all the meetings?Did the city consider the vacancy rate in the area when considered new zoning regulations?Did you consider how existing businesses would operate during construction in the area and after? What consideration have you given to access to the medical buildings from El Camino Real?Did you consider the safety of the elderly parking on El Camino to go to the doctor?Did you consider the impact of the zoning on property values? Own property in the Rollins Road area, also operate in another county a licensed dog kennel,like animals,see introduction of doggie day care and animal shelters as a demunition of my property values and those of others as well, to date have opposed zoning changes, would like answers tonight. Representative of Stanley Moore submitted a letter to the Commission. Concerned only about allowing animal shelters in the industrial area,don't think you can do it without an EIR,this is a new use not analyzed in 2004 when you adopted the plan,violates CEQA;there are negative impacts caused by PHS,significant impacts are identified in the DEIR for that project;PHS experience raises significant impacts for a use that 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 was not on the radar screen at that time. Concerned about the Specific Plan including an animal shelter,talk about the industrial area being a vital component of the city's economy and adding new development to enhance the industrial area and its employment base, an animal shelter is opposed to all these things,many property owners are opposed;to pass an amendment which allows something that would discourage existing property improvements is not wise,understand that this amendment will not affect the application of PHS, that it is on a separate track, question is who sponsored this amendment to the Specific Plan,is there another organization waiting to come? What is behind it? Public comments continued: own a 50,000 SF office/medical office building on the first block on El Camino Real,a change to mixed use will be detrimental to the population of Burlingame,there is a shortage of medical office space now and this will increase the hardship for those who live in the area and need to see doctors because the doctors will move away, zoning allows 0.5 FAR for office with high density residential above,this is a 6 fold reduction in office uses now allowed,with current code could build 90,000 SF of office with new can build 15, 000 SF of office,reduced the value of his building, it was built in the 1970's as were other all office buildings in the area,will see many more years of service, ask to postpone decision and investigate negative impact of this decision on office use. Chair Brownrigg noted that nothing in the rules will change how a building is currently used now or in the future,the building will become non- conforming and can continue its use and plan is not a taking; this affects how the property might be used when it is rebuilt in the future. Yes,but cannot rebuild 40,000+ SF with current parking if the property is destroyed more than 50%of its value, earthquakes and fires occur;property has lived only half its life,this change could injure the property owner,El Camino will not change in our life times. For the past 2 years,2 doctors a month have contacted me for office space,there is no place for them to go as the hospital expands; recently refinanced building,lender determined that the useful life is 35 years,will be there at least that long; postpone this action for more discussion so can see the effect of this proposed zoning. Concerned about the required 25 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real,remove the density incentive provided by 0 foot build- to-line because it will reduce the lot size which is the basis for density, also concerned with 0 foot build-to line because there will be little landscaping around buildings,are you willing to accept the aesthetic result; so the 25 foot sidewalk reduces the development density as well as the aesthetic setting of the building; at least the density of the sidewalk should be transferred to the development on the site, for example, the development is allowed to incorporate the frontage road into the site, but to remove 25 feet of that for sidewalk,can have a substantial impact on the density of the development;plan bases density on 40 units to the acre, this is too low, if there is any area in the city that can handle higher densities without impacting existing development this is the area,in the area north of Dufferin Avenue need to get up two floors to have any view because of the railroad, now allow mixed use on the first two floors which will help address this issue; 40 units to the acre is not enough given the type of construction required, if go to steel need 6 or 7 stories to off set the cost difference, the number on a project will only work in today's market when the building is over 7 stories; have been involved in Millbrae's redevelopment area which is in the airport landing pattern,need incentives for the plan to be real,this area is not blighted,not a redevelopment area,so people are not driven to revitalize on their own; there is a shortage of medical office especially in the El Camino Real-California area,hard to justify the cost now however,it will be different in this area when the hospital is completed. Public comments continued: Plan amendment does require an EIR, problem is in the rezoning and storm water pollution in the industrial area where the storm water systems empty into the Bay, sensitive species habitats have been identified in the drain;concerned about the run off from `confined animal facilities';the new ordinance does not grandfather non-conforming uses if it is shown to discharge into sensitive habitat, same for all facilities in the zone;Burlingame is a signator of the S.T.O.P.P.permit,the animal shelter will violate it;an order will soon be filed to abate the current facility in the county;need to be in full compliance 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 so that are eligible for bond funds. Commissioner asked: what does City"in full compliance"mean? In San Mateo County have NPDES which defines a maximum daily load for each community,the city exceeds that load today and any additional development will exceed it; if you change zoning to allow confined animals,the EIR will have to be reviewed by a host of state agencies. Commissioner asked how would that facility contribute to pollution, other than to the Waste Water Treatment Plant? Water will run into the storm drain. The aviary is outside, it will wash down the parking lot into the storm drain and into the bay resulting in pollution, you only need to follow the science, follow the rules or don't get the money if you degrade under the Clean Water Act;non profits who violate can be stripped of their non-profit status. What would be an appropriate location for a confined animal use? No place in an industrial area, in the unincorporated area that does not drain into sensitive area and with low enough density, with all waste contained on site;in an urban area more than two dogs on site are a problem. San Mateo has a problem,the County owns the facility and it is inspected by County health,concealed the fact that the installation has been polluting the ground. Support encouraging pedestrian connection between Trousdale and Magnolia, encourage development of residential uses west of El Camino Real,plans to enhance frontage road is good, will benefit the shopping center; medical offices on the east side of El Camino Real make sense. Is this an amendment to the General Plan? CP noted that the specific plan is a part of the General Plan and was adopted as such in 2004. Have never won a vote but never lost a case in court, political pressure will not win out; adoption of this plan will put the tax payers of the city at risk and take the city down a path to litigation. When the wind blows with Guittard like chocolate smell,dog shelter is not as good. Should listen to Chavez's about office space, Sutter Health will not be here forever, the office space being built at the hospital is for Sutter,need office space nearby for others,allow existing to be rebuilt or new office condos; do not like uninstall concept, cars are getting bigger; will not allow veterinary services in Plaza Shopping Center,if vet goes away,can he sell to another vet? CP commented yes. Am not speaking to SPCA project but Rollins Road zoning regarding comments from Half Moon Bay speaker,tried to pass a bond which failed by 2% to fix storm water runoff community did not support, dog waste and human waste is the same in terms of treatment by the Waste Water Treatment Plant and can be treated the same;do not see the problem with bird guano doesn't seem to affect the millions of birds which migrate through this area, smells will be in a closed building with a filter system like the one proposed for the hospital, why are the neighbors not bothered now by the smell of the chickens in the existing building; there is an animal shelter on 16th and Bryant in San Francisco in a mixed use neighborhood and there is no problem. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Checked there have been 15 meetings over 4 %2 years on this plan,many of the goals in this document came right out of the community,we looked at putting housing in the Rollins Road area, if it had been permitted at the north end and near BART property values would increase; when considered decided that we needed an industrial area,industrial areas permit food processing,painting and other uses which are incompatible with housing;also decided that all office use would not be permitted,now only have office in the industrial area if it s an adjunct to manufacturing use and less than 25 %of the FAR, we acknowledged that the best place for all office in the city is in the Bayfront area which we zoned for that use, and is an amenable environment for white collar workers who do not like to be next to industrial uses. The City Council had five hearings on this plan. As a part of the rules we do not expect people to have to put up with negative `externalities', rules ask if have discussion about certain uses then do environmental evaluation; presently one can have a fish processing plant on Rollins Road but such a smell would not be allowed without mitigation; think we should have conversation, not prohibition, at the outset. Industry includes a lot of things we don't want next to us,if we did not care about that we would allow housing;we decided with the plan that we need a`back yard' in Burlingame to do those things that we don't want next to our houses. It is not a matter of a small sized use with pollution being bad and a big sized use with pollution being OK;rules are forged in the kiln of public comment, increased density does not mean that it feels like 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Manhattan. Need to decide some standard. Subcommittee did a lot of hard work,this is not a game,there are no back door dealings, this is a serious endeavor, have no objection to the Subcommittee's recommendations and have read all the detail. Most efforts went into increasing the density on El Camino Real,allowed what was there plus some;should talk to the City Planner about how the proposed regulations will apply to actual properties;objective was to create an identity for the El Camino North area;worked 4%2 years, long and hard, time has come to move forward, right step is to make a recommendation to the City Council. Those who spoke to the ECN zoning should note can go up to 75 feet with FAA approval,pretty rare in a suburban area, clearly we recognized the importance of the transit corridor and proximity to BART/CalTrain, wider sidewalks, 25 feet on El Camino are good for restaurant seating and free flowing pedestrian activity to help people get to doctors offices,tried for a vision that is greater than you envision; the industrial area could support a veterinary clinic if there was a limit on the size, concerned about the impacts of a large facility,if it were limited about 4,000 SF a veterinary medical clinic not a problem would be sized to serve the people who work in the area similar to an emergency medical clinic, do not favor an open definition of veterinary hospital and animal shelter,should make a limitation on size to 3,500 to 4,000 SF. If shown in an EIR there is no difference in noise,odor,etc.why does size matter? Clinic should serve the needs of those who work in the industrial area,not appropriate as a destination,a hospital or rehab center can serve 300 people; vet should be like the small office in the Burlingame Plaza that was always the intention of the zoning for the industrial area. If the EIR shows no negative externalities use should be OK, the community decided that there should be no vets in the R-1 or on Trousdale,only place left to allow this use was in the M-I because not next to residential uses,if that is the case why should they be limited if EIR shows no negative impact on the neighboring properties or uses? Difference between a veterinary hospital and a huge animal shelter. Commission comment continued: Commission is charged with making the best possible recommendation to the City Council, think that this is it; there are issues remaining which will be addressed as projects are reviewed; have already recognized a problem with the build-to and setback lines and got an early view of what El Camino would look like, feel good about where we are. C.Auran made a motion to amend the Specific Plan to limit veterinary hospitals and animal shelters to 4,000 SF. The motion failed for lack of a second. C. Deal noted that included in the staff report was a list of communities in the Bay Area which allow, as conditional uses, animal shelters in their industrial areas, do not want to limit animal shelter or veterinary uses by size,needs an EIR on the proposed project to decide if the proposed size is correct,might be 4,000 SF; so move by resolution to recommend the amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district and the reclassification map for the El Camino North zoning district to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district regulations and the reclassification map for the ECN zoning district to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. Chair Brownrigg called for a brief break to allow the room to clear. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 7 George Chavez and Marco Chavez 1860 El Camino Real, Suite 250 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 692-3954 November 27, 2006 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: El Camino North Re-Zoning Dear Commissioners: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my objection to the proposed change to the zoning along the El Camino North. I feel that the changing of the existing zoning from commercial to high density residential/mixed use will not benefit the general population of Burlingame and will in fact be a detriment to it. There is currently a shortage of medical office spaces in the proposed area; and this shortage will only get worse as more offices intended for medical use in the area are demolished to make room for the more profitable high density residential. This will cause a greater hardship for those residents in the area who wish to see their doctors and they will find their doctors have moved away due to the shortage of medical spaces; especially for the seniors who live in Burlingame and the surrounding areas. They will lose the convenience of having their doctor's offices nearby. Although you are allowing a 0.5 RAF for office along with the high density residential, this is a six fold reduction in potential office spaces allowed. This is too great of a reduction. My building is about 50,000 square feet, under the current code, we could increase the building size to 90,000 square feet,but under the proposed zoning I will only be allowed a maximum of 15,000 square feet for medical and other offices combined. Your proposed re-zoning greatly reduces the value and potential of my building without justifiable compensation. The re-zoning allows some developers and a few individuals to benefit financially from it at the cost of the community and property owners. I need to remind everybody here that a law recently passed in California prohibits the use of Eminent Domain for private purposes. In the rezoning report it stated that most of the buildings in the proposed area have almost reached their life expectancies. This conclusion is not true. My building at 1860 El Camino is a little over 40 years old and 1828 El Camino was built in the middle 70's. These buildings still have many more years of service ahead of them. To base your rezoning decision upon the assumption that most buildings have reached their life expectancies would be irresponsible at the very least. As a concerned citizen and a building owner, I am asking this commission to postpone this decision to a later time so the negative impact of this decision can be fully investigated. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, George Chavez Building Owner 1860 El Camino Real, Burlingame November 27, 2006 Hearing Comments by Vincent A. Muzzi an owner of 1766 El Camino Real and 1100 Trousdale, Burlingame on Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan &Revise Zoning in El Camino Subarea 1. The use of the dedicated sidewalk to create a setback instead of merely requiring 15 foot sidewalks and 10 foot setbacks will drive down the permitted density unless the City decides to allow the adjacent property to use the dedicated sidewalks' square footage in calculating the density of permissible development. I don't think this is how the City currently does this in its regulations. Is it the City's intention to change its regulations to allow for that kind of a credit under the circumstances? The use 25 foot wide sidewalks with a zero lot line mean that there is to be no landscaping expected from the adjacent development. Is this really what the City wants on its El Camino Grand Boulevard? Will the aesthetics of just trees in concrete really be accepted in design review or will the landscape be found wanting so as to require applicants to makeup the lost landscaping by adding some in the otherwise developable areas behind the zero lot line? 2. If the City really wants to increase residential density adjacent to mass transit and give the El Camino area near CalTrain a feel of entry to the City's Grand Boulevard, the residential density should be increase to at least 50 units per acre as opposed to the proposed 40 units per acre in the area East of El Camino and West of CalTrain. Increasing the residential density and multiuse ground floors in that one area will have no significant negative impact on any existing residential views from residents to the west of El Camino. It will allow the units built in that area East of El Camino to have views over the CalTrain right-of-way to the Bay. There is no earthen berm or tall vegetative screening along California Drive northerly of Dufferin Drive to screen structures fronting on California or Trousdale Drive and north to Murchison from views into the CalTrain parking and rail lines or the industrial buildings to the East of CalTrain unless one goes two stories. Such increased residential use in this one area will not affect the views from residences on Donnelly to the north. The increase in residential density from 40 to 50 per acre will not overtax the area's existing roadway system,but may well increase potential mass transit ridership and reduce the need for transit parking. Most importantly, such an increase in density will also provide a required economic incentive to encourage the transition of an already highly developed area to meet plans objectives. Without such an added incentive given the requirements for inclusionary zoning that you already require and the cost of construction,the plan is unlikely to provide the economic motivation to current owners for them to risk the current income stream from existing uses for the possible economic benefit of the private urban renewal your plan hopes to encourage. P�ciTY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME c PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 N www.burlingame.org i i l i I City Council Study of Proposed Zoning for the EI Camino North Area & Clarification of Affected Portions of the North PUBLIC HEARING Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan NOTICE i (ity Council Study Session will be held on December 13,2006,at 7:00 p.m.in the Lane (ommunity Room, in the Burlingame Public Library on Primrose Road. The Study Session will be a review of the proposed EI (amino North zoning and the implementation of the proposed zoning on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The EI(amino North zoning district is bounded by EI Camino Real on the west, ;I Murchison Avenue on the north,California Drive on the east and the rear of the lots on Dufferin Avenue on the south. t I A City Council study session is intended for the education of the Council. If public comment occurs at a study meeting,it is limited to the topic discussed at the study meeting. Mailed: December 4,2006 i (Please refer to other side) NORTH • ROAD ® AD SPECIFIC POw LAW x,. As Approved By The Burlingame City Council Resolution No. 85-2004 September 20, 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME Planning Department PROPOSED REVISIONS September 19, 2006 November 15, 2006 • BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD September 20, 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PROPOSED REVISIONS September 19, 2006 November 15, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 A. Planning Area 1 Figure I-1. Regional Context Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 1-2. Specific Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Purpose of the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Consistency with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 E. Specific Plan Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 F. Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Goals and Policies 7 3Illustrative Development Concepts 13 A. Specific Plan Illustrative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. Description of the Specific Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 3-1. Specific Plan Illustrative 14 Figure 3-2. Subareas of the Specific Plan area 15 C. The Rollins Road Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Figure 3-3. Northern Gateway subarea (Al) 16 Figure 3-4. Central Rollins Road subarea (A2) 16 Figure 3-5. Simulation of a potential gateway to Burlingame on Rollins Road 17 Figure 3-6. Southern Gateway subarea (A3) 18 Figure 3-7. Adrian Road Auto Row subarea (A4) 19 Figure 3-8. Burlingame Plaza subarea (131) 20 Figure 3-9. Simulation of the potential changes on EI Camino Real at the northern entry to Burlingame 21 Figure 3-10. EI Camino Real Gateway Corridor subarea (132) 22 Figure 3-11. Phasing scenario for EI Camino Real Corridor 23 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN i D. EI Camino Real North Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Figure 3-12. Mills Peninsula Hospital Block subarea (133) 24 Figure 3-13. North of Trousdale Drive sub-area (134) 25 E. Development Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Table 3-1. Development Summary 26 4 Land Use Designations 27 A. The Rollins Road Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 4-1. Land use map with sub-areas Indicated 28 Figure 4-2. Parcels adjacent to trail network 29 Figure 4-3. Parcels adjacent to trail network 30 B. EI Camino Real North Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 5 Circulation and Infrastructure 35 A. Roadway Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 B. Streetscape Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Figure 5-1. Proposed EI Camino Real cross-section and plan 37 Figure 5-2. Existing EI Camino Real Aerial with proposed change 38 Figure 5-3. Trousdale Drive 39 Figure 5-4. Intersection of EI Camino Real & Trousdale Drive 40 Figure 5-5. California Drive 41 Figure 5-6. Intersection of Trousdale Drive and Magnolia Avenue 42 Figure 5-7. Magnolia Avenue 43 Figure 5-8. Cross-section through northern Rollins Road gateway 44 Figure 5-9. Proposed gateway 44 Figure 5-10. Rollins Road North of Easton Creek 45 Figure 5-11. Rollins Road South of Easton Creek 46 Table 5-1. Street Tree Recommendations 47 C. Pedestrian Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Figure 5-12.Creekside Network Plan 48 Figure 5-13.Creekside Network 48 i� NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN D. Parking . .. . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . . . . ... . . . . ... ... .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. ..49 E. Infrastructure .. .. ... .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . .. .. . ... . .. .. .. .. . ..49 F. Phased Removal of Frontage Roads along EI Camino Real . .. . . .. .. .. . . .49 6 Design Guidelines and Development Standards 51 A. Design Standards for All Areas . . .. .. .. ..... .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .51 Figure 6-1. Design District 52 Figure 6-2. Build-to Lines 54 Figure 6-3. Minimum Building Heights 55 Figure 6-4. Maximum Building Heights 56 Figure 6-5. Minimum Parcel Frontage 57 B. EI Camino Real Design District ... . . .. . ... .. .. . . . .... . .. .. .. .. . ....58 C. Rollins Road Design District .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . . . . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .76 D. Auto Row Design District .. .. .. .. . . ... ... . .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... . . . ..82 7 Development Framework 87 A. History of the Planning Area . ... .. .. .. .. ... . . . . . ... .... .. . . .. .. ...87 B. General Plan Land Use Designations ... .. . . .... .. .. .. .... .. ... . . . . .88 C. Existing Land Use . .. ... ... .. .... ... ... ......... .. .. ... ..... .. ..88 Figure 7-1. Land Use Designations for Burlingame and adjacent parts of Millbrae 89 Figure 7-2. Existing Land Use gp D. San Francisco International Airport . .. .. .. ... ..... ... .... .. .. .. .. ...91 Figure 7-3. Airport Height Restrictions 93 Figure 7-4. Noise Contours 95 E. Millbrae Intermodal Station........ ....... .. .. ... .... . .... .. ... .. ..96 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN III F. Mills Peninsula Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 G. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 H. Economic Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 I. Existing Transportation Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 J. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 K. Utilities and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Figure 7-5. Biological Features 105 Figure 7-6. Infrastructure 106 L. Community Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 8 Implementation 111 A. Development Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 B. Implementation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Table 8-1 . Streetscape improvements 112 C. Development Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Table 8-2. Value of Residual Land on EI Camino Real 115 iv NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan includes land use changes and design improvements for the northwestern part of Burlingame. The City foresees the potential for change in this area because of the opening of the Millbrae Intermodal Station and the planned replacement of the Mills Peninsula Hospital to include, inte- grated with the hospital functions, a medical office building and support parking facilities. Additionally, the City has recently updated its Housing Element and a number of potential housing sites were identified in the Specific Plan area. With these conditions in mind, the Specific Plan Marco Polo Way to Clarice Lane to the west process has given the City and its residents the and to the rear property lines of the residential opportunity to explore conditions at the north neighborhoods to the south of the Mills end of the City and define the parameters of Peninsula Hospital (Davis Drive and Dufferin future growth. The planning process has Avenue). El Camino Real is State Route 82, a allowed the community to shape future develop- Caltrans facility. ment and ensure the viability of both new devel- opment and the existing residential, commer- cial and industrial areas. This action-oriented Plan will allow the City to realize its vision for Figure 1-1. the northern end f o Burlingame.ame. AKIN Regional �onal .80 Context Map San 4 Co Richmond 680 A. Planning Area sao: Berkele 24 WaJn Y.. Cre The Ci of Burlingame g e is located on the San ;;... t 3 Mateo Peninsula, south of San Francisco, as Oakland, show '`?">_ ninFi el- 1. Th S.F. The stud area for `•'>����r�`��'-.:.:._.:�:::: g� y o the Sao North B urlin g am e Ro llins Road Specific c Plan includes the Rollins Road industrial corridor, .;::;::;::;:. 0 8o HaYom'and whi2 � ch is bordered b US. 101 to the east and the � '�:age eo Cal train train track st o the west and extends south Half Mateo '84 from the City Millbrae e to Broadway, as Moon to t _ F Bay in Figure 1-2. On the west side of the Caltrain Palo tracks the stud area also includes the El ARo MATEO Camino Real commercial corridor,which is bor- dered b or- iiiij deredb Millbrae to the nor y north,Ogden Drive and NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN l! _ �� ■ j1, 111111i111i11 C �pp11111� =� INN eq�Ulllll IIIIIIIU/// ���::::: : �_Ip111U►I ''>C� ❑ � ■,��"■ C. ■��■IIIII■ �� ,��• �- _��C ii��_Q � i 111111IN I 1�� - ��,''��� ��������iii ISOOn 011111111\� �,, �'� $SII-���_ _���_� � i 1111111111/ - ■�■ oil //1111111U111111C• '-1..�-� - 0111111111111 ` •�` ,UIU�,�,,•, ■C�:��=���� C.111111111111 ►�,,p111UN ��••���� �•__ �-__ _►1111111111111/ ., �� � ��■� ,,• ,qll. ••., CC�� ���p ��C� X111111111111111111 ,,,• ,,, ,111 __ _ _ - __ IIIIII�=_::III■ -- __ --■_ -- -_ -_- --__ _ i��--- C� 11111 111111111111111 =//== �_■ ___� _111 111111111111 III- -i,..- �._-�� � .� 11111 IIIII 1111111111 __ pp .0■,C- IIID_ '� 1� � -°°®� ____ _•• __ _- _- __� ■/III 111111111111 1111= _'� 1� __ _■ _- _ _- __ _ _ _ _1111= ,moi - �_ S.so im.. MYpll nql■_ :G —u um uul uuu= 1j1 -- - r 11111 t■ ■■ . -- ulul. J `'''1111r1► �-�■===-==� MEMOro ,.� IIII■ __-- ___ _�__ ,�i_ Q,i�i � ��_, ��•��___Q __�_ �'� �� ♦Q�Itt�� �� 1 11 111 - CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Burlingame's proximity to San Francisco B. Purpose of the Plan International Airport(SFIA) has greatly affected the use and character of Rollins Road properties, An objective of the Specific Plan is to clarify which have been the core of the City's industrial City land use policy in northern Burlingame in base for many years. The industrial parcels in the El Camino Real and Rollins Road corridors. the Rollins Road area may be subject to develop- To do this, the North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan contains goals and policies, and ment pressures because of the opening of the nearby Millbrae Intermodal Station, which may also proposes land use and zoning changes, cir- also impact vehicular access to both the Rollins culation improvements, design guidelines and Road area and El Camino Real. development standards and a strategy for imple- mentation of the Specific Plan. The El Camino Real portion of the study area was developed with office buildings in the 1950s This proposed Specific Plan underwent apro- gram-level environmental analysis of the effects and 1960s. The area was annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1958. El Camino Real was of buildout based on the proposed land uses and widened and Elm and Eucalyptus trees were development densities. This analysis is provided removed prior to annexation to the City. man Initial Study/Negative Declaration, which Therefore,the size and scale of the development was published separately. pattern, as well as the number of trees, is The Specific Plan is an amendment to the City's markedly different than along El Camino Real General Plan and has been reviewed and found south of the planning area, where the street is to be consistent with the general land use provi- narrow, canopied by 100-year old Eucalyptus sions contained in the adopted General Plan. trees and predominately developed with multi- C. Consistency with the San ple-family residential uses. Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan The offices in the El Camino Real area are gener- Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that ally oriented towards medical uses, while the local agency general plans and/or any affected Burlingame Plaza shopping center primarily sup- ports the surrounding residential areas. In 1994, specific plan must be consistent with the appli- cable airport/land use compatibility criteria in the City recognized the potential for housing in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport the area and instituted zoning to encourage high- density residential uses to mix with office uses Land Use Plan (CLUP). The goals, objectives, and policies contained herein do not conflict near the hospital between California Drive and El with the airport/land use compatibility criteria Camino Real. contained in the CLUP, as amended in December 1996, for San Francisco International Airport. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 3 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION D. Planning Process peninsula. The northern El Camino Real corri- dor provides retail and service amenities for sur- This Specific Plan was developed in concert with rounding residential neighborhoods, medical participants at community workshops, a sub- office space and opportunities for residential committee of the Planning Commission and City staff. Key stakeholders knowledeable development to support the hospital and the gCity's labor force. New development should be about the planning area were also interviewed. attractive and should take advantage of access to During the community workshops, the consult- the new Millbrae Intermodal Station, replace- ant team assisted community members in the ment of the Mills Peninsula Hospital and the design and assessment of scenarios for potential ongoing demand for housing. The entry into development, land uses and densities in the Burlingame should be signified on both Rollins northern end of Burlingame. Road and El Camino Real by architectural or landscaped gateway elements reflecting E. Specific Plan Overview Burlingame's identity as a City of trees. The Specific Plan includes chapters on goals and The Rollins Road area is a successful and vital policies which frame the Specific Plan Area; component of Burlingame's industrial base,with design concepts for new development;land uses both its north and south ends capitalizing on and densities; circulation improvements; design direct access to U.S. 101, the Bayshore Freeway. guidelines and development standards; a sum- The north end is proximate to the regional trans- mary of the existing conditions and the commu- portation amenities of the Millbrae Intermodal Station. Streets and sidewalks in the Rollins nity standards they create; and implementation Road area should balance the needs of service strategies. vehicles and businesses with those of pedestri- ans and bicyclists. They should be visually F. Vision Statement attractive safe streets that facilitate transit use, The North Burlingame/Rollins Road area con- for and bicycle activity,daytime amenities for area workers and appropriate new develop- pedestrian of two subareas' each with a distinct char- acter. Proximity to transportation opportunities ment that enhances Burlingame's industrial and is key to intensifying the commercial, industrial employment base. and residential uses in both subareas. The Rollins Road area provides a vital industrial cen- ter for the Burlingame community and mid- 4 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The El Camino Real frontage and Burlingame Plaza should promote vibrant pedestrian activity and should include appropriate streetscape com- ponents, including buildings and trees lining the street; streets should facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation between North Burlingame and the Millbrae Intermodal Station. A mix of commercial and residential uses should exist on both sides of El Camino Real and adjacent streets. El Camino Real should transition to a residential area with an office and retail mix, but the predominant sense should be residential to continue the pattern on El Camino Real to the south. There should be a variety of multi-family housing types and densities that take advantage of the transportation and retail amenities already in the area. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN cJ CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 2 GOALS AND POLICIES This chapterpresents goals for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area, as well aspolicies that will promote the attainment of those goals. Goal A: Land uses in the North Burlin- the need to tie the two areas together, game/Rollins Road area should take visually and through a pedestrian advantage of the area's access to the access linkage. Millbrae Intermodal Station, the Broadway Caltrain Station and U.S. B-1: Development in both the Rollins Road 101, as well as its proximity to Mills area and the El Camino Real North area Peninsula Hospital, and the opportu- should have a positive cost benefit ratio nity for expansion of housing with or have a neutral impact on the City's optimal access to these transportation General Fund. hubs. B-2: Strengthen the visual integration and A-1: Encourage businesses to locate in the pedestrian linkage between the two subar- Rollins Road area to take advantage of its eas to extend the benefits of Burlingame's proximity to San Francisco Inter-national sense of place and strong reputation as a Airport, regional mass-transit access and place to live, work and do business among its central location within San Mateo the Peninsula communities. County. Goal C: The Rollins Road area should con- A-2: Encourage high density residential develop- tinue to be a vibrant industrial area ment in the El Camino Real North taking advantage of opportunities at area, both market rate and below market San Francisco International Airport rate, in areas proximate to major local and the area's central Peninsula loca- employment centers like Mills Peninsula tion to provide a strong component of Hospital and regional job opportunities the City's employment and economic from the Millbrae Intermodal Station. base. Goal B: Recognize that there are two distinct C-1: Maintain, protect and enhance the Rollins subareas within the North Road area as a vital industrial center in Burlingame/Rollins Road area, and Burlingame. each contributes to the City's econom- ic base and offers unique development opportunities to the City; recognize NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 7 CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND POLICIES C-2: Preserve and expand the number of exist- tage of its proximity to the Millbrae ing jobs in the Rollins Road area by desig- Intermodal Station and the regional nating and protecting adequate land area access it provides, as well as nearby to support and maintain the industrial employment and health service use. opportunities. C-3: Create small, clustered, pedestrian-orient- D-1: Encourage the transition to higher densi- ed pockets of area employee-oriented ty residential development and support- service and retail uses to support the ing local retail and service business on employees in the Rollins Road area. parcels in the El Camino Real North area to take advantage of the proximity to the C-4: To provide a transition from the regional transportation opportunities and Broadway Commercial Area, the proper- to meet the community's housing needs. ties at the Rollins Road/Broadway inter- section shall be designated for commer- D-2: Focus Medium-High Density Residential cial uses. uses along the El Camino Real corridor to continue and strengthen the existing mul- C-5: Encourage automobile sales and service tiple-family residential pattern develop- businesses, including local-oriented auto ment on El Camino Real in the rest of parts sales, in the area to congregate on Burlingame. Adrian Road;promote visibility and clear- ly signed access for these uses from the D-3: Development on the California Drive freeway and Rollins Road. frontage s -" be ' -``ti-t-enaraRer C-6: Continue to integrate Ibblic-Serving ftnd designed to ftddres facilities, such as fire stations, cor o- the Gftltrftin mairt litte shall su ort the rationaY rds,puml2 stations,veterinary urban design objectives of the El hospitals, animal shelters, and voca- Camino corridor and shall provide tional training schools into the indus- safe and attractive pedestrian and trial area. bicycle access to the nearby Millbrae mass transit hub. Goal D: The El Camino Real North/Mills Peninsula Hospital area offers oppor- tunities for a safe and viable mixed- use neighborhood that takes advan- 8* NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND POLICIES D-4: The area north of Trousdale Drive shall portation circulation throughout the North provide a mix of office and residential Burlingame area. uses to provide a transition between the denser residential development in the El E-5: Interconnect the Rollins Road/Broad- Camino Real corridor and the single-fam- way gateway and the Broadway Commer- ily residential neighborhood to the west. cial Area by providing enhanced pedestri- an access between the two areas. Goal E: Streets in the North Burlin- game/Rollins Road Planning area E-6: Encourage creation of a pedestrian should be attractive and development access link across the Caltrain tracks should be appropriately scaled to the between the Rollins Road and El Camino street system and location, and should Real areas. promote and establish safe bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle use. E-7: Development in both the North Burlingame and Rollins Road areas E-1: Streets and sidewalks in the Rollins Road should facilitate safe pedestrian and bicy- area should be designed to balance the cle connections with the Millbrae needs of heavy service and delivery vehi- Intermodal Station. cles and businesses and other land uses. Streets should be visually attractive and Goal F: The planning area shall include designed to facilitate safe pedestrian,bicy- streetscape and landscape compo- cle and transit use. nents that enhance the area's pedestri- an experience. F-2 Improve internal circulation to facilitate planned land uses in the Rollins Road area F-1: Streetscape designs should be appropriate by creating better road connections to the immediately adjacent land uses, to between arterials within the area. the level of pedestrian activi and to all the uses on the block. E-3: Encourage development design that facil- itates safe pedestrian activity in conjunc- F-2: Encourage a network of pedestrian and tion with efficient vehicular circulation on green spaces focused along the creeks city streets. within the Rollins Road area to provide a usable outdoor recreational asset for area E-4: Encourage development of safe, well- employees and Burlingame residents. signed and well-designed bicycle trans- NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 9 CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND POLICIES F-3: Provide a visual link and common sense G-3: The gateway feature announcing the of place between the Rollins Road and El south end of the Rollins Road industrial Camino Real North areas by using com- area should be located in the vicinity of mon street tree species and gateway the intersection of Broadway and Rollins themes in the two areas. Road. F-4: Streetscape on El Camino Real and Goal H: Development throughout the plan- Trousdale Drive in the vicinity of Mills ning area should be visually attractive, Peninsula Hospital should be designed to pleasing to both those that live and extend the "tree city" theme of the rest of work in Burlingame and to visitors Burlingame; and to facilitate a safe and entering the City through the northern inviting pedestrian and bicycle connection gateways. from the Millbrae Inter-modal Station. H-1: Adopt Design Guidelines that will insure F-5: Streetscape design on El Camino Real quality development that integrates the should provide a strong visual connection two subareas while being sensitive to each and sense of place to the narrower por- area's unique characteristics and appropri- tion of El Camino Real to the south. ate land uses. Goal G: Gateway elements at the north end H-2: Development should emphasize attractive of the City as well as adjacent to the public improvements within develop- Broadway interchange should ments along street frontages, and along announce the entrances to the adja- area creeks, with appropriate site land- cent areas of Burlingame. scaping and public furniture, and should create a harmonious visual envi- G-1: There should be a consistent design ronment consistent with the "tree city" theme among the gateway features. image of Burlingame. G-2: Entry statements should be located at or H-3: El Camino Real Design District: near the Millbrae border on El Camino Development in this area shall promote Real and on Rollins Road. an active street frontage with an urban edge and an attractive and safe pedestri- an environment. 10 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND POLICIES H-4: Rollins Road Design District: Development in this area should promote an attractive industrial area, with lower- scale buildings and front yard landscap- ing, preserving the access and circulation to serve the industrial uses. H-5: Protect the environmental value and Preserve the viabilfty of the Ci 's drainage retention basins within the Rollins Road area by limiting the type and manner of uses that located in the basin to those which include a ro- riate environmental protection meas- ures and do not impede the function of the drains dur ping wet weather. H-56: Auto Row Design District: Development shall present a unified theme for each site including facade design,sales area and sig- nage program, with an attractive transi- tion to the public sidewalk space that maintains visibility to the freeway. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 11 CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND POLICIES 2 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 3 ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS This chapter describer the concepts shown in the Specific Plan Illustrative, which demonstrates how the northern part of Burlingame might look if currently vacant or underused parcels were to be developed as proposed in the Specific Plan. A. Specific Plan Illustrative Peninsula Hospital bordered by California Drive Many of the components of the Illustrative and the Caltrain tracks, south to the rear of drawing, shown in Figure 3-1, are a community properties fronting on Dufferin Avenue and response to existing conditions in Burlingame. Davis Drive. Marco Polo Way and Ogden Drive The existing design and development conditions mark the western border of the area, and are set out in Chapter 7, which includes a discus- Murchison Drive, the City boundary with sion of land use, development conditions and Millbrae, marks the northern boundary. El opportunities, urban design features and eco- Camino Real (State Route 82) bisects this area. nomic trends. C. The Rollins Road Area Based on the goals and issues identified through It u the intent of the flan to do thinfs to �ositivel� the workshop process, the community reviewed enc»urage the continuation of the indu trial use oL the and selected from several alternative develop- Rollins Road Area The Rollins Road area will ment scenarios for the Specific Plan Area. The generally maintain the same types of land uses, Specific Plan Illustrative represents a visual syn- although future development in a subarea along thesis of the components for inclusion in the the U.S. 101 frontage will be directed to empha- preferred alternative among the alternatives size a concentration of auto sales and service. selected by the community during the planning At the Southern gateway into the area office, process. auto sales and commercial recreation uses B. Description of the Specific will be emphasized to create a new entry into Rollins Road at Broom Plan Area The entrance into the City of Burlingame at The Caltrain main line railroad tracks divide the Rollins Road should be identified by a gateway Plan Area into two segments, each of which is feature. Figure 3-5 illustrates an entry gateway divided into several subareas for planning pur- which incorporates the parking lanes on the poses. These are illustrated and fabled in Figure bridge over El Portal Channel,where parking is 3-2. The Rollins Road area includes that part of now prohibited. Architectural and landscaping the Plan Area east of the Caltrain tracks, elements, such as replacing the fence on the between the City of Millbrae border to the north bridge over EI Portal Channel and establishing a and the Broadway interchange to the south. The gateway feature and entry signs, would improve El Camino Real North area includes the streets and define the entry to Burlingame at this end of and parcels around Burlingame Plaza and Mills Rollins Road. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 13* CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Figure 3-1. Specific Plan Illustrative QrYQF""BRA EW4 cT 1— E- 6 0 O \It Existing Buildings reek New Industrial Buildings New Commercial Buildings New Auto Dealer and Service Buildings New Mixed use I Residential over Medical Office 2 Residential over Medical Office 3 Medical Office 4 Residential over Retail 5 Residential over Retail 6 Residential over Retail FRANCISCOSAN 7 Medical Office BAY Residential El Natural Areas BROAD WAY CALTRAIN STATION Trail Network —9 M Parking o 300 60o 1700feel Planning Area Boundary City Limits 14 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS / - --:` :•\ Figure 3-2. Subareas of \t (f 1.1 • 'r i/iI f 1's"`fiy0 ` -'�_.�. � �i�� j' the Specific � •n f Plan Area Pp � lit 3/ ��,..�-� ) ...) \�t"t`i� r� F \_:f i �Y :� it t`.�",>"K - ._'i.r�• \\ I!I f/ , Fp ; ... It,,..{.. r: .. y-;t StF,•,.._ 7. ra. .ffi tj',' l }� .�_ '-- t „ F _. i �. s� ,_...� .v� �- ° -� <� .. }} > Ap 1 i— .`1T i � t "".\I >.�i ' .:..Y�?'.•. .. �- •i � tT 1•' t E � u ;::.7.i:.).i1.F.v ----- .: —�+. ..L:[-`--,,_.t��_':i;.t-•L:S_e�:s:.=t �.X•1 ��'=ii�'�w „3�i .._ S 1 T• 1 _ -. i L..;.? -fi_-i G-=.-i i_i ri 4..• i-..r•:t Z_;t: .:,.i ,t':�,.t `,:::::: - l.�..' .... - r :-t�_?•_t t t p-Y--1 4 •.-;t"-� .--'I-i'- r��_..1;�!IT t�:.�r.• i ��:,w,.:i�•: • . � --•f -` ,/�L\Tv A_.;f,.�--1:_.3.-t�1--'�I-i•..>L_L.1:'�i b_-OM1.'.... �;- 1 t _-:-t i,• ........ F - i 1• -S- , �. ^ _ .... _ ,'. - i f`"s• �.-'...."` --- ( , •-+.1� aF- >rri'yiyliai, -'-- E _ t\ / '`°-i'i:.•r,ry,. px T'�y i G,��--:� 1=�,:-�-;�t- _S; ! a.i•.• _.-+--'----"---'-••-----i i 1`1�; /"`�.,tz!..i.Y,.•t;.: Sj:S-;; -1••i.-}r,•.' 'r-::-.t- `-+-'t'.� i .:.. tt_:e_ Y _ ��.S t,-�:at— i :. i;: i :� i' i r •::rt:,.:•'{ i=fir ` .: SIS rj .i ,t. i -- W_•�._<s. ri.^. -1- •{!�� ,:�.-i s :.._i.-i-'.�-..- t � ^'.,.3 :1 .i._r ---- l >1r I t It A. : Ak :l• .- g� t i`•::. ?C_ i-t. } lT� ............... _ ,:i;t-µl1••�.1'-..�F- •-•1'�, C �:" "/;;-•t-• :F'- -i_-:�.-::L-_ --A°-• -':1> ..:-a l-...�. }i t i,._i � - ,%5.'�cb&l�.r'" :..i/ I,;:.�i:,r l��=;`-- - •_ = �:.�1`r ii.°il.l -t!:;t- ate: <�•: • ,;'rte t---:�t__: .�r--,t ��'1 _ �. T., ----- '1 1� l� i r- 1 _-� ��...•� _^1. �,rt ,!,�,i.i. -Yi �' �':3t. $::::3�: /� �,�1 i "` � `3 Ulf .^^firtt'•• t "� ..;il-1.. -- •is �-�F_- �t• _�t` �t:.. r-. ,-:.�� :C:�:3': ••.�'. �i l�. '3;{, i • L._ '171i fYTT-n - 4: 11!?i _.i 3 C-• 'C .t._ .t t.- Y t l l v ; t:_ •_'.3 - �3 = _i 1 ,;t_- •1 - t--_:I:"`:%r: '.-';-1-}-j-�i 3 3 m tt - Al. Northern Gateway 1.: =-;_ • ; ij(- A2- Central Rollins Road :Y;r=: E i-- , -•.'�\ ,'- ! A3. Southern Gateway 1 ! A4. Adrian Road Auto Row Districttt:Ir--'T BA: A5. Southern GatewayEntrance Area 'G "` {�t`'t 3 i {` \ B I. Burlingame Plaza ::�r'•-;.:�:t i t.-y.<:...,f:,, �i::.n `> �: �,-.,—.....�.� B2. EI Camino Real Gateway Corridor :(?`�'"I"I' L-• ` =L._ r l'.. ( �.. B3. Mills Penninsula Hospital Block 1_ !;} - st;stt�yY., r B4. NIX orth of Trousdale Drive _ kn t y 4 i • ..-Jj ... _ _ v _, `1 _ 0 300 600 1200 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 15 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS The Southern entry into the Rollins Road Industrial area at Broadway is a uall important. In this area,theatg ewa" features should be incorporated into the design of the proposed buildings. The gateway fea- e' <<<> tures should "announce" that the Rollins Road area, while a art of Burlingame, is :; distinct. 1. Northern Gateway El Portal Channel is tidal-influenced and sepa- b o rates this subarea from the City of Millbrae. A pedestrian strian trail should be developed ed in conjunc- tion on1 n -tion withfuture development on parcels on the o ` eetrth Burlingame side of the channel, provid- ing a pedestrian/bicycle connection between ME.i•;;vi::.:iiiv:::. .nnyyyvnyii't'. Rollins Road and Adrian Road. Additionally, Y DAVID ROAD iqQ:v i WON C/ry Of ...... is £ s . ° . RODE K ROAD f 2 GU Figure 34. 11!H ; Central Rollins Road subarea (A2) this trail amenity would be a place for people working ftnd 4yiftg nearby to take a short walk, pAD eat lunch,relax outdoors or gain access to com- mercial recreation uses in the industrial area. Figure 3-3. Northern Gateway subarea (Al) 16 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS :.+ ; ..................:......::::::.:: ...:..>r5:<.;rrrr:;t.;rrt;i;.r:.r;5rrr:.rrr:..... . ......................... �f ' g a u�Y9 ts,. I1 �:..::.:,,.:.«.« .. .t✓.Y... ':rii s+:mT..*3>......;.:...v'c::n.n::i;i:::.:.:::::......... .. .. :. ..... ;... .... xr� M' V ar i Simulation imulatio ::::.t:.r;:.:t:;>�>.r:L.r:.. ;...J ..:.:>:•..::,».. ».:r.::..:.::::,:,,,:::::::::.... >:.;:.r::r;iiiii:::;;isk:.r:.r:;.:5:5::.::.rr:+:r::.r:.r:.r:.tr:.. x�. faJ, Y } f a potential gateway to Burlingame on » .......t:..: Rollins Road I uye�m w ,1. vv vv «>.v;h,.i:kk..,�,,:. «A£iA :�RLCk. '\�; G'.:J", +'.af`:;"6:'� "gasC::#:i!E• '::5 .ml�J•..,•,+;s?; e;s..,..3'. ?;,:`E`:: ?�:.;'L:'^'3;.:::, C;:.�:>" t.*k::'a i aq; ';j',+ iV' is JrY i rr 58..:..:•,:<,..,. .k..t..,.. ',,�\:M.i.::::.,.,J,:..,. :::::::.::::::........:.�S:Ha::ii<::Y:.:Jr+:<:<:..:;.rxvJ!.:.�:.. \..:s: 4 „ae i 6 � $Y NORTH 13URLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 17 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS 2. Central Rollins Road impact the phasing and design of a gateway ele- New development in this subarea should contin- ment. The gateway could include an architectur- a ue to emphasize industrial,manufacturing,pub_ l statement, such as one or more tall buildings or building elements on the north side of the lic-serving and job-generating uses. These uses can be facilitated by the installation,maintenance intersection of Rollins Road and Broadway. Generally, the southern gateway entrance and enhancement of landscaping in front set- area includes those properties with frontage backs to improve the street environment. on Broadway west of the Rollins Road/Broadway intersection. Some sugges- Circulation improvements in the public right-of- way, including street lamps, sidewalk treatments tions for achieving a gateway element in this and additional street trees are discussed and illus- area are included in the Design Guidelines con- trated in Chapter 5. tained in Chapter 6. A strategy for working with Mills Creek, which is under tidal influence, is property owners who plan to redevelop +kis located in this subarea. Mills Creek has an earth- within the Southernatg eway entrance area en bed and bank and supports vegetation, and will need to construct a gateway element is including red willow shrubs at the edge of the discussed in Chapter 8. Caltrain corridor. A trail along Mills Creek Easton Creek, at the northern end of this sub- would be part of a pedestrian and bicycle net- area is also under tidal influence and has an work that would connect with another trail that earthen bed and bank that supports vegetation. would run along Easton Creek to the south. A pedestrian trail should be developed in con- Conceptual plans for how such a network can be junction with new development as it occurs on implemented are provided in Chapter 5. 3. Southern Gateway x z'. Figure 3-6. ' : . ' ' >i: Southern The entrance to the Rollins Road area from the Gateway south should be signified by an architectural or Z f subarea(A3) o and landscaped gateway element near the intersec- Southern tion of Rollins Road and Broadway. On the east „ Z Gatcwav entrance side of Rollins Road, this gateway area includes area properties from the intersection north to the t R o ^> PG&E substation. Some of these parcels may s TO be affected by reconstruction of the U.S. 101 0 h 0 2 and Broadway interchange overpass into an { urban interchange, which is expected within 10 years of the adoption of this Plan. ` Reconstruction of the interchange may also b 18 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS parcels adjacent to the creek on both sides of = Figure 3-7. ; :, Rollins Road. The trail area is envisioned as an ''', ;? ` Adrian Road Auto Row amenity to area businesses, providing an inter- << s subarea(A4) r; connected pedestrian and bicycle network with places to sit and eat lunch or take a break. 4. Adrian Road Auto Row District This subarea should becomeP Y rimaril an auto row, consisting of automobile dealerships and {�# auto-related service businesses along Adrian Road facing U.S. 101. The Specific Plan Illustrative shows where, with consolidation of h " x;:: D = properties, two automobile dealers could poten- tially locate. m These auto-related businesses will be able to 0 capitalize on the exposure and visual accessibili- ty to U.S. 101. The Adrian Road streetscape treatment along U.S. 101 should create a front window' to Burlingame. A staggered or inter- o. D mittent pattern of tree planting between Adrian Road and U.S. 101 would reinforce Burlingame's ' identification with trees while allowing commer- #". cial development to maintain adequate visual � - UAV�D AOAD exposure to the freeway. The species, location and management of trees and other landscaping on both private and public property should receive careful consideration. Guidelines for "• ••• signs and lighting in this area are included in N Chapter 6. The sign code will need to be amend- ed to reflect these guidelines and to determineEDWA0.DS.CT appropriate size and height for signs in this area. a The revised regulations will need to balance the need for visibility with the desire to maintain a consistent theme for the area. � f : NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 19 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS A road should be constructed to connect Rollins transformation. and Adrian Roads in order to facilitate increased 1, Burlingame Plaza access to the new auto row area from Rollins Road. The exact location of this road will be Burlingame Plaza is a heavily-used and vital determined as properties develop and opportu- neighborhood retail amenity for residents in the nities arise. northern and northwestern end of Burlingame. As shown in the Specific Plan Illustrative, it is D. El Camino Real North Area envisioned that no significant land use changes The northern end of El Camino Real in to existing Burlingame Plaza buildings will occur Burlingame should develop with a variety of during the timeframe of this Specific Plan. uses, which will become a destination for resi- 2. El Camino Real Gateway dents of Burlingame and neighboring cities as Corridor well as provide a neighborhood for new resi- This subarea is strategically located between dents. Components of this area will include existing Burlingame Plaza buildings and medical offices, retail shops and services, and California Drive, and includes the El Camino residences. These uses may be freestanding or Real spine running through the Plan Area. El mixed within a building. Multi-family housing in Camino Real and California Drive provide this subarea is appropriate for singles, young important linkages to the Millbrae Inter-modal families and seniors who wish to live near med- Station, particularly California Drive via the ical services, retail opportunities and regional Millbrae Avenue underpass. Much of this sub- mass-transit amenities. area is within one-third of a mile of the Millbrae A gateway feature, as envisioned in Figure 3-9, could be incorporated into the architecture Figure 3-8. or open space elements of new development On MURCHISON DRIVE ' Burlingame Plaza subarea (B1) El Camino Real south of Murchison Drive. ' Additional residential uses and a reconfiguration w n of the El Camino Real cross-section f fg 5-1 " "Z f will facilitate the transformation of this area into aedestrian-scaled neighborhood that is safer Z P g , Q ; and more conducive to pedestrian activity gener- i---r� -t ated by the new Millbrae Intermodal Station the T :........:... Plaza Shopping Center and the reconstructed TROUSDALE DRIVE :<:� hospital. Incorporation of the existing frontage �` f roads into the overall urban design concept for this area will be important to implement this 20 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Fiure 3-9. " 8 �N> Simulation of Y` ry' the potential : �. 1 \ changes on E c. _. .::::::::::::...... ...._..........._.... ,.t,. .�,. �.: :: ,� amino Real at ........ ::c< %`*'" ` ;4 •.°``'^ the northern ,�" �• '� entry to Burlingame ar Y .," ten^^�\ \�';�izk ^.<,�^ �` •�k� T<<�< + lowgay." 9, h +2 y� n i \\wmx X' e r " 3 ^ NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 21 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Accom lishin the oals and policies of the ._..... p g—g-- — — Figure 3 10 MURCHIsory oRn e El Camino Real lan for the El Camino Real Gateway corri- dor will require the reuse and replacement of subarea(B2) exis °tine buildings and arkin areas used to N support them. As sites are reused including — - s .... o combination into larder lots and the use of S' lots with two street frontages7 opportunities i c . to create viable, small pablic urban spaces ROUSDALE DRIVE q. ';...i'p should be identified and incentives could be ........... ._ provided to developers who include such _-_ publicly available features in their projects. Theses aces could include such thLnnes as <<, protected, passive outdoor sea tin areas, � 1 vest vocket tot lots, and oven spaces with 1 ' water features. There are existing frontage roads adjacent to both sides of El Camino Real,which are in the Intermodal Station and is adjacent to the City of Burlingame's right-of-way and in many Burlingame Plaza subarea. In this subarea, the cases are underused. In conjunction with the Specific Plan allows for a mix of uses,including community's desire to transform El Camino Real residential, office and ground floor retail. into a pedestrian-active street connecting north- However, the predominant land use should be ern Burlingame to the Millbrae Intermodal residential to continue the pattern that is preva- Station, these frontage road areas shwould be lent farther south on El Camino Real. abandoned to al}aw fer encourage ad'acent development while continuing to use existing El The Specific Plan Illustrative shows a reconfigu- Camino Real State Route travel lanes. Because ration of El Camino Real with the overall goal of these frontage roads still provide direct access to transforming El Camino Real into a street that is more conducive to pedestrian activity and properties at the center of the block, especially mixed use, providing opportunities for the on the east side, the transformation would be development of new housing and providing a conducted in phases, as development occurs. positive entry statement for the City of The phasing concept is illustrated in Figure 3-11, including a landscaped pedestrian laza on Burlingame that is consistent with the City's the west side of El Camino Real in front of "tree city"identity. — — — — — the shopping center. 22 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Gateway feature Gateway Figure 3-11. incorporated new into future scenarig o for El develop- construction Camino Real ment Corridor future -- - reflects buildin merger of site — existing parcels - 7 - slip road t — to serve pedestr an — existing plaza — i uses Lr—.— future new devel- building�— --� opment -- site __ reflects existing 1 parcel lines i ►I slip road to serve I existing i uses Phase 1 Phase 2 On the east side of El Camino Real north of tained at the center of the block,retaining some Trousdale Drive, there are eight parcels fronting on-street parking, which is vital to support on the frontage road. It is expected that the cor- remaining businesses. Over time, the interior ner parcels along this strip will develop first, parcels on the block can take advantage of the since at the north end the property owner has additional right-of-way property, which would expressed an interest in reuse and the property at become available as the frontage road is aban- the south end is vacant. As the properties devel- doned,and be able to redevelop their sites to com- op, a slip ramp type frontage road can be main- plete the new built frontage for EI Camino Real. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 23 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Figure 3-12. iz : fronting onto El Camino Real. The objective Mills Peninsula o ` & `� 9 ``. would be to extend the residential character and Hospital Block TROUSI DRIVE � tree canopy along the State highway the length subarea(B3) 3 of the City. Physical and visual access from El o W , Camino Real to Burlingame Plaza will remain - with the reconfiguration of El Camino Real F; while the addition of buildings will help to spa- tially define the public realm on El Camino Real. *` acrd Wide sidewalks will foster safer and more attractive pedestrian access on the east side of .:-: ; : . . :.:. El Camino Real between the Millbrae t eMillss ...... -- Intermodal Station, the Mill Peninsula Hospital - " and the offices, shops and residences in the sur- rounding area. The architecture and design of Adequate sidewalk area to promote a high any new development on the south side of level of pedestrian activi separation from Murchison Drive at El Camino Real should pro- the high volumes of traffic on El Camino vide a gateway design element that announces Real and to allow spillover from adjacent the entrance to Burlingame for pedestrians and uses such as outdoor seating is an im or- vehicles. tant component of this new entry to the EkY. Development on California Drive should pro- On the west side of El Camino Real, the vide a comfortable and safe street frontage for frontage road is primarily an under-used parking community members accessing the Millbrae and access area and can be abandoned or put to Intermodal Station under the Millbrae Avenue another use at one time. However,the adjoining overcrossing on foot. shopping center consists of nine parcels and it may take some time for those owners to put together a unified development proposal. In the interim, as shown in the phasing concept, this public right-of-way could be used as a linear park that facilitates a strong and attractive pedestrian bleep The emphasis of new development of connection between the Millbrae Intermodal California Drive should be to support the Station and Mills Peninsula Hospital. It is envi- development of a continuous street frontage sioned that eventually, residential uses can be of rtj itfo fice and residential uses on El built on land within Burlingame's public right- Camino Real, while maintaining an attrac- of-way between El Camino Real and Burlingame tive and safe pedestrian access on California Plaza. This infill development could be either all Drive IQ the BART/Caltrain station nearby high densi residential or may have mixed-use in Millbrae. The existin through lots with residential with ground floor commercial uses street frontage on both El Camino Real and 24 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS California Drive provide a special opportuni- -- ` Figure 3 73. tty and challenge to maintaining the edes- - oa"E North of NU�cH,SON ttian quali1y with a consistent street wall Trousdale Drive subarea (B4) along the California Drive street frontage. A fi Z Gftlftftirt ttfteks in the old street efft tight of w-my K Z p Q� Av , , Because California Drive is a art of the north-south bicycle route ©117"S°" °a'VE connecting Burlingame, San Mateo and Millbrae, bicycle lanes should be provided on both sides of California Drive. On the east side of El Camino Real and south of medical office building. A parking structure at Trousdale Drive, opposite the Mills Peninsula the corner of Trousdale and El Camino will Hospital, medical and institutional uses, such as also be integrated into the project. The design medical offices and convalescent hospitals, will of the hospital and its orientation should be continue to be encouraged along with high consistent with the Specific Plan's goals to densi1y residential and mixed uses. enhance the El Camino Real corridor to foster 3. Mills Peninsula Hospital Block pedestrian activity by adding amenities such as street trees, an improved streetscape and side- Mills Peninsula Health Services is proposing a walks and other pedestrian-scaled features. replacement and expansion of the existing Mills 4. North of Trousdale Drive Peninsula Hospital at the front of their site alb El Camino Real.to This new develop- This subarea includes the blocks between ment would include an associated medical Trousdale and Murchison Drives and between office building and the exi ring hosl2ital at the Magnolia Avenue and Ogden Drive as well as rear of the site will be demolished. New the east and west sides of Marco Polo development on the parcels surrounding the between Trousdale and Clarice Lane. New hospital site would be allowed to have a mix of development is allowed to be a mix of multi- uses,but,because of the proximity of the hospi- family residential and medical and other office tal, it is assumed that any new development will uses that benefit from the proximity to the hos- be primarily medical and related offices, main- pital, Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae taining the land use pattern that exists in this Intermodal Station, except along Marco Polo area today. where the development should be multiple fam- ily residential including appropriate support The replacement hospital located along EI services such as child care. Camino Real is proposed to be a six- to seven- story building attached to a four- to five-story NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 25 CHAPTER 3: ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS E. Development Summary Table 3-1 summarizes the amount of new development that can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of this Specific Plan over a 15-to 20-year period based on the vision outlined in this chapter. The table accounts for the removal of buildings to allow for new development. The development projections are consistent with the land use designations and densities proposed in Chapter 4 of this Plan. These pro- jections serve as the basis for the program-level environmental analysis conducted for this proposed Specific Plan. TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Use Existing Demolished Added Total Ground Floor Retail 130,800 sf 0 sf 93,100 sf 223,900 sf Office/Medical Office 2,961,400 sf 902,700 sf 105,200 sf 2,163,900 sf Industrial* 3,038,100 sf 1,087,500 sf 656,900 sf 2,607,500 sf Commercial 36,900 sf 0 sf 36,400 sf 73,300 sf Automobile Sales 0 sf 0 sf 91,700 sf 91,700 sf Automobile Service 290,500 sf 0 sf 299,600 sf 590,100 sf Public 428,900 sf 0 sf 0 sf 428,900 sf TOTAL 6,866,600 sf 1,990,200 sf 1,282,900 sf 6,197,300 sf Multi-Family Residential(40 du/ac) 42 du 0 du 704 du 746 du Assisted Living(beds) 398 351 0 47 *While FAR 0.5 is allowed in this land use category,calculations for this table use FAR 0.35,which reflects current development trends,including an assumption that surface parking will be utilized. 26 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Chapter 4 describes the land use designations and densities that will implement the development vision for North Burlingame outlined in Chapter 3. Land use densities are described according to subareas, as mapped in Figure 4-7. This figure also shows the land use designations for areas covered by this Specific Plan. This chapter includes maximum allowed devel- Additionally, future development in a subarea opment densities, expressed as floor area ratios along U.S. 101 frontage will emphasize auto (FARs) for each type of development anticipat- sales and service. ed to occur in the area, except residential, A1. Northern Gateway which is defined by a maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre (du/ac). The land use designation of this subarea is Allowed FARs have been set based on develop- Industrial, which consists primarily of ware- house and manufacturing uses, as described below. Allowed uses and their appropriate den- throughout the Bay Area. These proposed FARs will generally result in one- to two-story sides are as follows: commercial or industrial buildings with surface Industrial 0.5 FAR Review Line parking and adequate landscaping in the Rollins 1.0 FAR Maximums Road area and three- to €ettrfive-story residen- tial, commercial or mixed-use buildings in the Industrial uses in the area should be limited to North Burlingame area along El Camino Real. airport-related industries, food preparation, fabrication, commercial recreation, commer- This chapter includes guidance regarding land cial food preparation/processing, retail and use on private property only. Streetscape wholesale building andag rden supply, design concepts for public streets throughout industrial training facilities, pAblic service the area are included in Chapter 5. Design facilities and similar light industry. Free-stand- guidelines for private properties are included in ing office buildings and the professional uses Chapter 6. typical of occupants of such buildings are not allowed and should be located in the City's A. The Rollins Road Area Bayfront Area to the east of U.S. 101. A special gateway treatment is envisioned at the Industrial, manufacturing and other job-gener- very northern end of this area along Rollins ating uses will continue to be the emphasis of Road at El Portal Creek. As fttt itteertfive c__ development in the Rollins Road area. the ment of this ' praperty owners whe) redevelop their sites at or neftr the Determined by trip generation and intersection capacity and/or providing a gateway feature. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 27 CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Figure 4-1. Land use map Q with subareas indicated c!7 \\\ � \ �. :R D Fff[E ;sg Cl 3 w = Z O m A ♦� A Sub Areas: — AI Northern Gateway A2 Central Rollins Road A3 Southern Gateway IT A4 Adrian Road Auto District BI Burlingame Plaza B2 EI Camino Real Gateway Corridor ,.= ais cxee B3 Mills Peninsula Block B4 North of Trousdale Drive Land Use Designations: ,, ® Mixed-Use-Office/Retail Commercial/ Residential Mixed-Use-Office/Residential as o Commercial-Shopping/Service ® Commercial-Service and Special Uses SAN FRANCISCO BAY Auto Row Overlay District ElResidential-Medium-High Density (<21-50 du/ac) ROADWAY CALTRAIN .a Industrial-Industrial and Office Space STATION ® 0 300 600 1200 feet ® Institutional-Institutional/Other � � Planning Area Boundary City Limits 28 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Sy Figure 4-2. Parcels adja- cent to trail Z [ _ network E� o3L EDWARDS CT t__ Gity a- -- In s area, __-_ ___, _____.,it would be desir- � 1. 1429 Rollins Road Able to see a new street linkingAdRoad d Creek Area Adrian an 2. 1480 Rollins Road Rollins Road. As redevele ent reuse of Trail � 3. 40 Edwards Court properties in the area allows for the identifica- tion of an appropriate alignment, owners of the properties designated for this new road, will be Allowed uses and densities are as follows: rewired asked to dedicate land for this road at the time they propose new development on their Industrial 0.5 FAR Review Line sites. However,as an incentive,the allowed den- 1.0 FAR Maximum sity for the entire parcel, including the roadway Parcels along the south side of Mills Creek, on alignment,may be built on the remainder of the both sides of Rollins Road, are required to site. build a pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek in X12. Central Rollins Road conjunction with new development as it occurs. The parcels that are subject to this requirement The land use designation in this subarea is are designated in Figure 4-2. Industrial and should be limited to air ort- related industries, food preparation, fabri- Additionally, natural habitat areas have been cation, commercial recreation, commercial identified under the PG&E power lines on food preparation/processing, retail and both sides of David Road. In addition to sur- wholesale building andag rden supply, face drainage, these drainage areas have been industrial training facilities, public service found to provide some potential seasonal wet- facilities and similar light industrv. Free- land areas and breeding locations for special- standing office buildings and the rofes- status species. As required by Federal law, no sional uses jypical of occupants of such development may occur in areas that have juris- buildings are not allowed and should be dictional wetlands or special-status species located in the Ci 7s Bayfront Area to the habitat. Last of U.S. 101. 2 Determined by trip generation and intersection capacity and/or protecting native habitat or providing creekside amenity. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 29 CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS A3. Southern Gateway the Rollins Road area are allowed north of the Unlike the rest of the Rollins Road area, this subareas is a transition area between G*tewfty Southern Gateway entrance area. the Rollins Road industrial area and the These uses include airport-related indus- Broadway Commercial area; and allows for tries, food preparation, fabrication, com- retail and office uses at the Southern Gateway mercial recreation, commercial food prepa- Entrance area along the Broadway frontage. ration/processing, retail and wholesale The primary uses allowed in the Southern building andag rden supl2l industrial Gateway Entrance area at Broadway are training facilities, public service facilities office, automobile sales and service and and similar light industry. Free-standing commercial recreation. In the Southern office buildings and the professional uses Gateway Entrance area, all other uses 1ypical of occupants of such buildings are allowed in the adjoining industrial area are not allowed and should be located in the allowed only with special review. The same Southern Gateway Entrance area or in the industrial uses that are allowed in the rest of Ci 's Bayfront Area to the east of U.S. 101. Allowed uses and densities are as follows: Figure4-3. EDWARDS CT , Parcels adja- oIndustrial 0.5 FAR Review Line cent to trail _ 1.0 FAR Maximum 3 network O OR r Commercial(Service and Special Uses) C Z r `" ' Only on Designated Gateway Sites „� Z ;O. Easton Creek . ' 1.0 FAR Review Line p 2.0 FAR Maximum4 C_ Parcels along Easton Creek are required to m build a pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek in 1. 1379 North Carolan conjunction with new development as it occurs. Creek Area y, 1399 Rollins Road As shown in Chapter 3,it is envisioned that the Trail 3. 1400 Rollins Road likelihood of development is higher on the 4. 1400 Rollins Road southwest and northeast sides of Rollins Road 5. 50 Edwards Court and Easton Creek. The parcels that this requirement applies to are designated in Figure 4-3. A diagram of the trail network and sug- gestions for the design of the trails are shown in Chapter 5. 3 Based on trip generation and intersection capacity and/or providing a creek trail or habitat feature. 4 UR tQ A maximum of 2_0 FAR based on trip generation and intersection capacity achievement of significant landscaping and provsion of a!:;�eernm"nity approved gateway statement. 30 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Additionally, natural areas have been identified ment of gateway features in this area needs to under the PG&E power lines on both sides of be planned relative to Caltrans' future plans for David Road. These drainage areas have been reconfiguration of the Broadway/U.S. 101 inter- found to provide some potential seasonal wet- change, which may impact how some parcels land areas and breeding locations for special- near Broadway and Rollins Road can be devel- status species. As required by Federal law, no oped. development may occur in areas that have juris- A4. Adrian Road Auto District dictional wetlands or special-status species habitat. This subarea itidtistrift! tises and is RIS&targeted to establish A special gateway treatment should be devel- a new center for automobile sales and service, oped at the very southern end of this area although it may continue to be used for tt- alerig at Broadway and Rollins Road to physi- ical industrial uses including airport-relat- cally announce the industrial area. As an incen- ed industries, food preparation,fabrication, tive for the development of this gateway,prop- commercial recreation, commercial food erty owners who redevelop their sites with gate- preparation/.processing, retail and whole- way features and eetttbine existing lots itito. sale building andag rden suppl industrial training facilities, public service facilities proftd —1d the and similar light industry. Allowed uses are PG&E stibstftfiart __ the eftst side are located as follows: in the Southern Gateway Entrance area may be ranted a density bonus of u to 1.0 FAR if Industrial 0.5 FAR Review Line lot eombirtft6aft or g consistent 1.0 FAR Maximums gateway features OR with City objectives are included in their pro- Auto Service 0.5 FAR Review Line osed projects. When density bonuses are 1.0 FAR Maximum included, the proposed development must not cause any intersection in or adiacent to the OR area to exceed Service Level E.Design features Automobile Sales and that would qualify for such a bonus include sig- related service nificant tree plantings, towers or entry markers, businesses 0.15 FAR Review Line street furniture along the sidewalk and architec- Large-format auto parts retailers are not tural features on the building. The develop- allowed in this designation. 5 Based on trip generation and intersection capacity and creek or habitat amenities. 6 Based on trip generation and intersection capacity and creek or habitat amenities. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 31 CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Additionally, this subarea is an Automobile dential uses are allowed in the El Camino Sales and Service Overlay District. In this over- Real North area. lay district new large format automobile dealers B1. Burlingame Plaza with service are allowed, but only on parcels that will support substantially sized businesses. The Burlingame Plaza shopping center will For this reason, the €e16g automobile retain its existing designation as a retail sales sales with service use is allowed only where and service commercial center. Medical and parcels combine to create a single prejeetpar- other office uses would be allowed above the cel totaling five acres or more. first floor only andvette ho talc would not be Maximum height regulations for the Adrian allowed. Allowed land uses and densities are as Road Auto District-,-*4tteh should be kept sim- follows: ilar to existing building heights;with an admin- Commercial(Shopping and istrative review for buildings proposed over 35 Service) and office above feet, are discussed in Chapter 6. the first floor 0.5 FAR Ground floor retail 0.5 FAR Development in the new auto row area will be combined with multi-family Maximum 40 enhanced by a new cross street linking Adrian du/ac Road and Rollins Road. As redevelopment in the area allows for the identification of an Use of the frontage road right-of--way will be appropriate alignment, owners of the proper- phased first as a green space and pedestrian ties designated for this new road, as discussed area. arrd Later-, additional mixed use develop- above,will be required to dedicate land for this ment will be allowed on the frontage road right- road at the time of new development on their of-way. The use designations for this later sites. However, the allowed density for the development is included in Section B2, below entire parcel, including the roadway alignment, in an effort to have the two sides of El may be built on the remainder of the site. Camino developed in a similar land use pat- tern. B. EI Camino Real North Area B2. El Camino Real Gateway Corridor This area, which is the northern gateway to Burlingame along El Camino Real, will Contin- This subarea has a land use designation of ue to serve as a residential, retail, office and Mixed-Use,allowing for sin�gle rvidential uses or medical node. It is proposed that more resi- a mix of uses, including residential, office and dential opportunities be provided either in free- commercial on Any parcel, as follows: standing multiple family structures or as part Ground Floor and_abow 0.5 FAR of mixed-use development. The land use regu- Retail or Office, lations described below will implement this combined with vision. Because of State mandated densi Multi-Family Maximum 34 40du/ac bonueses when affordable units are OR required by the City, the maximum built Multi-Family Maximum residential densi mare rise to 50+ dwelling Residential b9 40 du/ac units per acre on Any arcel on which resi- 32* NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Since the City desires to see coordinated proj- Proposed land use densities are as follows: ects that combine several of the parcels in this Convalescent Home 60 beds/ac area, an additional residential unit density OR bonus of 40 pereerrt 5 units will be granted Residential Maximum over the levels shown above for any project that OR 69 40 du/ac is proposed to be constructed on three two or Office 0.5 FAR more legal parcels existing in this area at the OR time of the adoption of this Specific Plan; all Ground Floor Office 0.5 FAR and other development requirements must be met with Residential Maximum on the site. 40 40 du/ac B3.Mills Peninsula Hospital Block On Marm polo 7 This block consists primarily of the Mills Re.aden>ral Maximum 40 Peninsula Hospital. Allowed uses on this block Alac are as follows: Hospital Site Public Facility The Noah of Tmrudale Drive ubarea includes both Hospital and supporting .rik oe'Mann Polo Il'M south to Clarice Lane. Higher offices and No maximum deW resldenisal and resldentia related lues should be facilities density the o#4 rues allowed in this transitional arw between the Pftreels 9 horMM and the established residential neighborhoods to iag- �4�►1�-1�a Nim-ee Polo Residential 90 dtt"fte the west. Way, B4. North of Trousdale Drive This subarea may be developed with a mixture of uses, including a preponderance of multi- family residences, acrd with offices including health services, financial institutions and care facilities in minced rue buildings,principal-X along the Magnolia frontage which faces the Plaza Shopping Center and adjoins the main entrance to the replacement hospital. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 33* CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 34 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 5 CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE This chapter describes circulation and streetscape improvementsproposedJor the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. A. Roadway Improvements 2. Adjustment to El Camino Real Cross-section There are no intersection improvements need- ed to implement this Specific Plan, however, Within the project study area, El Camino Real two roadway changes are proposed. They are is a six-lane facility with adjacent landscape not expected to have an effect on roadway or berms and frontage roads. The North intersection capacity and are discussed below. Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan calls for 1. New Connection between adjusting this cross-section to remove the Rollins Road and Adrian Road frontage roads on either side of El Camino Real. In its place, the Plan calls for phased Part of the Specific Plan's land use component development of a more pedestrian-friendly suggests opportunity sites for new car dealer- land use along the corridor. This phasing sce- ships on Adrian Road, just west of U.S. 101. nario is described in Chapter 3. In addition, the Existing access to this area fronting U.S. 101 is Plan calls for enhancement to pedestrian and indirect via Adrian Road in Millbrae or David bicycle facilities along El Camino Real, includ- Road from Rollins Road to the south. The two ing wide sidewalks, streetscape improvements suggested sites would provide increased visibil- and on-street parking that would improve ity for these businesses locating there. To facil- pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety. itate this visibility and the accessibility of those These improvements are not expected to have sites, the Plan recommends that a road be con- an effect on traffic operations, -- there - H -4 structed to improve access to the auto dealer- ships from the Rollins Road area, by providing since, exce t for median strip improve- a more direct and visible link to the potential ments, they will occur on CLty proper1y auto dealership sites. The exact location of this adjacent to the Caltrans State right-of- road i hQ t-of- road will be determined as properties develop way. Three through traffic lanes in each and opportunities arise. This new roadway direction should be maintained on E1 connection is not expected to have any effect Camino Real. on roadway capacity or operations. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 35 CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE B. Streetscape Improvements frame a more deliberate pedestrian friendly The Specific Plan recommends the creation of and memorable entry to Burlingame. Figure 5- 2 shows an overlay of the proposed change cross-sectional standards for El Camino Real, superimposed over an aerial photograph of the Trousdale Drive, California Drive, Magnolia existing El Camino Real to illustrate that there Avenue and Rollins Road. These standards will is essentially no change to the existing travel help to define the ambience for future develop- lane configuration. ment in each area. These street standards are limited to streetscape improvements, such as El Camino Real would become a vibrant and bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, street furniture pedestrian friendly retail corridor to serve local and trees. These improvements should residents. Parking lanes would be included to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environ- buffer pedestrians from traffic lanes. The ment without significantly compromising the improvements will include street trees at regu- capacity of the roadway network. lar intervals that will supplement the existing 1. El Camino Real Eucalyptus canopy and provide shade for pedestrian areas. Street lights, benches and The El Camino Real cross-section, shown in other furnishings would be part of the Figure 5-1, would be reconfigured to clarify streetscape improvements. The improvements pedestrian and vehicular travel patterns and would foster safer and more spatially defined facilitate greater pedestrian circulation in North pedestrian circulation routes along El Camino Burlingame on land that is currently dedicated Real and strengthen connections between the to service and frontage roads. The reconfigura- Mills Peninsula Hospital,retail opportunities in tion would create a substantial amount of new Burlingame Plaza and the Millbrae Intermodal developable land that can then be used to station. develop street frontages that are primarily upper level residential uses or over ground- floor retail or office uses. New buildings would 36 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5 1. 4 / Proposed E1 Camino Real A / ^, cross-section �� `� �I plan lan 3 ,v k�. +1-4s2E a 12' 12' 12' ia' 12' 12' 12' e' 446 2V Property Sidewalk Parking Travel Travel Travel Median/Tum Travel Travel Travel Parking Sidewalk Property Line Line Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane 0 0 Property Property Line Line NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 37 CHAPTER S: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-2. Proposed chan es to 3 , _.. . i El Camino MURCHISON D".__.'.." RIVE # Real s _" I r _ z . I . r i .. , n I ,iT O f f i 1 \lti I D Z 1 i O I D - Tunkm _. . C` t m TROUSDALE DRIVE , d� I `r t 1 ' ! -j'I i l - j t f 3 (not to scale) 38 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 55: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-3. Existing Trousdale Burlingame Drive Plaza Building -4- A 10' 10' 12' 11' Setback Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Sidewalk 84' Property Line R.O.W. Property Line 2. Trousdale Drive Curb extensions at corners, or "bulb outs," at Trousdale Drive is a busy four lane arterial,run- the intersection of Trousdale Drive and El ning east-west that connects Interstate 280 with Camino Real would help to reduce traffic El Camino Real and California Drive. speeds at this busy intersections while also cre- Streetscape improvements on Trousdale Drive, ating shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. illustrated in Figures 5-3 and 5-6, can enhance The bulb out will delineate parking lanes,where the pedestrian environment while also con- they exist, on Trousdale Drive. Tree wells will tributing to the reduction of vehicular speeds be cut into the existing ten foot sidewalks to and the creation of a generally safer environ- allow the planting of street trees at regular ment for pedestrians. The concepts illustrated intervals. Pedestrian crosswalks would be anticipate a new entrance to Mills Peninsula added at appropriate locations to facilitate Hospital on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia greater and safer pedestrian use. Avenue and reconfiguration of travel lanes to Improvements will include pedestrian-scaled accommodate the shifted hospital-related traf- street lighting. These amenities will also fic. improve pedestrian access to Mills Peninsula Hospital for people using BART and other public transit. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 39 CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 54. I I ' I O I Intersection of El Camino Real I 21 I and Trousdale I 1 U I"I Drive �I I _ ._..�� QoaQa000aao�aoQoaQ ��.. 0 0 COD ® Q o TROUSDALE o Q C� C7 aoaofla°Qaoa00000�o j I I 11 I�I i _ r I I rr i tl 40 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure S-S. California Drive r 1� 1 10, 85 5 Setbal Sidewalk Parking Bike Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike W R.O.W. Property Line Property Line 3. California Drive Drive combined with greater pedestrian activi- ty that will result from new development on Traffic volumes on California Drive are likely California Drive parcels, will calm vehicular to increase with the apes"rtg continued opera- traffic and contribute to a safe and pleasant tion of the Millbrae Intermodal Station and as pedestrian environment along this route. Bike transit patrons south of the Specific Plan area use California Drive to access the station via lanes in-both directions will allow for bicycle access from the transit facility to parts of the the Millbrae Avenue underpass. Improvements Specific Plan Area, including the hospital west to the streetscape, shown in Figure 5-5, and low fenc�inwith landscaping set back from of El Camino Real via Murchison Drive or Trousdale Drive. the edge of the sidewalk along California NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 41 CHAPTER J: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-6. Intersection of Trousdale t Drive and t Magnolia 10 Avenue C7 1< I � I F EM I I I 0 0o ao dodoaao ,. o o TROUSDALE ® r o C1 C� Lj d O aaoo ooao ! HOSPITAL ENTRANCE 4. Magnolia Avenue Avenue street facade with the front doors of Magnolia Avenue is a very wide street laid over many other businesses. a 60-foot wide ftqttedtte San Francisco Water 6 nnd �4,, Curb bulb outs wattid could be District easement. With the completion of added on Magnolia Avenue at the intersection the replacement hospital, Magnolia will with Trousdale Drive to improve pedestrian complete the intersection at the main access and safe . This i44 The bulbouts entrance to the hospital. it—sus— tern would narrow the perceived width of travel Magnolia connects Trousdale Drive to lanes and contribute to the reduction of traffic Murchison Drive and provides the primary speeds. The bulb outs would also reduce service access for some of the retail establish- pedestrian crossing distances. The current ments at the back of Burlingame Plaza and to configuration of parallel parking on the west the shops which face El Camino Real. side and a mixture of parallel and diagonal These service entries at the rear of the busi- parking on the east side are proposed to nesses fac�inLy El Camino share the Magnolia remain. To break up the streetap rking visu- 4Z* NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-7. Magnolia Avenue IV eH.J' 8' 8' 12' 14' 12' 18' 12' Sid"alk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Sidewalk 84' R.O.W. Property Line 1 60' L Property Line 111 Water Easement Ally, street tree bulb outs wattid could be 5, Rollins Road Gateway added at regular intervals on the west side and The gateway, illustrated in the conceptual tree wells could be cut into the existing sketches in Figures 5-8 and 5-9, will signal the walk on the eastern side, entry into the Rollins Road industrial area. to avoid a conflict with the underground water Utilizing the unused shoulders of the El Portal main. Improvements will also include pedestri- Channel bridge the gateway will provide pedes- an scale street lights and additional crosswalks trian seating areas, entry signage and landscape at convenient locations. elements. Improvements will include the refur- bishments of the bridge to include pilasters and upgraded security fencing and railings. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 43 CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-8. Cross-section through north- ern Rollins Road gateway 5.5' 6' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 8' Walk Treves Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Walk 6. Rollins Road Figure 5-9. Proposed Improvements to Rollins Road, which are illus- gateway ; trated in Figures 5-10 and 5-11, will include the t installation of street trees in tree wells cut into 14 4 the existing sidewalks. At locations where the street trees are to be planted,the sidewalk will be reconstructed around the tree locations. The goal of this street tree program is to calm traffic by narrowing the perceived street width, which can cause drivers to reduce their speed. i Therefore,it is advantageous for the street trees to be as close to the travel lanes as possible. Rollins Road is also a designated bicycle route in Burlingame's adopted Bicycle _ Transportation pLan. There is not enough �.� room within the existing right-of-waX to accommodate a Class II bike lane. It is au - 44 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-10. Rollins Road North of Easton Creek w ivi It .V 4.5' 5.5' 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' 5.5, 14.5' Walk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Walk 84' Property Line R'O'W Property Line I r f eg sted in the pLan that the travel lane closest perature and glare. The width of the City- to the curb line could be marked with a owned right-of-way on Rollins Road differs on "sharrow" bicycle route symbol indicating either side of Easton Creek. South of Easton that bicycles will share this travel lane. Creek, the right-of-way is 75 feet, with a side- walk of approximately 5 feet on either side. Additionally, a significant goal of the Specific North of Easton Creek, the right-of-way is 84 Plan is the creation of a more aesthetically feet, including approximately 5 feet between pleasing environment on Rollins Road, and the the back of the sidewalk and the property line. addition of street trees will help to accomplish Therefore, as shown in Figures 5-10 and 5-11, that goal. The trees will also shade large areas construction of the tree wells and realigned of the Rollins Road pavement, reducing tem- sidewalks in the section of Rollins Road below NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 45 CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-11. Rollins Road South of w Easton Creek I Attk 1 5.5' 6' 12' 12' 12' 12' S' 5.5' Walk Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Walk 75' Property Line R.O.W. Property Line - r • OP I - 1 Easton Creek will require the City to acquire an 7. Street Tree Recommendations easement from property owners. Construction Street trees are recommended with the goal of of this street tree program in this more con- creating a transition in scale between roadways strained section of Rollins Road may be limited and adjacent land uses as well as to provide a by other improvements on these properties and will need to be reviewed on a parcel by parcel comfortable pedestrian realm. Trees were cho- basis. sen based on their long term appeal, however, as with any tree species the interim look and growth pattern of the tree is dependent on the 46 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER S: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE TABLE 5-1 STREET TREE RECOMMENDATIONS Street Area Proposed Alternate El Camino Real Ulnus Princeton/Princeton Elm Fraxinus oxycarpa/Raywood Ash Ulnru Frontier/Frontier Elm Ubuu Accolade/Accolade Elm Trousdale Drive Koelreuteria paniculata/ Quercus rubra/ California Drive Golden Rain Tree Red Oak Magnolia Avenue Magnolia g. 'St Mary'/ Magnolia sp. St Mary Magnolia Rollins Road Quercus rubra/Red Oak Sapium sebiferum/ Chinese Tallow Tree Murchison Drive Eucalyptus ficifolia/ Sapium sebiferum/ Ogden Drive Red Flowering Gum Chinese Tallow Tree Marco Polo Way Adrian Road Accent Tree Prunus yedoensis/ Lagerstroemia indica/ Yoshino Flowering Cherry Crape Myrtle City of Burlingame's tree maintenance pro- with the future appearance of the tree in mind. gram. It is suggested that at the time of plant- Table 5-1 indicates the recommended street ing, steps to increase the future heath of the trees to be used for streetscape improvements tree be taken. These efforts include proper soil in the Specific Plan Area. Most trees are listed amendment to reduce soil compaction and in the City of Burlingame's Planning water tubes to induce deep root growth. It Department Tree List. The Princeton Elm has should be expected that during periods of a been considered as a replacement tree for sec- tree's normal growth it will encroach on a road- tions of El Camino Real south of the Plan way. The pruning of trees in order to avoid Area. It is very similar to Elm trees that were conflicts with roadways will be necessary dur- historicallyplanted on El Camino Real and is ing these initial periods of growth. Trees one of the best Elm species for resisting the should be pruned to minimize this impact and attack of Dutch Elm disease. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 47* CHAPTER S: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Figure 5-12. ^ '� Creekside A .D ROAD Property Line Network Plan Ay EDWARDS LOUR 1 3 D m P O z PO Z Creek Trail Section 16 0000000 Sidewalk and Street Tree Improvements Trail Network ■ ;s C. Pedestrian Network In the Rollins Road area,a creekside open space L:�-j ,= : ♦► and pedestrian trail system would provide ,��.�►,.,,.ti { ` amenities and pedestrian and bike facilities for Creek Trail Plan area businesses as well as recreation opportuni- ties Rollins Road workers and Burlingame resi- dents. These open space areas, combined with streetscape improvements on Rollins Road,will Figure 5-13. Creekside Network facilitate safer and more attractive non-vehicu- lar connections between Rollins Road employ- 48 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 5: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ment destinations and transit opportunities to E. Infrastructure the north in Millbrae and to the south on Broadway. The proposed network is shown in Existing infrastructure in the Specific Plan area Figure 5-12 and a conceptual illustration of is adequately sized for the existing land uses these creekside areas is shown in Figure 5-13. and are is discussed in Chapter 7. According to the City Engineer, the aggregated change of De gradual deveent of g tmil network will occur land uses proposed in the Specific Plan area over time arportunitiea mise to acquire acc>nrr r- will create lesser demands on water supply and chore orgil EETbt when'ne fary to mi—a sanitary sewer capacities than the existing uses, of g qtr eccrto conve�ancti o public acceJa so changes in infrastructure or demand on ri�hA u intended to be i ,red on projectr in the area water supply caused by the plan are not antici- D. Parking pated. As shown in the design guidelines in Chapter 6, on-site parking throughout the Specific Plan F. Phased Removal of Frontage area should be premed encouraged to be Roads along EI Camino Real located behind buildings in order to adequate- Because new development will occur over time, ly define the pedestrian realm and create safe the abandonment of the El Camino Real and aesthetically-pleasing environments on frontage roads will be phased, as described in Burlingame sidewalks and streets. However, Chapter 3. on arcels with lot frontare on El Camino Real atrg ade 12arkin visible or accessed from El Camino should be discouraged. This parking will be supplemented by on-street parking,including some portions of El Camino Real, on which parallel curb parking should be provided as part of its redesign. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 49* CHAPTER S: CIRCULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 50 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES A n ., 1 ePM NT CTA ND A This chapter contains design guidelines that urge will lead the character of new development in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area. The design guidelines W ed M aebieve should be used to guide achievement ofthe vision and goals of the Specific Plan as pre- sented in other chapters The dem guidelines are not intended to be directive but to estab- lish the guidin principles for determining good desi n to effectively implement the goals and policies, as well as land use decisions, of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The design guidelines aim to: ---a ....tt aard each subarea of the planning area. + Give the City of Burlingame tools to evaluate and guide 12roject design. + "Shall" or "Must" means t4taf—the sfft — + Make sure design takes into account the "tree ci " image of Burlingame. The guidelines and 9tftttdftrds. have been devel- 4- "Should" or "Highly Etteettrit oped for the Specific Plan area based on gree two subareas, the E1 Camino Real North area and the Rollins Road area. The districts, the boundaries for to be ft reeorftmendfttiart to ft dev which are shown in Figure 6-1, were drawn based on the character of the streets and the ftbattf how to implement tite gottis of the nature of the development in each of the dis- Speeifie Plait.- tricts, as envisioned by this Specific Plan. + Provide proper1y owners and develop- A. Design Standards for All Areas ers with clear direction about what tie and quali1y of development the d1y Streets that are successful for multiple users, desires and exl2ects in the North such as vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, can Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific often be thought of as outdoor rooms. The Planning area. sides of these outdoor rooms are the buildings that enfront the streets. This section defines + Provide a set ofug_ iding dem rinci- the parameters characteristics of develop- les for public officials, developers, ment t-ka+ which forms and shapes the pedes- designers and the community to use trian and public realm of the principal streets in which are sensitive to the conditions of the Specific Plan area. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 51 CL i{ P 0 LL — tt ; �........t. .. -.. ...-..i i•..: — a zm ..i i' i i i f o w D .............. ( i...._.............. . .._-_._.. �...__.. : OAYSHORE FREEWAY(101) _ W O Z co Y• -- .. - _ oft ;, r,':ti^l ji i �1si.,; �� { .��•`t ty}1 Z l 47 t.. `1 1 � -r•,f�iTj9 �,'xi: �,i•-':� ''^^ LS Y L... T U -:: _ �- ° r ^t,.. - l i i `'':. :• { Y t Lizi.;.` t:�l 1 (l � � '." {,ham �- �•f`. M- Y(..,......,....... '�+^�NN.W!�A«�!I!P9�G'fWngp0,6P )`l�` �"S l l-f#4�t.F :t �..� 44 � .t•, , � w :t rT• • -, '( 'tTl _ L - � --9 _...)1 T.:7�...1.=.,.. .: t,-s-t,I•, ( t!.:.Li...; I ;!' L. EL CAMINO REAL(82) !!! f\•N!� (1I,sY.i t }ll...-T p ! ( w _..1 t.i..1 .i..i--w-• '�l -� -r.,•z .3• ��i�l�T�� Z i-t •tr:r,r,f1;tT i' .i• cJ..it i_a.'x1 {!_i r•:-i.�f1.+ i t i 1. _, t• •r":a'G:i ` p v i• 1 � xJ',..... T- i Ti.j�i iT:`t t Y-•a r; -.� ,. 3 t ro •sn � .; �-;tr•":'��t } T;.;rt•i f'f';'; :r•i` � +-•-r v p al 4., {7.1•t-'Yr,'_il{',J-'ii s.)!•^:1,i.._s+�' 17�-• t ..1''1. •.l w : :;-;^j rf t t"t;",t..: " t,.ii:i;,i.hlisi_ is �.. {"-_'ii%..•- to 1 ('''i"`'i��ti;.ti Lei i .S,.. .._..t `("'� t,(1 tY"•C( i i C`•`(T`! °c_ :.:.1 ti':1. r•t '• } ' .i_._._..:i 1.L.t1O' 111 :) -f`�t,..i,ti•t..... ( ! y'� 1 .1.'.S^.1.1 — _ r-• tc •c .c 1 tTt( t.� (Y t . ['t if tJ D 0 Z J.,i l•i .i.x.-. -.. ! I f-'1 11('..1.. l i:: ,`" O 7 fr1' O f,.. -!J� ii1 -1 .ii•: >_1xi::i..i laxuxi.0 jf,r in (� i 1' to 1 _ _ _ -_, rs•S��:..xi'�Vi i t t•,"(l[i'(S.iY 'I'll (Yj t,•,••(-i . .' s W t...00Di:q•YDR -�r•Yj'`•r T�i,'' f L .— :(�'' ; :. ... T 1 TT Tl h� •j.:.t -} _ .. :.1-t" i.L: �.i.1.:. ( ;.: �/�//�///f)�j{(y/y/•//y/yJ Yl Q `"1. 'S"J L<.xi'l.t 1..tJ- LY?_.:,.,i�..•"�.t. t �1.;3�.;L i' 1 1.1. ,I ivr y t,'.: t iY''-":+• ,,......J.✓_ixi.. �t.�.,.tvyi.(,-t Y',•.,-i�r•-t ..i : v .l' 1 • �• i • r_.,..�_ i•t',A `�,'�'�Y::$ •t`:tt. JI i •s. 1 i ,.,-i•..• � ,� -r;•r•t.._,.... ..,r....-r.t-j•7.i -.. -... 1-}-}����, '!r�\ t-t.-- .. -.�,•.. ..�i' C:: ,1 1 r-.._ t` :::: .... w �ft.. -s-..� .L i: irJ ..�:. +- �. iJ. it L.. ., -1 t��` •�'; \�f ; t!"J�. .T i .i. J f ,. rry ::,,.._. f -. :..._:i�`X4 � i1.:aj il ..L -•, ?':`t / S`"�a:�1L' s:. .JTZ fc::•�r {s , ✓':::1�. ; 1�ti a , t •.M y N A CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB [)E"" T STANB RB6 T+ The Specific Plan includes speeifteations all street frontages in the Specific Plan area guidelines for the following: except California Drive, where a standard setback is used in order to visuallyopen n ♦ Build-to Lines, or the specific distance the Pedestrian experience as people travel that new development should maintain to the Intermodal Transit Station in between the sidewalk and the front fapde. Millbrae. ♦ Minimum Building Heights, so that new 2. Minimum Building Heights development will create appropriately- scaled building frontages specific to the To create an appropriate street wall, new buildings in the Specific scale and use of particular streets and fos- fic Plan area sly should conform to the minimum height standards ter greater pedestrian activity. mapped and specified in Figure 6-3. Corner ♦ Maximum Building Heights, - hieh fare parcels fronting onto streets where two stan- so that new development dards meet may have the higher allowed build- will be consistent with zoning require- ing height wrap around the corner onto the ments and airport-related height con- street where the lower building height is other- straints. wise suggested ♦ Minimum Percentage Frontage, which €ee+. Where nos ecific guidance on height gives direction for the minimum amount of is recommended on the ma for minimum a new building's faqade that ttittsf should buildin>7 height, new construction should be placed at the Build-to Line. conform to zoning regulations. 1. Build-to Lines 3. Maximum Building Heights New buildings in the Specific Plan area sly New buildings in the Specific Plan area s eeft€ermr-t:a should be consistent with the -nfi5---- to 5hould be consistent with the Build-to Lines as mapped and specified in maximum height standards mapped and speci- Figure 6-2. The Build-to Line preseribes sug- fied in Figure 6-4. Corner parcels fronting onto gests a vety speeifie setback that,together with streets where two standards meet may have the specifications contained in Section A.4, higher maximum building height wrap around Minimum Percentage Frontage,w4 can define the corner onto the street where the lower max- the space between the sidewalk and the front imum building height is otherwise suggested fagade of a building. Corner parcels frontingfeet.f 30 Where no onto streets with differing build-to standards specific guidance is recommended for maxi- shall should be built so that each fagade eett- mum building heights,new construction should forms to the _._tta__a r_- -arm to be consistent with zonin re ula- >:s consistent alon g g the street +ha+ which it faces. It should be tions and airport-related height constraints. noted that build-to lines are suggested for NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 53 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AN9 DEVE60PIAENT eT" FZgure 6-2. BRAEgVE IF BART Build-to Lines NUE STATION Q R O : EI Po ��E P ■ � m D L11.LLLLL4'� r m 3 � O P .r- 2 D LEGEND I«—Property Line si ills Cree 1 0'Build-to Line 4 10'Build-to Line ® SAN FRANCISCO ® BAY a we BROADWAY 20' CALTRAIN Q TATIO Q 20'Build-to Line 54 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB BART Figure 6-3. STATION M1IIttTllllTl Building 4 Heights CITY OF Mltt a EI Po�'WI Channel VPT-7--R r D j 3 = O P m LEGEND 24 Feet ills Cme Eft i i i am 35 Feet ® SAN FRANCISCO ® BAY BROAD e CALTRAIN pa STATIO Q ■ ■ 48 Feet NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 55* CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB DEVE1 r 8*14.019ARBS Figure 64. EAVEAI(E BART Maximum STATION Building Heights Q 0 CITyOFMIC( E D EI Poral A Channel TF 11A, QVII r ills I F9HE 0 r 3 O � m o • lJ'J�.1� ills reek LEGEND MTFM MEESE 60 Feet Review Line 75 Feet Maximum SAN FRANCISCO 35 Feet Review Line rtT7T(TA BAY 75 Feet Maximum ® 35 Feet Review Line ROADWAY 60 Feet Maximum CALTRAIN Q STATIO Q 56 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES P"°" ' &FANBARDS STB BARTN Figure 6-5. TIO Minimum j4 Parcel Frontage CI�yOF/q/CC E �� A B PO`s Channy S I r D j 3 = O A m LEGEND I.—Build-to Line I a C> _ Mil C ek ■mm■■ 100% I —Build-to Line 0 0 0 t l l l l l l 60% 1—_ ® SAN FRANCISCO —Build-to Line ® BAY Co N i 'BROADWAY CA IN a STATIO o� 20% NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 57 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ^""' T ems4419ARDS 4. Minimum Percent Frontage To establish a definable "street wall', new a. Setbacks buildings in the Specific Plan area thft4 should Because of the importance of the open space have a minimum percentage of their frontages along the El Camino Real frontage and the built to the Build-to Line as rftftpped ftttd spee visual connection to the northern gateway into i€te4 shown in Figure 6-5. The range of spec- Burlingame, the reconstruction of the hospital ificadons in this standard reflect the nature of shsrl}is not be subject to the same setback and development that is expected and the character build-to provisions applied to the rest of El of the street on which the development will Camino Real and Trousdale Drive. There occur. The Minimum Percentage Frontage shottid be An average setback of 75 feet along standards, together with El Camino Real with a minimum of 20 feet for , the Build-to any structure,and an average setback of 65 feet Lines, Wil- 'arta can shave the public realm along Trousdale Drive with a minimum of 20 and pedestrian experience on streets in the feet for any structure, pre g should mm vide a minimum of 3 acres of open space Specific Plan area. Corner parcels fronting along El Camino Real, including the Fedestri- onto streets with differing standards sly an area along the southerly property line adja- should be built so that each fa§ade conforms cent to residences along Davis Drive. to the standard for the street that it faces. Where nospecific guidance is recommend- b. Building Heights ed on the ma for minimum percent As a gateway statement and to allow for more frontage or where there is no build-to line landscaped open space, the hospital and related established, new construction should be structures may be built to a maximum height of consistent with zoning regulations. 140 feet, measured from the El Camino Real curb line, subject to approval by the FAA for B. EI Camino Real Design DiStFiGt aviation clearance. North Area c. Building Rhythm, Facade and Entrance This section includes guidelines and standards for specific design and development conditions Since the hospital and related office building Will be set back from the street, the rhythm of for buildings in the El Camino Real Design the facade may incorporate larger-scale compo- Pistriet North area, the boundaries for which nents in keeping with the building's size and are shown in Figure 6-1. height. The ground floor height should be 1. Mills Peninsula Hospital Site consistent with the floor heights for the rest of the building and should be proportioned to the The Mills Peninsula Hospital site has unique building's size and height. Entries to the hospi- physical characteristics and is a transition parcel tal and office building should be oriented between the single-family residential neighbor- toward the street to the extent feasible; where hood to the west and the rest of the El Camino buildings do not have a direct entry from the Real � North area. Therefore, a special set of design guidelines apply to this street, there should be clearly marked pedestri- site. an and vehicular access points to the entrance. 58 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND �'"" " T c" 2. Residential Use on El Camino a. The setback area 4tA can be designed as a Real semi-private plaza or landscaped building fore- Portions of projects built on El Camino Real court that is becomes an integral component of that are purely residential developments mfty the residential building but is separated from can be set back up to 15 feet from the Build-to the sidewalk by a 121anter feature which con- Line. However, careful design consideration tinues the `street wall' line. should be given to the treatment at the back edge of the El Camino Real sidewalk so that a consistent street wall is can be maintained along the sidewalk. Illustrations on the follow- ing three pages give examples for how residen- tial projects can be implemented'`'` e --a":_-- are with different build-to lines and percentate of street frontage requirements: o-. MW IJ r � f � � / .. •//i. '•o 0' build-to line F Less than half Low planter box the building is at back of sidewalk set back from build-to line Entry forecourt/plaza :o NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 59 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEME. T STANDARDS b. The setback area ski can be designed with a low wall or fence to clearly define the back of the sidewalk in order to reinforce a consis- tent frontage an L'' ' ftmitta R--ft! or street wall. I � I I o. J_ r l � . o Low wall a 0' Build-to line Setback allows for ground floor ;I above sidewalk • 'I d . . Low wall with slope to building b� Entire building is , c7 set back from O0 with Build-to line and mini- mum percent frontage F 60 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DE"" T STANBAR96 c. All setback and plaza areas sha4 should be maintained and landscaped,street wall may be extended with landscape feature. r F ❑ .Lp. +a I � oo, • i 0' Build-to line Plazas and landscaping in setback are r. .m1 I o . F /Y Entire building is set back from property F c line on build- to line NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 61 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ADEVELGPMENT STA 3. Front Setback Areas Except for driveways, all areas between the sidewalk and the front facades of buildings LE mo ❑[]L1 ❑ u s should be adequately designed and main- tained, including installation of an irrigation DD 000 =M OD Cit system for planted areas. 25'-50' i 4. Building Rhythm Buildings shad may be articulated to reflect a small-scale street frontage rhythm of facade components that are approximately 25 to 50 M feet in length. 5. Ground Floor Height For retail and office uses, the ground floors of buildings shed can be a minimum of 12 feet. min 12' 62 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER B: DESIGN GUIDELINES 6. Building Fagades a. Articulation Buildings 4ift4 should have architecturally-artic- ulated storefronts. Window treatments, awnings and public entries should ear be designed to pro- mote active use of ground floor businesses. y A Ilk b. Scale of Detailing Building facades shattid ltft-ve should encour- Age,elements that relate to the scale of a person. All fagades should emphasize three dimen- sionaldetailing, such as cornices,window mold- Cornice ings and reveals,to cast shadows and create visu- al interest on the faqade. Architectural elements used to provide relief earl include such items as Reveal awnings and projections, trellises, detailed para- pets and arcades. Window Molding NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 63* CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ^"'" :F STANDARDS gWA ,� £ c. Roof Lines Provide strong roof termi- s F nation features-11y encoura in a Avarie of distinctive roofline profiles Cornices and horizontal bands of foam molds Y with stucco finish are discouraged. its ; VIP 6 #' A s ? ..�.X 3 64 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES DEVE-69PMENT STAN"'^^n d. Entries to Ground Floor Buildings i. Retail Pedestrian activi can be encouraged by \ \ \ having entries to ground floor retail areas s� may occur from streets, and 9614 be accented with features such as moldings, lighting, over- hangs, or awnings. Building entries should be be recessed into entry bays,-+a can create tran- sitional spaces between the street and buildings. f 9ti<3 V yFM NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 65 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ii. Office Entrances to office buildings in this Design District eha4 should provide an entrance from the street. The entrance should eatr be articulat- ed architecturally into the facade of the build- ing. Parking thA should not be allowed in the area between the sidewalk and the front facade. I �u I� iii. Residential Residential uses can employ landscaping to \, ®� provide a transition between the sidewalk and the residences. In situations where residential ®� units have direct access to garage or parking areas, a street entrance is also encouraged. Apartment buildings that provide entries to residential units via an interior or rear circulation system elm also need to pro- r,r vide one or more building entries directly to a .� public street. Parking el"l should not be allowed in the area between the sidewalk and the front facade. SS* NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES T ST ND e. Materials Palette ;:: The ground floor facade should provide a vari- ety of architectural elements and should use a ' .�:..::.:;>".• �� 312 diverse set of materials. r. . ' ># A �p �j.Nrto ��: moi. ,.�• f. Entries to Upper Levels Street level entries to upper level commercial or residential uses should be emphasized on the building facade. Q 1, PJ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ED ❑ ❑MED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O E ❑ EIPPI❑ NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 67 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB DEYE69PMENT STAN^"^^^ ,. k: rg. Windows ." R' i. Pattern Window patterns should architecturally distin- guisha building's first floor retail character, f,. j with a higher percentage of Viewslag zinA4. ONg than on upper floors. .: ..:.:.;.. ii. Display Commercial storefronts should include street- oriented display windows. These windows should be encouraged to provide visual access to the inside of the building,while also serving J as an area for merchandise display. A minimum of 50 percent of linear store frontage should be used for the display windows. 68 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES n""' T STA N B A R 19 S 7. Building Materials a. Variety A variety of durable materials and textures is stucco encouraged. Such materials may include both materials, such as wood and stucco ! ' °> traditional wood and materials such as concrete structural steel torten steel, and other high-quality durable metals which have not been traditionally used metal awning in "Main Street" architecture. Stucco is not encouraged and should not be overly used,par- ticularly at the building base, because it is more susceptible to damage than more durable mate- rials. the ornaments ' t : b. Differentiation of Architectural 1 E ements brick de variety wi i her materials is encourage A a ety of of g to articulate building elements, such as the base, kVN the first floor and the upper floors. These basic �a pp brick piers components of a building should eatt be articu- with the inset lated by means other than the exterior finish. 1 Such means can include horizontal break bands above the ground floor,pier and column bases, roof terminations, sills and awnings. z> steel panels '> '> .. ::.;` <;s<« `'>>:':>>: smooth stucco finish dash stucco finishr wood detail NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 69* CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB ^""' ^ T STAND ^^^ I C Decorative Elements An Tile artwork, plaques, decorative glass and ` * lighting fixtures are should be encouraged to X. i< .. .. provide visual relief to facades. IX4te e -xtett- are proposed, &qftdes shftll " . . ate the-ftba-ee fefttttres. Such features should be maximized where extensive stuc- co exteriors are proposed. 8. Signs a. Location LLL111 Building signs should be located within an area of the facade which enhances and comple- ments the architectural design. Building signs should not obscure architectural details such as recesses, ornaments or structural bays. Ll Building signs sot r should not extend above the roof line of the building. E, s Gtr Y� $ y v 70 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DT STANDARBS b. Projecting Signs �4T� In general, projecting signs should be 1 encouraged to be located near the front entry of a store. 1 H be ,.11`.____,1 Cr.,...., the &e.. of the vuiiuiit iii. ofet. Requirements estab- lished for public safe by the Ci1y should be met when installinall suns over or (� adjacent to areas heavily traveled b�yep des_ trians. I 'r,` EZG NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 71 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB ^""' ^ T STANDARBS 9. Awnings (�-� j a. Relationships to Bays ® ® I1 11 ® U Individual awnings sly may be provided < over each storefront of buildings with multiple storefronts. These awnings she"I$ may be located within the individual structural bays and should not hide architectural detailing. Awnings on multi-tenant buildings should be the same color and style. b. Awning Materials The use of fabric awnings is encouraged. The use of vinyl awnings is should be discouraged. i . c. Awning Signage Any signing on awnings sly should be paint- ed directly onto the awning material. Awning signs sewill have a better appearance if C. C4A811 gxW they are restricted to the lower one-third of the awning and the awning valence. , All signs should be subject to the size require- ments of the sign code. d. Illuminated Awnings Backlighting of transparent or translucent awnings shah tiot be fAo --' should be dis- couraged. 72 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ANB PEYE, , T eT,. a. . e. Awning Lighting If used, lighting for awnings should be encouraged to be from above the awning, from fixtures designed and placed to enhance the appearance of the building. f. Awning Colors ' >> Awning color(s) should be encouraged to be . compatible with the overall building color :�X. <::>.: scheme. 10.Lighting Adequate lighting Atft4 should be provided for building signage, storefront display, pedestrian entry access and travel in parking lots, in com- pliance with the City's illumination ordinance. 1�1� L�IL�1 /10\ /C\ NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 73 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVE69PIVIENT FS*ANBAR86 11.Parking 1 a. Access Parking lots, whether in parking structures or surface lots, slfa4 are encouraged to be locat- ed behind or next to buildings, in accordance �-� with the minimum frontage requirements spec- ified in Section AA of this chapter. z ��s b. Landscape Buffer Except on El Camino Real, at access points to off-street parking lots, a defininlandscape buffer akft4 may be provided - a s -" be-ft ten feet deep. _ - . Most plants in the buffer should be no higher than three-and-one- half feet in order to maintain maximum sight distances,although occasional trees are may be allowed. — ----� — -- ---1 c. Shared Access Entries Building siting and parking design should ears ' ! LLh maximize opportunities, such as joint access II easements and common driveways, for pedes- I trian and vehicular circulation between adjacent ` I sites. 74* NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ^"'" STANBARBs 12.Parking Structures �® a. Ground Floor Use Ground floor retail uses should be integrated 4 , into parking structures wherever possible. • 4 b. Landscape Buffer The space between a parking structure and a ' public street shetrld may be screened with landscaping to mitigate for the lack of pedestri- an scale and activity that is inherent in the design of a parking structure. All landscaping sly should be adequately designed and main- tained, including installation of an irrigation system for planted areas. c. Articulation of Fagade The facades of parking structures should be encouraged to be designed in a manner that is comparable to other multi-story buildings on the street. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 75 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES A14D ^E"" " " 2T441B.A.R .6 C. Rollins Road Design DiStist Area This section includes guidelines and standards for specific design and development conditions for buildings in the Rollins Road Design District, the boundaries for which are mapped in Figure 6-1. 1. Front Setback Areas a. Landscaping Except for driveways, all areas between the sidewalk and the front facade of buildings slam should be adequately designed landscaped and maintained, including installation of an irrigation system for all planted areas. b. Fencing Fencing in the area between the sidewalk and the building shottid is encouraged to be semi- transparent. "Chain-link" fencing is highly dis- eenraged inappropriate. - r 76 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVEI-Q-PMENT ST NBARE)^ 2. Building Facades a. Articulation Building fagades shatrld are encouraged to avoid long, single planes in excess of 100 feet. Building fa§ades should include elements that emphasize a scale that relates to the human form. i. Building Entries Building entries facing public streets are encouraged. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 77 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AN9 PEV T GT NBARB6 ii. Window Details Window reveals of greater than 3 inches may be employed to create shadow lines and greater visual interest on building facades. iii. Facade Components A variety of materials 4 should be encouraged to articulate building elements, such as the base, the ground floor, and upper floors, if any. Top of equipment 3. Rooftop Equipment Top of parapet Mechanical equipment located on rooftops shy should be screened from grettrtd plain view from therg ound by extended walls or parapets that are an integral component of the building architecture. Painting equipment or melosing fences shalltet be used to enclose construction are not acceptable remedies. 4. Service Areas Service areas and ground-mounted equipment shad should be screened from view by fences or walls that conform to the style and materials of the accompanying building. 78 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES Apin nryr. A r STA N ..FIBS 5. Landscaping A minimum of ten percent of the developed site area of a parcel is encouraged to be landscaped. 6. Fences and Walls a. Height Fences and walls 9611 be__ tnore thfttt should be encouraged to be limited to eight feet high tall. b. Articulation Walls and fences 60 feet or longer shad can should be articulated_ Thar can be done by com- bining two or more of the following interven- tions for a minimum of ten feet, at intervals of 60 feet or less: lI . ♦ A minimum 2-foot change in vertical plane ♦ A minimum V/2-foot change in height ♦ A section of open fence ♦ A change in material or substantial change in texture c. Materials and Detailing w�_n a r"__eg sh_!4 hard -- of 16 r-rzma aiia--rcrrccs-" -- Walls visible from public streets 4h are encouraged to be constructed of durable materials and be detailed to include a base, body and a distinctive cap. Along street frontages, semi-transparent fences are encour- aged. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 79* CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND n""' 9 ' c'""""""`' 7. Signage a. Building Signage Signage that is incorporated into building fa4ades shftll should not extend higher than the parapet of the building b. Awning Signs There. shag,be Interior-lit awning signs should be discouraged. c. Monument Signs Freestanding signs in the front setback should not emeeed be limited to 5 feet in height. d Voice of Harold wu,vowau�cruwrw 8. Surface lighting On-site lighting sly should be designed, installed and maintained seas to direct light only onto the property on which the light source is located. All lighting fixtures and other means of illuminating signs, structures, land- scaping,parking,loading and similar areas slga1 need to be focused, directed and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on adjoin- ing properties or streets. All on-site lightinzr should be encouraged to conform to the Ci 's illumination ordinance. 80 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ^ ^"'" T STANB RBS 9. Creekside Open Space New buildings on parcels adjacent to Mills Creek and Easton Creek should be encour- agred to incorporate outdoor open space and a trail network components into their site plan- ning, particularly on those parts of sites that face a creek. z. 1 / 10. Gateway Features Property owners at either end of Rollins Road are encouraged to develop as part of their proj- ect architectural or landscape elements that Building contribute to a gateway feature for the area. > A plaza at a Such s projects would establish a gateway at O significant building entrance to the ons entry can help to either the Broadway hRollins O announce an entry Road area er and at the entry from Millbrae at to an area El Portal Creek on the north side of the end of Rollins Road. tower element —— — helps to demarcate a special entry to an area NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 81 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVEi=ePMENT STAND RB D. Auto Row Design District Area This section includes guidelines and standards for specific design and development conditions for buildings in the Auto Row Area, the boundaries for which are mapped in Figure 6-1. 1. DistfUt Area Image °° A unifying thematic concept should be devel- oped for this distriee area as automobile sales uses are established on parcels along Adrian Road. This could be achieved by the adoption of a unified approach to the transition space between the public sidewalk and the private outdoor automobile sales areas. Approaches to this could include: ♦ A special district-wide fence material or style. ♦ A series of bollards in a unified style or design. i ♦ A change in the ground plane level. •- ;� ♦ Landscaping or raised planting beds. O 82 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AN9 DEVELePMENT STANDARDS The distriet auto row area-wide concept should work at the pedestrian scale of the business patron as well as the scale of the adjacent U.S. 101. Therefore,the concept could include a uni- fied approach to: ♦ Showroom fagade design. ♦ Design treatment of the street-facing exteri- or sales areas,such as varying ground planes. ♦ Design of freestanding signs. 2. Build-to Lines for Adr4an Read PaFeels Auto Row Area Build-to lines on Adrian Road are specified as zero feet. However,only 20 percent of a parcel's build-to line rrmstwill be occupied by a building. min 20% This will help to define the pedestrian realm on the sidewalk as well as place the automobile showroom closer to U.S. 100 % 101 passers-by. Up to 80 percent of an automo- bile dealership's frontage could be occupied by the exterior sales area. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 83 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES 3. Front Setback Areas a. Landscaping Except for driveways, all areas between the sidewalk and the front facade of buildings A,f*g should be adequately designed and maintained, including installation of an irri- gation system for planted areas. b. Fencing Fencing in the area between the sidewalk and the building shattid can be semi-transparent and in keeping with an overall design con- cept for the Auto Row Design Pistr Area, as discussed in Section D.1, above. As an alternative to fencing, differentiation of the sidewalk area from exterior automobile sales areas could be established by use of paving materials, building components or changes in elevation. 4. Building Fagades Building facades shettid are encouraged to avoid long, single-planes in excess of 100 feet. Building facades Should should be encour- aged to include elements that emphasize a scale that relates to the human form. Large window areas on the facades of auto sales buildings should be encouraged to be care- fully integrated into the overall design of the building facade. 84 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES ^""' " cr"' 5. Building Materials r �� A variety of materials is encouraged to artic- ulate building elements, such as the base, the 0 0 ground floor, and upper floors, if any. These basic components of a building Buildings should incorporate a variety of sltetrld are encouraged to be articulated by materials that work well with glass means other than the exterior finish. Such fagades typical to auto showrooms means can include delineation of rooflines or pediments, pier and column bases and building entries as well as smaller details, such as windows and awnings. Where large areas of glass are used on the facades of auto sales buildings, the glass shattld may be one component of a carefully considered palette of materials. Colored glass should eat: be coordinated with the other colors used on the building. � �MSPOO 6. Signs The Adrian Road Auto District benefits from good exposure to the Bayshore Freeway. Signage for businesses on Adrian Road shattid is encouraged to demonstrate to passing motorists that the Adrian Road businesses offer higher quality automobile products and servic- es. a. Scale Signs, particularly those that are freestanding, should relate to the massing and height of the Signs can be incorporated into the build- building that it serves. ing or freestanding, but should reflect the architecture of the building NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 85* CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANBARDS b. Materials 7. Surface Lighting Signs, particularly those that are freestanding, On-site lighting sItft4 should be designed, should employ materials and colors that are in installed and maintained seas to direct light keeping with a palette developed for the only onto the property on which the light buildings which the sign serves. source is located. All lighting fixtures and other c. Illumination means of illuminating signs, structures, land- Illuminated signs should be designed and scaping,parking,loading and similar areas shall be focused, directed and arranged to prevent constructed seas to avoid glare and excessive glare or direct illumination on adjoining prop- light falling onto adjoining properties or U.S. erties or streets. 101 and should comiDIv with Citv and State regulations. The use of Ne, mercury vapor utility yard lights or other light fixtures with high intensity discharge lamps or bulbs should be discour- aged. The only exception may be those which are rtet designed to limit or control light direction or do ttat shield the light source from neighboring properties and streets rnifted 86 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 7 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Much of the material in this chapter is drawn from the September 2, 2002 Existing Conditions Report, which was conducted at the initiation of the planning process and is bound separately. A. History of the Planning Area as early as 1923 to describe the cluster of deal- Nestled on the rolling hills between the Pacific erships that opened on California Drive. The Coast Range and San Francisco Bay, banker legacy of auto retailing and service has contin- William C. Ralston settled what is now ued and flourished in present times. As a sym- Burlingame to establish a grand estate. In 1866, bol of the City's love for the automobile, gate- on a trip to San Francisco, noted diplomat way pillars were fabricated on El Camino Real Anson Burlingame purchased a portion of to signal an entry to Burlingame. Ralston's estate,where he had planned to retire from public service. Burlingame Depot, built In 1958, the northwestern portion of the in 1894 in the Mission Revival Style,established Specific Plan Area, the area that includes the town of Burlingame as a destination along Burlingame Plaza and Mills Peninsula Hospital the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Trolley was annexed to the City of Burlingame. Mills tracks were laid in 1902 to connect Burlingame Peninsula Hospital opened in 1954 and has to San Francisco. This was a catalyst for experienced continued expansion. Burlingame growth for the small town and, following the Plaza is home to one of only ten grocery stores earthquake of 1906, Burlingame's population serving the Burlingame area. During the 1940s, ballooned as people sought a safer place to live. there were as many as 39 stores in Burlingame As early as 1901, the vision of tree lined streets Plaza that served a much smaller population. became the symbol of Burlingame. Development of the Rollins Road industrial area has been greatly influenced by its proximi- Burlingame experienced rapid growth in the ty to San Francisco International Airport. A early years of the twentieth century and incor- majority of the businesses in this area serve the porated in the summer of 1908. Within two airport or airline companies. In addition to air- years of incorporating, a majority of major port-related industries, the Rollins Road area roads had been paved and pedestrian amenities has a large number of auto service businesses. such as traffic signals and streetlights added. The legacy and identity of tree-lined streets still By the 1920s, Burlingame had developed a rep- exists in some parts of the city, although many utation as the peninsula's ideal location for auto avenues have been altered over the years, leav- retailers. The term "Auto Row" was first used ing behind only random remnants of the origi- nal plantings. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 87 CHAPTER T: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK B. General Plan Land Use C. Existing Land Use Designations This section describes in general terms the Land use designations and General Plan poli- existing land uses that can be found in, and cies in and around the Specific Plan Area are adjacent to, the Specific Plan Area. They are discussed below illustrated in Figure 7-2 and listed below. ♦ 1. Land Use Designations Manufacturing/Warehouse. Manufac- turing and warehousing is the largest exist- General Plan designations for the Plan Area ing use in the Plan Area. Much of the and surrounding districts are shown in Figure northern two-thirds of Rollins Road in the 7-1. The primary land use designations are: study area is currently in this use. ♦ Office. There are a number of office ♦ Industrial& Office Use developments of varying sizes, offering a ♦ Office Commercial range of professional services. ♦ Shopping& Service Commercial ♦ Hospital/Medical Offices. The area around El Camino Real and Trousdale ♦ Institutions, Other, for the Mills Peninsula Drive contains a number of medical uses, Hospital site including the Mills Peninsula Hospital, ♦ Commercial Service & Special Sales medical offices and uses ancillary to the hospital. 2. Surrounding Land Use ♦ Auto Repair/Service. Auto repair and Designations service uses are concentrated at the south The land use designations of areas to the west end of Rollins Road near Broadway. of the Plan Area are overwhelmingly single- family, low and medium density residential. The areas immediately south and east of the Plan Area are designated as Industrial& Office Use, Waterfront Commercial, and Commercial Service and Special Sales. North of the Plan Area,City of Millbrae land use designations are residential and transit-related commercial and residential mixed-use. 88 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - • 1� A • ' I omen asx>:: 4 ...... ::........... :...:., ::ra•�'`SAF:;,,:m::! `,`•s::-• >"fxa>T><::}::}}::;:;:;.y:::a:�>:«:'ri"<'>E ioow:0000 r •e.+'Tf^•::::..::r.}•;::.;. ;q."�:.. 's�•Sf::.vc';,. see ,..,,h•s:e::#s:::.'•.�{{«.rr.:..."�.x .� �'..F:.::.ti::{:•;v}�}moi i�}..I::.:::::.::v..w.v:f::v.,.:::y: ..,f., n•::f.•:::vY..:Y .r.7r.- .:Kxx::i::iix;:iii Ron ifR-Or rf - O f�[ 30 Maw • »' } lii �Im ..li!`ii.!!9l9klS t r -', fw>_fiE S'k• F: a r flx • � � il�3l$!!!lii�&ifl MAW owe w9 Will � f ® � r 9R za FAr"IW99 �Cgf OOQ� �9w a.[RIA 9ROR ® uf. k ff } X+- � a!!i!s'�®� • ufs{fN°tf-3y'}s�C f�.xf }.Ysc 'Sc ,$: jff:�rxfrf f! fJ 'y �� �� �9R tON� Italie 08e• w09R g18� � � !�� f ff � � �F 4f Y6 f q �, �,� Oaf •w �.� }woe•ewe �� � �!d!®!! t { w} :.£ k h � `�` 'w � � �� +�� mow •vim t•we w,}sa � ame!!!i4!!!6°� -- s a r �. •� f ppqq��00 yyy��ppqq ggy�m• p/i}9e pp( qqqpp ��� �' .. .... ,f�{!•,Y. YiP� ��0!®B�Rg�'B��aII �lpqeg9a!q!L�� �� '�• }f ��'f { !'K4 , IN +ffi✓'X �dA®!�1l9IXlgIC voa� � � ���� 9� }F ,�� 9�a•� .e���.: ...�'�• � es ��1i�� 2g �._ �v'ff -- » T : # / ap.�'+i, 5awY_�e[iB9W•1 99�wVe lfw�eRR aFws .9O��C9R•1 M. �e�da���R:8::�{{;qq.;• .C���"J I�ikk� ,•..}<fS.F1f f 8r1rrrrrE .10 . :• : • ���_� ��®�g��_ � ®rrrrrrr:rrr� i � .� ��% ���� ,�®,�� �e� �� iElElEkrrrrElkrrrkk � ;a;:.... :> "��<�%s,,W�'`�>': : '•:,::. !P xm w9 ! 9m ! � a® 9® � 9a mom. ® ar xuy � 9wc °n® ®e 0oR 900 as. . Ffmi • 9R L .1 �m �:ii1\.•n :4. . .a. i•;Se �p•aw 1 .v'::+fkx Fvhf • l� 9. �� 1 11 iii - C.�i ppppi i i a, iii � � �• � > <i:»>>?:::; ... • ;,���;+�err\= '� � � ``► ��eras kM •�II'■ IF MW rr `'� WW$WxWllxWlx �—�- \\\1®i6\� t#ttA##A##t®#W911 1 3# WA141# fit.......<, F ;:::, ...,.;.:.•.: ■t��l,■ SMERNIOPM „?r•.kR••..,":.'�::i :;\�.;. �� �� ���-��--__ .._� _ C /IIW�3 �::::?U.s.,,;^:::•��•,�; .,•ray, ■,""■.� ��� ♦ ���i__����_- i.� X11111 2 I 1 � 1 1 1 1 �/' X11/1 .� (�/� I /11111 _ .. U N II 111_w 11 I 1 I 1 _ _ .I .. i .. 1 I 1 1I 1 r1 _ I — x =o eo�1:i�♦� �; G ��iil� - __ — ♦ •♦ is �`'> ><<:: ���■■„� , - _ _ Iltl _ 111 �1 _ � r _ son 1001 _ 11 _ _ ► � 1 1111 ; _ t Itl : _ 1 _ 1 _ 1 _ 1 _ / 1 _ 1 111 I _ 11 1 _ _ 1 _ 111 _ ri — _ _ — 1 mss- nv Iasill :111• MIW is — VIII 111111111111 I— X111111111111111mm 111185 !='i<><><.�,`>�>: �°"•°` - Cp ■1/ — 1 I1i11= �.. X111111111111 _— 1111 • �� .It 1111111111 tt �. mc III pp pp C.IitBEI_ � f , __ __-- �, ,� i• WE of too . _ ,.•>>. •1 •• -• M 9 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ♦ Retail. There are stores and restaurants in ♦ Public/Utility. This land use designation Burlingame Plaza and a small number of includes schools, fire departments and retail outlets in the Rollins Road area that police stations. sell building and industrial supplies. There ♦ Creek. There are a number of small creeks are large areas of retail immediately north and drainage channels that bisect the Plan of the Plan Area along El Camino Real in Area. Some of these are tidal influenced. Millbrae and south of the study area along Broadway. ♦ Vacant/For Lease. There are a number of vacant or partially vacant buildings scat- There are three convalescent homes/ ♦ Assisted Living/Convalescent Homes. tered throughout the Plan Area with a vari- assisted living facilities in the Plan Area, ety of owners and building types. There two on Trousdale Drive and one on are also a small number of vacant parcels within the Plan Area. California Drive. ♦ ♦ Service Industrial. Service industrial uses Single-Family Residential. There are no include commercial printing and extermi- single-family residences located in the Plan Area. However, the neighborhood imme- nator services. These are primarily located diately southwest of the Plan Area is pri- in the south end of Rollins Road. marily single-family residential in character. ♦ Multi-Family Residential. Within the Plan Area, there is a small pocket of multi- family residential use along Cali-fornia D. San Francisco International Drive, just south of Trousdale Drive. Airport These units are condominiums. Outside of Located immediately northeast of Burlin-game, the Plan Area, the neighborhood immedi- the take-off and landing paths of San ately west of Ogden Drive consists prima- Francisco International Airport (SFIA) exert rily of multi-family residential develop- significant noise- and height-related limitations ment. on the Plan Area. Additionally, there are eco- * Fitness Club. There are two fitness clubs nomic conditions inherent in the city's proxim- adjacent to each other on Rollins Road. ity to this busy center. Following is a brief summary of airport-related height impacts ♦ Parking. Large portions of the PG&E within the planning area. Noise impacts related Easement located east of parcels fronting to the Airport are discussed in Section 2 below. Rollins Road are currently used as parking lots for service vehicles and long-term hotel parking. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 91 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK All of the Plan Area is located within the cur- nearest runway. The measurements are taken rent Airport Influence Area (AIA) for SFIA. from mean sea level. All properties for sale within the planning area will be subject to the real estate disclosure The Specific Plan Area is affected by several requirements of Chapter 496, Statute 2002 (the height/airspace protection parameters de-fined Simitian Bill). in FAR Part 77. These parameters include the Runway 1/19 Approach Surface, with a 34:1 The areas noted below address the existing reg- slope; the Runway 1/19 Transitional Surface, ulations regarding noise and safety as they with a 7:1 slope; and the Horizontal Surface, relate to current airport operations and as which is a flat surface that extends horizontally reflected in the adopted San Mateo County over the remainder of the Plan Area. These Comprehensive Land Use Plan and FAA height/airspace protection parameters are requirements. It is recognized that the Spe-cific depicted in Figure 7-3. Plan Area, particularly the El Camino Real North subarea, is proximate to SFIA and is All future development in the Specific Plan subject to impacts associated with operation of Area is subject to the limitations of the applica- an airport. As operating conditions at the air- ble FAR Part 77 airspace parameters and the port change and information becomes available formal federal notification process, via FAA that results in changes to the regulations, devel- Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed opment in the Specific Plan Area may be sub- Construction or Alteration." In addition, the ject to additional requirements related to noise findings of all FAA aeronautical studies con- and safety, such as additional height restric- ducted by the FAA will be incorporated into tions, noise insulation measures affecting con- the final plans for new development approved struction and avigation easements for certain in the Specific Plan Area. uses. All development within the area of Burlingame 1. Airport-Related Height and that is influenced by the airport aviation activi- Safety Impacts ties is subject to review by the FAA and will require FAA permits as a part of any City There are federally established restrictions on action. The San Mateo County Airport Land the height of buildings within a certain distance Use Commission also has jurisdiction. Review and geometry from SFIA. Height limitations of building heights is particularly important. for all potential development within the zones shown on Figure 7-3 are assigned based on the elevation of the development in relation to the 92 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK e Figure 7-3. $ 4 50, Airport Height o s0' 40' Restrictions 30' MUR 10' f - e w� 15Y n r • ♦ Z O Z .00O 000 • P 0 C m t D FAR Part 77 34:1 Approach Surface 7:1 Transitional Surface Horizontal Surface EL. 161 MSL Covers Remainder of J11` _ _ `Il Cre Specific Plan Area ® = SAN Sc0 'BROADWAY cALTRAIN fl Existing Topography ve—'Y 0 500 (000 feet Total Height Limit �� Planning Area (existing elevation and building height) Boundary • Airport Vicinity Zone ———— City Limits NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 93 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Future development in the Specific Plan Area and as shown in Figure 7-4, the majority of the shall comply with all relevant FAA standards Specific Plan Area is outside the 60 dBA CNEL and criteria for safety regarding flashing lights, noise contour. A small portion in the northeast reflective material, land uses that may attract of the Specific Plan Area, in the Rollins Road large concentrations of birds, HVAC exhaust Industrial area, resides just inside the 60 dBA vents, and uses that may generate electrical or contour, and would be subject to the land use electronic interference with aircraft communi- restrictions of the SFIA Land Use Plan for cations and/or instrumentation. noise attenuation. All project development sponsors within the 2. Airport-Related Noise Impacts Specific Plan Area shall retain a qualified San Francisco International Airport is located acoustical engineer familiar with aviation noise on the east side of U.S. 101, just north of the impacts to prepare an acoustical study,in accor- Specific Plan Area. The two methods current- dance with State Title 24 requirements. The ly in use for measuring noise generated at SFIA acoustical study shall identify methods of are the Community Noise Equivalent Level design and construction to comply with the (CNEL) and the Single Event Level of noise applicable portions of the Uniform Building (SEL),which can measure a specific event such Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound as an airplane flyby. Transmission Controls and with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that con- Measurement of a type of noise known as low struction will achieve an indoor noise level or frequency (LFN), or backblast, is presently 45 dBA, or less, as measured for aircraft noise being conducted by SFIA. Backblast is created events. The cost of the noise insulation meas- by jet aircraft at take-off. The effect of back- ures shall be borne by the development project blast is most acutely felt at a 45 degree angle sponsor. from the back of the aircraft rather than direct- ly behind the aircraft. Presently there is little information available regarding threshold levels and mitigation measures for low frequency noise. There is no known mitigation other than distance for this type of noise because the sound, or energy wave, penetrates and moves through buildings, trees and other objects. Based on the 2001 SFO Noise Exposure Map, 94 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN �����+.•+r ■���,ire 1�1 �• �;��`����r . uuw unnuul1►Ir► _--- -- = :;un,n'ni; -�1�', ' ■�■ �t, Now irs. ►��I� --i-----"' • -'11111111►� --- -__-Is - now ►, t�,,,� �,,�!�_i_ -.'--�� i :�11111111►Q :1 oil I �- --- __ - ii 1/III/I'/Ifl ■ ' � 1111�,/�11111ff111 .' ■I.,■- , 101/frff111/1�� i ::M. 11111 ���'���'���♦ :C � ::�::::: _ �t r- -- 0 VA ISM 1411 1�1�---� -� ~ I �• �1 ,� I� 1� ,,.p111111p1,. 111 SM�_�=_=_ r.�_�_ ,• _ 1111111111.1 I�� 111 ��/1�1'11//1.///Ill■ ' .{11111111111;1 �� 'll�_ I�I�_ _• 111 // ..—__— C Co_� .. 111 �--• _ r,�111111111I� I� -,——_ —.— n`11111111111111111 = 11r ��11111/��I�I/111■�� �--•����'=� 11111111111111'lllll 1 In►1 n1U• /Iinul__ __ __-- ..m nln nnl _;; ,.�Iton rl _-��/_ 111 ■�___�■_ = _::■1 ■.�__--' -., Ell, � 1 II 11111111111111111111 � -- --___ -- --■,--"-' "III 111111111111111= 11 Illll lllu loll lou _—-- p_■ ��::�� ; `�. 'G. �r� ii��` � . ► - ------== ===- --''__::.. nut nuu nuu Im err ■I � � --' 1111 ..'--- Idll s\\■I �p j11�1 11111 —— —_ ME ME UIII II 111�1�1' 11111111111111111111. �- �� .. 1,�'�`1�111111111► IIP I''ff!��■i�'i� 101 1111111111 Illilliii '=;i�,�� r1�`� ,, ��.�■ -■�_�_���.p.. .._-'� 1111111:: ' �4 t �� feet a Planning Area Soundary City Urrifts . � illy—_-- ___ -_ _i� •♦i��� I __ • �UIIIII—� _��—__���-. .� _i i� _i �. 1 t� 11 111 //111111��%���p■.11�� ��Q i����_ 1111111•• _—�— o: �N��_ -_ ►s. CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK E. Millbrae Intermodal Station ♦ U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway) The opening of the Millbrae Intermodal ♦ El Camino Real (State Route 82) Station and its 3,000 car parking facility brings with it the potential for significant development California Drive opportunities for the businesses and properties ♦ Interstate 280 Qumpero Serra Freeway) in the Plan Area. The new station is within a one-half mile radius of a large portion of the * Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad Plan Area, thereby affecting land use decisions ♦ San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) made during the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan process. 1. Traffic Noise One of the main noise sources in Burlingame is from motor vehicle traffic on U.S. 101, which F. Mills Peninsula Hospital bisects the city from northwest to southeast, and El Camino Real and California Drive, The existing Mills Peninsula Hospital is seismi- which are the two main arterial roadways cally unsafe and needs to be replaced. A through the city. replacement hospital is proposed to be built on the same site. The existing hospital will remain open during construction, so the new hospital 2. Railroad Noise will be placed closer to El Camino Real. Railroad trains pass through the Plan Area on the Caltrain track located east of California Drive. Caltrain commuter trains and freight a Noise trains use these tracks 24 hours per day. Other than airport noise,which is addressed in Section D above, the following sources were 3. Groundborne Vibration determined to be among the more significant Aside from seismic events, the greatest regular noise sources in Burlingame on the basis of the sources of groundborne vibration within the City of Burlingame General Plan Noise Plan Area are roadway bus and truck traffic, Element, the Millbrae Station Area Specific railway operations and construction activities. Plan and operational information from sources: The background vibration velocity level in resi- dential areas is usually around 50 VdB (Vibration Decibels). Vibration levels may instantaneously reach 63 VdB when buses or trucks pass within 50 feet of a receptor,and 72 96 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK VdB when these vehicles hit a bump in the Household growth generally suggests the road. Commuter rail trains generate ground- potential for additional local-serving retail borne vibration levels of approximately 75 development. However, as a small city, VdB at a distance of 50 feet from the railway. Burlingame may not gain enough new house- holds in absolute,rather than percentage, terms to justify a significant amount of new retail development. Although Hillsborough residents H. Economic Trends also provide additional support for new retail This section analyzes economic and demo- development, ABAG also projects minimal graphic trends for Burlingame, the larger mar- growth in this city. ket area, and San Mateo County. As a bench- mark, data for the nine-county Bay Area are Employment projections indicate that San presented as well. For the purpose of this Mateo County will continue to expand its study, the market area encompasses the north- employment base through 2010. The service ern two-thirds of San Mateo County that falls sector will maintain a major share of San Mateo along the Interstate 280 and U.S. 101 corridors, County employment, and the retail sector will including the cities of Daly City, Brisbane, grow significantly over this period. To the Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, extent that these and other expanding sectors Millbrae,Burlingame,Hillsborough,San Mateo, will require office and industrial space, addi- Belmont, and San Carlos. This definition is tional development in the county and used for the market analyses of residential, Burlingame may be feasible. However,any new office, and industrial/R&D uses. development should also consider the large number of vacancies in the current office and The Burlingame population has grown at a industrial market. slightly slower rate than both the market area and the county since 1990, and is expected to maintain this pace reaching 31,700 residents by 2020. In contrast, both the market area and county are projected to slow their growth slightly through 2020. These demographic trends will result in an increase in the existing high demand for housing in Burlingame through 2020. Since much of the city is already built out,higher density and multi-family hous- ing would help satisfy additional demand. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 97 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK I. Existing Transportation Network ♦ Broadway is an east-west street that con- Components of the existing transportation sys- nects to U.S. 101 and contains the north- tem serving the Specific Plan Area in addition ernmost of Burlingame's two "Main to intersection operations and parking condi- Street" shopping areas. Between U.S. 101 tions are described below. and California Drive,Broadway is a six-lane street with several closely-spaced signals and a railroad crossing at the Caltrain 1. Roadway Network tracks. Because of the frequent train cross- Ings, the area of Broadway Descriptions of the major roadways near and within the Plan Area follows. between California Drive and U.S. 101 tends to experience severe congestion dur- ♦ U.S. 101, or the Bayshore Freeway, is a ing peak periods. north-south, eight-lane major freeway. ♦ Millbrae Avenue is a four- to six-lane east- Access to U.S. 101 and the study area is west arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 provided via interchanges at Millbrae miles per hour at the southern end of Avenue to the north and Broadway to the Millbrae. Millbrae Avenue connects to U.S. south. 101 through an interchange, and is expect- ♦ El Camino Real is a four- to six-lane road- ed to carry a large volume of traffic to and way located on the western side of the Plan from the pending Millbrae BART Station. Area. In the City of Burlingame, El Millbrae Avenue continues west at two Camino Real is classified as a major arterial lanes through the town of Millbrae to street but has a posted speed limit of 35 Interstate 280. miles per hour. South of Trousdale Drive, ♦ Murchison Drive is 4-to 6-lane east-west El Camino Real is a narrow, four-lane road lined with large trees. Near Trousdale arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The centerline of the street Drive, El Camino Real widens to a six-lane right-of--way is the boundary between the road,with a raised median. City of Burlingame and the City of ♦ California Drive is a north-south, two-lane Millbrae. street, classified as an arterial with a posted ♦ Trousdale Drive is a four-lane major arteri- speed limit of 35 miles per hour. al which connects California Drive and El California Drive is aligned just west of the Camino Real to Interstate 280. Caltrain right-of-way. 98 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ♦ Rollins Road is a four-lane north-south Caltrans to reconstruct the Broadway arterial street with a posted speed limit of Interchange to an urban interchange stan- 35 miles per hour. Rollins Road provides dard. the only access route to industrial land uses within the Plan Area. Virtually all traffic 2. Transit Service entering this industrial area must enter via Transit access to the Plan Area is provided by Rollins Road at Broadway to the south or at Caltrain,which provides regional commuter rail Millbrae Avenue to the north. service along the Peninsula Corridor, and ♦ The U.S. 101 and Millbrae Avenue SamTrans, which provides local bus service Interchange is currently a full-cloverleaf throughout San Mateo County. type interchange. Construction has begun ♦ Caltrain. Caltrain currently maintains sta- to realign this interchange to a partial tions just to the north of the Plan Area in cloverleaf interchange to accommodate the the City of Millbrae, and just to the south traffic increases expected as a result of the of the Plan Area at Broadway and Millbrae Intermodal Station. Specifically, California Drive in Burlingame. Caltrain the northbound and southbound loop off- ramps from U.S. 101 to Millbrae Avenue provides passenger service in the corridor between San Francisco, San Mateo and are being removed. The remaining off- ramps are being realigned, widened, and Santa Clara counties. Currently, Caltrain offers service between San Francisco and signalized to accommodate all turning San Jose seven days a week. movements. ♦ ♦ The U.S. 101 and Broadway Interchange is Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). From the one of the oldest interchanges along U.S. new Millbrae Intermodal station, BART 101 and includes several closely spaced reaches to Pittsburg and Bay Point in intersections and a railroad crossing for Contra Costa County, and to Dublin and Caltrain. Because this crossing serves pas- Fremont in Alameda County, as well as providing a connection to SFIA and stops senger rail geared mainly to serve com- in San Francisco and the East Bay. muters, trains cross Broadway more fre- quently during the peak commute hours ♦ San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans). than in non-peak periods. The closely SamTrans bus service is an integrated pub- spaced traffic signals in conjunction with lic transportation system that serves the the commuter rail crossing activities create entire Bay Area, through connections with significant traffic delays along the Caltrain and BART. Currently, SamTrans Broadway corridor, just west of U.S. 101. provides five daily bus routes (242, 292, There are preliminary plans under study by 390, 391, and 397) that connect to BART, NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 99 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Caltrain stations and communities along 4. Pedestrian Facilities the El Camino Real corridor in the vicinity On El Camino Real, sidewalks are located only of the Specific Plan Area. Express between bus shelters and the nearest intersec- SamTrans Route MX provides daily service tions. This allows transit riders to safely and to downtown San Francisco. comfortably walk between the SamTrans bus ♦ Burlingame Shuttle. In addition to the routes serving El Camino Real and adjacent existing fixed-route service, the City of shopping areas, but discourages them from Burlingame operates a free shuttle serving walking longer distances along El Camino Real. the Broadway Caltrain Station, the Colma The Rollins Road industrial area has narrow BART station, and local Burlingame busi- sidewalks along a majority of its length. nesses during weekday commute periods. The Burlingame Shuttle also operates The primary pedestrian access to the Millbrae between many of the local hotels in the Intermodal station from the Rollins Road area Bayfront Area, and local shopping areas will be through the intersection of Rollins Road during midday off-peak periods. and Millbrae Avenue. This intersection has recently been reconstructed and is equipped with fully actuated pedestrian signals, cross- 3. Bicycle Facilities walks on all approaches and wide sidewalks. In One designated Class III signed bicycle route addition, Adrian Road, west of Rollins Road, traverses the Plan Area. This route travels turns to pass underneath the elevated portion along Murchison Drive from the west toward of Millbrae Avenue, just east of the Caltrain California Drive and turns south at California tracks. On the western side of the Caltrain Drive. The route continues south along tracks, pedestrians may access the Intermodal California Drive past the boundaries of the Station along California Drive. California Plan Area. Within the Plan Area, there are no Drive passes underneath Millbrae Avenue to designated Class I or II facilities (bicycle lanes enter the station. or trails). There is a planned bikeway that will run along or parallel to the BART/Caltrain rights-of-way between the Colma and Millbrae BART sta- tions. Bicyclists will be able to continue through Burlingame via the bike route on California Drive. 100 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 5. Existing Parking Conditions along segments of these drainages. Existing The northern and southern portions of Rollins vegetative cover and associated wildlife are Road within the Plan Area contain a relatively described below, with sensitive habitat areas large supply of unused on-street parking,while indicated in Figure 7-5. in the central section,on-street parking appears to be much more heavily used. The residential 2. Urban Habitat portion of California Drive, which forms the western boundary of the Plan Area, appears to Plant and animal species associated with urban have an abundance of on-street parking. The habitat are adapted to high levels of distur- com-mercial and retail areas near the intersec- bance. Ornamental landscaping forms the pri- tion of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real mary vegetative cover in the study area, com- appear to be much more heavily parked, posed of non-native trees, shrubs and ground- although,it did not appear that a parking short- covers. A row of blue gum eucalyptus fall exists in this area. (Eucalyptus globulus) grows along the Caltrain tracks, although it appears that many of these trees have been removed as part of the Caltrain and BART improvements. Where paved sur- J. Biological Resources faces, structures, and landscape improvements The following biological conditions exist in the are absent, ruderal species form a cover of Specific Plan Area. non-native annual grasses and forbs. The "Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection 1. Vegetation and Wildlife Ordinance" provides for the preservation of Most of the Plan Area has been developed with protected trees in the City of Burlingame. A urban uses, eliminating natural community protected tree means one of the below: types and habitat for special-status species. The * Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches Plan Area is now occupied by structures and or greater. paved surfaces, with the remaining vegetative cover generally limited to ornamental landscap- * A tree or stand of trees designated by the ing and ruderal (weedy) species in vacant lots City Council based on several factors. and poorly maintained areas. This includes the edge of the Caltrain railroad corridor and mar- gin of several drainage channels which flow * A stand of trees which the Parks and through the Plan Area. Emergent freshwater Recreation Director has determined to be and brackish water marsh vegetation occurs interdependent on each other for survival. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 101 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Protected trees may not be removed or signifi- appears to be entirely within the railroad right- cantly altered without a permit. Minimum of-way. replacement standards must be met either through planting of additional trees or in lieu payment when planting of replacement trees is 4. Special-Status Species and not feasible. Sensitive Natural Communities A record search of The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), together with 3. Freshwater and Brackish Water other relevant information, indicates that Marsh occurrences of sensitive natural communities The only natural community types remaining in and populations of several plant and animal the Plan Area occur as freshwater marsh and species with special-status have been recorded brackish water marsh along the drainage chan- within or are suspected to occur in the San nels. All of the channels have been modified Mateo County area and the vicinity of by past dredging, realignment, and ongoing Burlingame. No occurrences of sensitive natu- maintenance. The larger drainages continue to ral community types have been reported by the be influenced by tidal action upwards in eleva- CNDDB within the Plan Area, and no impor- tion to about the Caltrain corridor. The El tant stands were observed during the recon- Portal Channel at the northwest edge of the naissance survey. Plan Area is under tidal influence and has been lined with concrete but still contains scattered ♦ California Red-Legged Frog. California clumps of emer-gent alkali bulrush (Scirpus sp.). red-legged frogs were observed in the Mills Creek and Easton Creek to the south-east freshwater drainage at the rear of 1616 are also under tidal influence but generally still Rollins Road during a biological assessment have an earthen bed and bank, and support conducted in 2001 by Thomas Reid more emergent bulrush, together with iceplant, Associates. This species was also observed native gum plant (Giindellia.rp.), ruderal grasses just outside the Plan Area in the nearby and forbs, and landscape shrubs and trees. A channel at the southwestern portion of the few clumps of red willow shrubs (Salix laeviga- Millbrae Avenue interchange by the State of ta)grow along the segment of Mill Creek at the California Department of Transportation edge of the Caltrain corridor where tidal influ- in 1997. California red-legged frog is listed ence appears to end. This channel continues as Federally-threatened and a California under the railroad tracks through a concrete Special Concern species. culvert. A poorly defined swale receives sur- face runoff through culverts under the railroad tracks west of Ingold Road, but this feature 102 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ♦ San Francisco Garter Snake. The San K. Utilities and Infrastructure Francisco garter snake is both a State- and The following is a brief summary of infrastruc- Federally-listed endangered species. It is ture issues in Burlingame and the Plan Area. most often encountered in the vicinity of The information below is based on capacity standing water with emergent vegetation, analyses performed in conjunction with the around ponds, lakes, marshes, and sloughs, recent Housing Element Update. but is also found in temporary ponds. Numerous sightings of San Francisco garter snake have been made in the South 1. Sanitary Sewer Lomita Canal and Cupid Row Canal vicini- In the Plan Area, sewer mains range in size ty north of the Plan Area, considered to from 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter. Figure represent the largest known population of 7-6 shows the existing sewer mains. There is this snake species, as reported by Ogden in also a sewer pump station in the study area 1996. which allows the sewage to be pumped under U.S. 101 and ultimately to the wastewater treat- s. Wetlands ment plant on Airport Boulevard. The sewer A preliminary wetland assessment was per- system was built as the area developed begin- formed during field reconnaissance to provide ning in the mid to late 1950's. The Public an initial indication of the potential for jurisdic- Works Department is embarking on a program tional wetlands in the Plan Area. Based on this to replace sewer pipes in the older areas of the assessment, potential jurisdictional wetlands city. The sewer mains in this area have not been appear to be limited to the four drainage chan- identified as needing replacement in the fore- nels, and possibly the seasonal wetlands along seeable future. the edge of the freshwater drainage channel and swale along the railroad corridor. Figure 7- Two recent projects have been completed in the 5 shows the extent of potential jurisdictional past decade that have removed constraints to wetlands in the Plan Area. Each of the major new residential development related to sewer drainage channels would probably be consid- service as defined in the Housing Element ered jurisdictional waters by the Corps, and process. These sewer projects were: average channel widths are indicated in Figure 7-5. ♦ Sewer Interceptor Project, 1998. This project included the installation of a new line on California Drive in the Plan Area. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 103 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ♦ Sewer Treatment Plant Improvements, 3. Storm Drains 1994. This project included a series of The El Portal Creek System chapter of the upgrades to the City's wastewater treatment Citywide Storm Drain Report (2000) makes the plant facilities resulting in increased capacity. following points regarding the northern part of Plan Area: 2. Water Water service is provided to this area by the ♦ Capacity. Existing capacity appears to be City of Burlingame. The City's sole source of adequate for existing development, includ- ing pump stations and backup pumps. potable water is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) system, which Since most of the properties within the Plan Area are substantially covered with also supplies water to the City and County of impervious surfaces, there should be no San Francisco and other cities along the additional capacity needed for infill devel- Peninsula. opment. In the Plan Area, water mains range in size ♦ Recommended Improvements. This from 6 inches to 12 inches in diameter. Figure includes regular inspections, ongoing 7-6 shows the existing water mains within the repairs to concrete channels and regular Plan Area. testing of pump facilities. ♦ Further Work. Recommendations are In November of 2000, the City of Burlingame made for ongoing inspections of creek and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in tidal activities; impairments to potential accordance with State law requirements. The flow; and equipment testing and monitor- Plan looks at the City's water consumption ing. needs and anticipated supplies to accommodate Industrial uses are generally more intensive in current needs and future growth. The Plan their use of water than other land uses. indicates that projected growth anticipated by Discussions with City staff have indicated that Association of Bay Area Governments since any replacement uses would be the same (ABAG) population projections for Burlin- or less intensive than the existing uses they game and development anticipated in the would replace, there are sufficient infrastruc- Housing Element Update can be accommodat- ture capacities in the Plan Area to allow for ed by the existing system and allotments from the Hetch Hetchy system. other land uses, such as office and residential, to be considered. 104 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Figure 7-5. A Biological Features v'a:::1;::;':.,.;.9.6:.5.:.: ,G::�•yv:';i:F:: - cr;.pE.Y:. is i.>d.';:'Qf:. FF;;F>::.., �•v�`p�;.,.,� NRXF tea° yi a y 4 t Op t a z �' s tia .,1t _111�' i .f� .{'r•?v�. � � an Y �n '--=� —_ r _ • S._.:: c9.r..::;........w;.,v.:::::::..::::. .. .:<E::;' { :y,:,,.o .....�"°..".:r.:. Mme• t. - ::,f..:::1k::!C::.yff:?:. k:jk??:�:': .::,<i ......0 ;.::::::::::: is-."a , ,.., .: •':: . is — t:..f...y,..... .•.rte.: ':.y�.n�^' •�•� ,. N. ;,.... :: :(ISS:>!'ldl�::�':::.:,�y '...R''r,:s•: :FiM 5'?t2i --a: •��'t --A �t rt k s'r .—.s • Y�'�°- �! %�"'i')(,. 1=.!_ t_ ,�`�.l�7�t-t ki f `�•{ ":_tI-!i Lit-++`. 15�� •�` —`-- • �'���.�>:����_t_tj�:3f • t�a�_i 3 `t'3-}�-- t-•rtt r F`y ��. ,2»�" t c ` r — i }-tai-xfla,- , t-i._N s__ -! � • _t- f ��!•k TYF - -,a T 3 > t- t b 9r. 9:.. l:y.]!^ .,t •.;s. � f` !' .�- - ri-�. ;�:.. X10' . .::..:.::..:. PIC (`- ^l- s}_ £ tt f�."'Y� sC.1FV. ^ f. �. s .x �..r: .. s I f----••-; t= = i 1.�,r t <i��Mi. z A L _..�-- .-F .. ..�-a-.�-� fit_ �:��1 r• ,-- -- -rt sl slit' •tiiit_S3_ - .�`` yy--''J ` .i9t'f i' s: k ,pg qgqg S t6i�Gesk .f..r-•-- L4••'` , �:i- >' tl- _.i i' -'L-,#'�':'_ f_1 ::a ", 7 '7 , = I T iL A .1 { s�_ 'C. T• i: k ii '=r4 � =-..- .:-i L ">::. z::.. y.. — — POTENTIAL CORPS MATERS . r ^:. :s' xc7: 9£s �r_`= l: ' #� f. L.i — sort -v + Tidal Drainage Channels 1 L ;`: s �,t =W Ffn°s„" °= Freshwater Drainage Channel j .l.�; F 3,;,: lo' K. Indicates Channel Width of Ordinary High Water Mark #�`a^ Potential Seasonal Wetland =moi ::'�!!'; t':, --_ __ CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG FMFORMATIONF = HN Breeding Location100 1 ow feet Individual Frog Sighting r_. �y ILII„ iIIIIl1 �IIIII Planning Area /��%/; Millbrae Avenue Breeding Population Boundary "� ^�'• City Llntlts NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 105 fig .. SgS L::. x...._........... 11 11��■ 1� Mma Was ._ ► �,� ��1�111►� 4191112 ... (1`1�11��► rrlil,rrulrhl C n 11„1\E r��►rmur Errlrrrry,►rJ _r- -- p W tlnr►It a rr.�-}}aa. O%Islas? ill w- as- r ����....t�i\,I1„\,►� -� r -•.rte�-,,_ ��� ��p� ����I1111111►��InnIIIIp=t. �� ar M��� t � � as r _ ILi04WQI�'�II�% - �a r --•moi �klgmounnnnn SSW r'r`>• . 11]—�•___�.._� —rr fes._ _�_i �' �.� C_��__ fir:��_— —_rr___ mai —� —a as• a - ss'6M— Ig min 1111111 and ml► �; ;,� =i' 111 Iltlll 111111 HIM. - _ _' _ __.Q��"�-, _--��:-__- s-1.11 ■1♦� __s _� _ _� -_ ram �,-.�s_ -;::1111 ■ �` 'c�� n 1�lo1 __ _ #►nn -- --— .l ��� X11 .,--_�',:�U 0 y'nl 1111�� 1•IIi I1a,Nrm ur,r -a-,�e� ' , � ,11 cv C,I I IIIII fry' 'iGlIIIIIll11111j11r11i yr atIloilo VI!�114�,�,i==�'=�=�====:...�.:z+r•..:�i�i'�1� '.�•�.�a��C—. a Q� ��i—�IMi 111�111>t __ —�. _—_ y.ani —_ I/ ��_-�s_>:�,' '•� W ...�, 1:- -1 M - 1 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK L. Community Standards contractor shall include in the dust control plan The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared dust control strategies recommended by the for the Specific Plan identifies the following Bay Area Air Quality Management District mitigation measures, which will be applied to (BAAQMD)- new development as Community Standards. 3. Biological Resources 1. Geology Because of the protected status of the Any new structures shall be constructed and California red-legged frog, the U.S. Fish and installed according to the standards of the Wildlife Service and the California Department Burlingame Public Works Department and of Fish and Game shall be consulted prior to California Building Code Editions in effect at modification to the freshwater drainage chan- the time a building permit is issued. A design- nel that runs at the rear of properties along level final geotechnical report shall be required Rollins and Adrian Roads, or the surrounding for each major structure proposed in the undeveloped grasslands and scattered brush. Specific Plan Area, including specific recom- The property owners shall obtain the necessary mendations to minimize post-construction set- permits from these agencies for any changes tlements. The design-level geotechnical investi- proposed within or adjacent to lands under the gation will be reviewed by the Department of jurisdiction of these agencies. Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. Implementation If development is proposed in the area shown of the recommended site preparation activities as Natural Areas on the map in Figure 7-5, a will be inspected by City field inspectors. wetland delineation study should be conducted to determine the extent of jurisdictional wet- lands and the constraints these features may 2. Air Qualify pose to development. The wetland delineation Projects shall implement Fugitive Construc- should be verified by the U.S. Army Corps of tion Dust Control Measures. Project sponsors Engineers. If jurisdictional wetlands are found, of individual projects constructed within the a detailed wetland mitigation plan shall be Specific Plan Area shall prepare and implement required if complete avoidance of drainage and a dust control plan.The plan shall be submitted the potential seasonal wetlands is not feasible. to the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan during construc- tion. To reduce particulate matter emissions during construction and demolition phases, the NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 107 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK For any activity that will divert or obstruct the Future development in the Specific Plan Area natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or shall comply with all relevant FAA standards bank (which may include associated riparian and criteria for safety regarding flashing lights, resources) of a creek or channel, the California reflective material, land uses that may attract Department of Fish and Game may require a large concentrations of birds, HVAC exhaust Streambed Alteration Agreement. The appli- vents, and uses that may generate electrical or cant should contact the Department of Fish electronic interference with aircraft communi- and Game early in the process to determine if cations and/or instrumentation. that agency's approval is requried. 5. Noise 4. Hazards and Hazardous At the time of development, project sponsors Materials shall be required to comply with Best Where required by the Comprehensive Land Management Practices to reduce noise levels Use Plan for San Francisco Airport, developers during construction. of new residential uses in the SUZ zone and new residential, office and retail uses in the AZ All future construction activities shall be zone as well as any person who intends to offer required to meet the construction hours land for sale or lease shall provide prospective requirement of the Burlingame Municipal buyers and tenants with a fair disclosure state- Code in effect at the time of construction. ment noting the presence of the property with- in the Airport Influence Area and the potential Future development that incorporates pile for aircraft overflights, noise and related foundations shall be required to submit apre- effects. construction assessment of existing subsurface conditions and the structural integrity of near- All future development in the Specific Plan by buildings to determine noise and vibration Area is subject to the limitations of the applica- ble FAR Part 77 airspace parameters and the impacts from pile driving as a part of the build- ing permit submittal. The pre-construction formal federal notification process, via FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and any recommendations Construction or Alteration." In addition, the shall be incorporated into the construction findings of all FAA aeronautical studies con- documents. ducted by the FAA will be incorporated into the final plans for new development approved in the Specific Plan Area. 1O8 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK All project development sponsors within the Specific Plan Area shall retain a qualified acousti- cal engineer familiar with aviation noise impacts to prepare an acoustical study, in accordance with State Tide 24 requirements. The acoustical study shall identify methods of design and con- struction to comply with the applicable portions of the Uniform Building Code Tide 24, Appendix 36,Sound Transmission Controls and with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program so that construction will achieve an indoor noise level or 45 dBA, or less, as meas- ured for aircraft noise events. The cost of the noise insulation measures shall be borne by the development project sponsor. 6. Cultural Resources If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigat- ed and proper protection measures, as deter- mined by qualified experts, can be implemented. If previously unknown human remains are encountered during construction,an appropriate representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall also be informed and consulted, as required by State law. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 109 CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 110 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 8 IMPLEMENTATION This chapter describes the ways in which the City of Burlingame will implement this Specific Plan. It includes a summary of development incentives forprivate property owners that are included in this Plan, a list of imple- mentation actions for the City to undertake, and information on the creation of a development fee to pay for public improvements. A. Development Incentives B. Implementation Actions This Specific Plan includes several develop- The City will undertake a number of actions to ment incentives intended to spur the private implement the vision included in this Specific development community to implement the Plan. ideas included in this Plan. These incentives include the following: 1. Zoning Code Revisions ♦ A density bonus for parcels at the north Once this Specific Plan is adopted, the City will and south ends of Rollins Road whose owners agree to develop or allow the City revise its Zoning Code to match the provisions of the Specific Plan. This will include the addi- to develop gateway features along the street, as approved by the City. tions of provisions to allow automobile sales uses in portions of the Ml zone along Adrian ♦ Allowance of automobile sales uses on Road, as well as changes to various height and parcels along Adrian Road where amalga- setback requirements and new provisions for mated parcel size is over 5 acres. This will density bonuses in gateway areas. The zoning encourage the combining of parcels in this code would also have to be amended to include area. residential uses in the North of Trousdale sub- ♦ A residential density bonus for coordinated area and portions of the El Camino Real/Mills development on multiple parcels in the El Peninsula Hospital Block subarea; and to Camino Gateway area. This will encourage address the relationship between zoning regula- aggregation of parcels in this area. tions, review lines for height and aviation- required height limitations in subarea B-4, North of Trousdale. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 111 CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 8-1 STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Street or Location Name Estimated Cost El Camino Real $1,220,000 Trousdale Drive $880,000 California Drive $100,000 Magnolia Drive $520,000 Rollins Road Gateway $60,000 Rollins Road Streetscape $600,000 New Road between Rollins and Adrian Roads $330,000* Total $3,710,000 * This cost reflects construction of the entire street,including the road,sidewalks and streetscape,but does not include land costs. 2. Streetscape Improvements Streetscape improvements will be implemented Chapter 5 describes a series of streetscape in either of two ways. Whenever new develop- improvements in various parts of the North ment is proposed in the area, the City will Burlingame area that are intended to fulfill the require that property owners make streetscape vision outlined in this Specific Plan. The City improvements along their frontages consistent will ensure that these streetscape improvements with this Plan. In some cases,the City may also are made over time by levying a development make improvements on its own, independent fee on each project to contribute a fair share of development on adjacent parcels. When this towards these improvements. Table 8-1 shows occurs, the City may collect fees from benefit- an estimate of the total cost for the Streetscape ing property owners in advance, or the City may improvements on each street, and for the pay for the improvements and collect costs Rollins Road gateway. from property owners later as part of a devel- opment fee charged to new development. 112 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION 3. Rollins Road Trail and Open The abandonment of this residual land will Space Network result in additional value accruing to the adja- This Specific Plan envisions a new trail and cent property owners. Table 8-2 shows an esti- open space network in the southern portion of mate of the value expected to be accrued to the Rollins Road area. This network will be each owner. This value will be considered in implemented incrementally through land use setting the Development Fee described in regulations affecting new development that are Section C, below, and it will also be considered included in Chapter 4 of this Plan. in negotiations around affordability of the res- idential units to be built on the properties in question. The estimated values are based on 4. El Camino Real Residual Land square foot estimates of land values on El Disposition Camino Real compiled by Bay Area Economics The streetscape improvements along El as a part of this study, and should be checked Camino Real will result in surplus land that is through an appraisal or other means prior to currently in the City right-of-way on both sides setting final fee structures. of the street. The City will transfer this surplus property to the adjacent property owners at the time that it is abandoned by the City. If, after a 5. Sign Ordinance on Auto Row title search,it is determined that the underlying Once this Specific Plan is adopted, the City will property is owned by the adjacent property amend its Sign Ordinance to include special owners, title will revert to these owners when regulations for signs on Adrian Road belonging the City right-of-way is abandoned. to businesses that engage in automobile sales. Chapter 6 gives some guidance for the architec- However, this will only occur in conjunction tural character of signs for these businesses and with agreements between the City and the a revision of the Sign Ordinance will assure affected property owners that will ensure that that a minimum standard is set for the aesthet- the owners will immediately use the abandoned is character of signs along the freeway frontage. property for development consistent with the vision in this Specific Plan and that adequate funding will be available to implement desired streetscape improvements on El Camino Real. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 113 CHAPTER S: IMPLEMENTATION C. Development Fee A fee will be established for each subarea based on the benefit to each property of the streetscape program for the area. Each proper- ty owner would contribute a share of the cost for improvements at the time of development. The City will implement improvement projects based on a contiguous area where a substantial portion of the streetscape has been funded. 14 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 8-2 VALUE OF RESIDUAL LAND ON EL CAMINO REAL Low Value High Value APN Address Square Feet Estimate Estimate West Side 25122010 1887 El Camino Real 12,128 $1,091,544 $1,334,110 25122020 1887 El Camino Real 9,511 $855,961 $1,046,175 25122030 1850 Magnolia Ave. 8,058 $725,207 $886,365 25122040 1845 El Camino Real 7,263 $653,636 $798,888 25122050 7,770 $699,296 $854,695 25122130 10,237 $921,357 $1,126,103 25122120 1819 El Camino Real 3,274 $294,636 $360,110 25122080 1811 El Camino Real 4,002 $360,141 $440,173 East Side 25122090 1800 Magnolia Ave. 15,956 $1,436,026 $1,755,142 25150160 1876 El Camino Real 11,155 $725,083 $836,635 25150190 1870 El Camino Real 11,210 $728,653 $840,754 25150210 1860 El Camino Real 6,922 $449,929 $519,149 25150170 1850 El Camino Real 3,245 $210,916 $243,365 25150180 1840 El Camino Real 3,151 $204,843 $236,357 25150200 1838 El Camino Real 6,012 $390,763 $450,881 25150220 1828 El Camino Real 8,987 $584,160 $674,030 25150100 1818 El Camino Real 2,528 $164,336 $189,618 25150090 1810 El Camino Real 8,863 $576,115 $664,748 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 115 CHAPTER B: IMPLEMENTATION 116 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CITY ,� STAFF REPORT B 19A.M AGENDA ewa rMMe . q ITEM # Study Sps pn b O `9il1Tm.RME 6�9�0 MTG. DATE 12/13/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: December 8, 2006 APPROV FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Financial Options for Capital Improvements RECOMMENDATION: That the Council review and discuss information relative financial options to address unfunded capital improvement needs. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study session item is to discuss some basic alternatives to address the continued structural financial imbalance between our operating and CIP budget needs and our projected revenues and determine what, if any, course(s) the Council may want to consider implementing in the months ahead. Nature of our current fiscal challenge After implementing millions of dollars of reductions to the operating budget in 2002 and 2003 we have kept the operating budget balanced by avoiding (for the most part) responses to reinstate the budget cuts made three and four years ago and by funding between $1 and 2 million of CIP from onetime funding sources (i.e. refinancing library certificates of participation and financing PERS unfunded liability). However, structurally speaking our ongoing revenues are $4 million below the desired minimum funding for CEP needs. We have been experiencing some public pressures for more investment in traffic/speeding enforcement, library hours, parks and parking lot maintenance, as well as, sidewalk repairs. This would require an additional operating cost of$1 to $3 million more annually. In addition the public facilities master plan identified an investment need of$90,000,000 including storm drainage and excluding sidewalks. Therefore the City Council placed a General Obligations bond measure on the November ballot to address our most urgent storm drainage and other public facilities needs. The defeat of the measure, which required a super majority, by less than 250 votes, leaves the city unable to address those urgent needs. Basic Alternatives 1. Cut departmental operating budgets to free up operating money to fund pay as you go capital improvements. Ramification: if one assumes that you will need to save enough money every three years to fund each major storm drainage project one at a time you would need to cut costs by about $3 million per year, which is equals an across the board cut of 7.5%. This approach would also mean completing the storm drainage improvements would take about twice as long as the eight years anticipated under the measure H approach. 2. To avoid the need to cut $3 million we could go to voters to ask for operating money for things that we would otherwise have to cut like traffic enforcement, library hours, parks and downtown maintenance, fire truck staffing to free up operating money for pay as you go capital money. Ramifications: would need to generate at least another$3 million in new revenue and more if you actually wanted to reinstate funding for enhancement of the current level of service in traffic, library hours,parks and retail area maintenance. 3. Go to voters for one or more CIP needs to the maximum amount that voters are likely to support. Measure H on the November ballot is an example of this approach. 4. Some combination of 1-3 above. Attachment#2 reviews full array of tax revenue options available and Attachment#3 reviews those that staff feel are more fruitful for consideration. Since the Community Facilities District may be the most responsive to the objectives raised by the no on Measure H group Attachment#4 provides some very preliminary calculations on variations on that approach. Outline of Discussion at the meeting: 1. Background information on current financial situation and model. 2. Basic alternatives available. 3. Review of voter approved options for additional revenue 4. Staffs preliminary thoughts on the most fruitful options. 5. Comments from the Public 6. Council discussion, questions and areas where more in formation would be desired. Although during the meeting the Council may be comfortable in identifying one preferred option, it is likely that you will narrow the choices down and identify additional information you would like in the next month to allow you to finalize your direction to staff in January. In preparation for this discussion staff has met with representatives of the citizen group that opposed Measure H, as well as, those that supported Measure H to solicit their perspective on the options. We have also invited them to join us at the Council Study session on December 13th. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget Model 2. Revenue Brainstorming Worksheet 3. 2006 Table of Financing Options for further consideration as identified by staff 4. Preliminary Calculations for storm drain user fee 5. Storm Drainage Projects 6. Capital Funding Needs as identified under the pragmatic plan of the Public Facilities Master Plan 7. Measure H Projected Improvements CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL FUND BUDGET MODEL FOR FY 08 & FY 09 (Showing 5% Revenue Growth and Average 3% Increase in Operation Costs) y FY05-06 FY06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 a Actuals Adopted Budget Forecast Forecast n Beginning Unreserved Fund Balance: 1.65 3.31 0,08x (4.02) 3 l� Revenues: 38.68 39.09 41.04 43.10 H Transfers In: 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.75 Annual Ongoing Revenue: 39.26 39.69 41.69 43.85 Use of Reserves: 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 State Take Aways: Included Included 0.00 0.00 Total Available Financing: $42.51 $43.00 $41.77 $39.83 Operating Expenditures: 36.25 39.12 40.29 41.50 Transfers Out(Debt Svc. &Shuttle Bus): 1.65 1.50 1.50 1.70 Total Operating Expenditures: $37.90 $40,62 $41.79 $43,20 Ending Fund Balance Before CIP Contribution : $4.61 $2.38 -$0.02 1 F -$3.38 General Fund Contributions to CIP: $1:30 $2.30 $4.0-0----1 $4.00 - Total Annual General Fund Ex enditures: $39.20 $42.92 $45.79 $47.20 Ending Fund BalanceAfter CIP Contribution $3.31" $0.08 -$4:0-2---1 r -$7.38 Annual Ongoing Revenue "Operating Expenditures Only: $1.36 $0.93 -$0.10 $0.64 Surplus (+) or Shortfall (-): Including Minimum CIP Contribution: $0.06 $3:23 $4.10 -$3.36 General un eserve Balance: r-$5.75 Economic Stability $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Catastrophic $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $' 2,000,000 Ca1PERS Reserve $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Contingency $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Centennial ' $ 40,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total General Fund Reserves: $ 5,740,000 1$ 5,750,000 1 1_$ 5,750,000 1 L$ 5,750,000 Budget Model-FY07 FY08 Forecast(Updated).xls 5%Rev Growth 12/8!2006 2.09 PM Attcahment #2 REVENUE BRAINSTORMING WORKSHEET REVENUE SOURCE Statutory Basis Vote Requirement Mail-in Allowed? When Held Advantages Disadvantages Comments General Obligation Bond -- General fund Only for acquisition only a revenue source by iGC 43600 2/3 No Any time or improvement of Ad valorem tax bound receiving bond proceeds real property adjusted each year Has a difficult Popular in various Community Facilities Can be reputation in the parts of state; District GC 53311 2/3 Yes Any time ST balanced/ State -- need to bonds are not apportioned provide some general fund benefit anal sis obligations ,Any time ST Simple to Parcel Tax XIIIA(4)(a)/XIIIID(3) 2/3 Probably not Council administer and Flat tax on Used by schools (a)(2) election GT explain eve,y one o Any time ST Could go to gross Business License Tax GC 37101/R&T 50/o if general; 2/3 if No if GT--Yes if ST Council Taxes non- Only taxes receipts versus flat 17041.5 special election GT voters business tax o Any time ST Common tax- Does not Takes Utility Users Tax Fenton vs. City of 50% if general-, 2/3 if No if GT --Yes if ST Council taxpayer can necessarily relate administration Delano special election GT control how to needs or sources effort _ much paid Across the Limited to library Library Tax GC 53717 2/3 Yes Any time ST board No balancing facilities and _ services Public Safety-- can be Limited to Fire and Police & Fire Protection GC 53970/53978 2/3 Yes Any time ST Parcel Tax apportioned to police Services locations/zones Must Uusually limited to Municipal Improvement S&H 10000 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time Broad authority identify/specify certain geographic Act of 1913 Assessments benefits to each area parcel Must Limited to Specifies identify/specify landscaping, Landscaping & Lighting projects, can be benefits to each lighting and park & Act of 1972 S&H 22500 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time used for ongoing parcel-, requires rec facilities, services annual assessment administration like BID intensive 1 12/8/2006 REVENUE BRAINSTORMING WORKSHEET REVENUE SOURCE Statutory Basis Vote Requirement Mail-in Allowed? When Held Advantages Disadvantages Comments (Must Limited to Specifies identify/specify drainage, flooding, Benefit Assessment Act of projects, can be benefits to each 1982 GC 54703 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time used for ongoing parcel; requires and street lighting; services annual assessment administration like BID intensive Would violate Prop Any time ST 'Tagged to 13 -- can't be Ad Valorem Property Tax XIIIA(1(b)) 2/3 Probably not Council values Tagged to values balanced or election GT apportioned 50% if general; 2Any time ST/3 if Taxes daytime Probably Payroll Tax R&T 17041.5 special No if GT --Yes if ST Council population Income tax in drag unpopular election GT Can seek Any time ST Legislative Sales & Use Tax R&T 7287 2/3 No if GT --Yes if ST Council None Graffiti tools only authority for election GT broader authority; anti-competitive question Can go to Adopted in 2003 Any time ST general fund; 0.25 percent session; similar Transactions & Use Tax R&T 7285.9 2/3 No if GT--Yes if ST Council increments only; provision did not election GT spread among anti-competitive pass County vote the community in November 2006 o Any time ST Transient Occupancy Tax R&T 7280 50/o if general; 2/3 if No if GT--Yes if ST Council Taxes non- Anti-competitive -- special election GT voters already high Probably unconstitutional or Documentary Transfer TaxSee ad valorem tax violation of statute to raise rate 2 12/8/2006 Attachment#3 BALLOT MEASURE REVIEW FINANCING OPTIONS December 5, 2006 Participants_ Jim Nantell, Larry Anderson, Jesus Nava, Randy Schwartz, Syed Murtuza, Jane Gomery MELLO-ROSS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND (COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT). $130 average/parcel - $44million $130 average/parcel - $35million PRO CON PRO CON Date of election is flexible Requires 66.66%voter Redistributes overtime Requires 66.6% of the voter approval approval Community Facilities District Negative public opinion Can not be repealed Opposition will oppose can be tailored to maximize support Tax structure is flexible Lien against property. Allows some mixed uses Can't use toward long term (caps) maintenance Mail-in ballot option City pays and administers Can easily borrow against No cap allowed election Addresses opponents' Requires consultant to Public educated on issue Election dates not flexible concerns determine tax structure from election Unrepealable Requires debt reserve Most commonly used No special categories for approach. different prop owners Not a debt of the city Confusing to explain to Will fund maximum amount voters Nexus to improvements Higher costs for all because Allows senior deferral if includes all facilities of administration qualified Council creates district No debt reserve FLAT PARCEL TAX (General Tax) STORM DRAIN PROPERTY FEE $160 /parcel - $20million $130 average/parcel - $44million PRO CON PRO CON Easy to explain Required 66.66%voter 50% + 1 vote—Property No mix of uses -specific approval owner OR 2/3 citizens vote Fair(addresses opposition Less revenue Clear Nexus—relates Subject to repeal issue) directly to need Accepted in area Loose commercial bump Allows mail-in (date is For 50% -Only property flexible) owners vote Could be used for CIP& Places more burden on Addresses opponents' Takes time & is costly to maintenance. homeowners issues. develop. Mix use possible Subject to repeal Vote is not weighted. Higher cost burden to residential properties Seniors exemption possible No C.O.L.A. Could be used for Requires consultant to maintenance and CIP determine tax structure Probably more support from More problematic to borrow Can borrow against voters Burden on single family Could generate needed residents (regressive) amount Election date flexible Page 1 of 2 Attachment#3 FINANCING OPTIONS — BALLOT MEASURE REVIEW December 5, 2006 (Continued) UTILITY USERS TAX (General Tax) At 5% - $3,000,000/ r PRO CON 50%_+ 1 of the vote Lack voter support Flexibility in uses Subject to appeal Easy to administer No link to funding need Fairly applied (Tax payer Only at council election affects amount. C.0.L.A. Problematic to borrow a ainst Optional sunset Can choose which/all utility and amount for each Uses funds for C/P and maintenance Address opposition's concern OPTIONS REVIEWED BUT NOT RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME ➢ Assessment District(legal issues because it must be direct benefit, may impact to commercial properties, weighted property owner vote) ➢ General Purpose Tax(subject to repeal and usually not supported by voters) ➢ Sales or Use Tax(difficult to get support) ➢ Business License Fee(unfair to commercial) ➢ T.O.T. (reduces competitive edge for hotels) S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDUUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Table of financing options 12-5-06.doc Page 2 of 2 Attachment#4 Preliminary Calculations for storm drain user fee Community Facilities District(Mello-Roos) CATEGORIES TOTAL NO. TOTAL AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA $35 M BOND $30 M BOND $44 M BOND OF LAND USE PARCELS IN ACRES IN ACRES COST/PARCEL/YR COST/PARCEUYR COST/PARCEUYR Single Family Residence R1 6755 984 393.6 112.56 90.59 141.50 Multi Family Residence R2-R4 348 215 172.0 954.78 768.43 1200.29 Commercial C1-C4 700 324 307.8 849.42 683.64 1067.84 Commercial/Residential C-R 6 1.3 1.2 397.62 320.02 499.86 Industrial 700 319 303.1 836.31 673.09 1051.36 Total 8509 1843.3 1177.7 267.36 215.18 336.11 NOTES AND ASSUMPTION: 1. The number of parcels need verification as the actual numbers may vary slightly 2. The impervious area for each category is based on the F.A.R.that is typically allowed. For example,the SFR parcels are typically at 0.40 FAR. 3. The total estimated payment for both$30M bond and$35M bond is based on a 6.5%annual interest rate CHECK FOR TOTAL PAYMENTS 30 YEAR REVENUE COLLECTION BY CATEGORIES CATEGORIES $35M BOND $30M BOND $44 M BOND Single Family Residence(R1) $22,810,174.20 $18,358,289.10 $28,675,647.57 Multi Family Residence(R2-R4) $9,967,860.68 $8,022,423.08 $12,531,024.85 Commercial(C1-C4) $17,837,834.40 $14,356,405.95 $22,424,706.10 Commercial/Residential(C-R) $71,571.56 $57,602.86 $89,975.67 Industrial $17,562,559.18 $14,134,856.48 $22,078,645.82 CHECK $68,250,000.01 $54,929,577.47 $85,800,000.01 Attachment#5 CITYWIDE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS REPORT FLOOD CONTROL COST ESTIMATE (2006 $) 1. Easton watershed $ 7,500,000 2. Burlingame/Ralston watershed 10,000,000 3. Sanchez/Terrace watershed 11,000,000 4. Mills watershed 1,000,000 5. El Portal/Trousdale watershed 500,000 6. Bay front watershed, curbs, gutters,pumps &bridges 9,000,000 Total $ 39,000,000 _ Attachment #6 DRAFT In Progresr Funding Options riragmatic P ' Community Bond Safety Bond SD Bond Total Bond Sources Sources Total Sources Sources 3,895,000 Par Amount 36.555,000 $89,240,000 Par Amount 48,790,000 Par Amount Use Uses Total Uses Uses 2,200,000 Storm Drains $ 36,000,000 Projects $87,800,000 City Hall 7,300.000 Fire Station Community Center $ 37.700,000 Police Station $ 1.500,000 Parks Yard $ 3'100'000 150.000 Cost of Issuance $450,000 Cost of Issuance $ 150.000 Cost of Issuance $ 150,000 Cost of Issuance $ Underwriters Discount @$6.50 $ 317,135 Underwriter's Discount @$6.50 $ 25,318 Underwriters Discount @$6.50 $ 237,608 Underwriter's Discount @$6.50 $580,060 $ 222.765 Bond Insurance @ 25 bps $ 17,761 Bond Insurance @ 25 bps $ 166.911 Bond Insurance @ 25 bps $407.437 Bond Insurance @ 25 bps 1,821 Excess Proceeds $ 482 Excess Proceeds $2,503 Excess Proceeds $ 100 Excess Proceeds $ $89,240,000 Total $ 48,790,000 $ 3,895,000 $ 36.555,000 Period Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Principal Interest =Debt —F/ /2005 720,000 1.62% 1,525,912 2,245,912 60,000 1.62% 121,638 181,638 540,000 1.62% 1.143,279 1.683,279 1,320,000 2,790,830 4,110,830 911/2006 970.000 1.82% 2,022,886 2,992,886- 80.000 1.82% 161.213 241,213 730,000 1.82% 1,515,624 2,245.624 1,780,000 3,699,722 5,479,722 91112007 990,000 2.05% 2,005,232 2,995,232 80,000 2.05% 159,757 239.757 740,000 2.05% 1.502,338 2,242,338 1,810,000 3,667,326 5,477,326 60,000 2.35% 158,117 238,117' 755,000 2.35% 1,487,168 2.242,168 1,845,000 9/112008 1,010,000 2.35% 1,984,937 2,994,937 3,630,221 5,475,221 !2009 1,035,000 2.68% 1,961,202 2,996,202 85,000 2.68% 156,237 241,237 775,000 2.68% 1,469.426 2,244.426 1,895,000 3,586,864 5,481,864 9/1 911/2010 1,060,000 3.68 1.933,464 2,993,464 85,000 3.03% 153,959 238,959 795.000 3.03% 1,448,656 2.243,656 1,940.000 3,536,078 5,476,078 911/2011 1,095,000 3.23% 1,901,346 2,996,346 90,000 3.23% 151.383 241.383 820,000 3.23% 1,424,567 2,244.567 2,005.000 3,477,296 5,482,296 911!2012 1,130,000 3.38% 1,865,977 2,995,977 90,000 3.38% 148.476 238,476 845,000 3.38% 1.398,081 2,243.081 2,065,000 3,412,534 5,477,534 911/2013 1,165,000 3.53% 1,827,783 2.992,783 95,000 3.53% 145.434 240,434 875,000 3.53% 1,369,520 2.244,520 2.135,000 3,342.737 5,477,737 91112014 1,210,000 3.64% 1.786,659 2,996,659 95,000 3.64% 142,081 237,081 905,000 3.64% 1,338,633 2,243,633 2,210,000 3.267,372 5,477,372 5 1,255,000 3.75% 1.742,615 2.997,615 100.000 3.75% 138,623 238,623 940,000 3.75% 1,305,691 2.245,691 2.295.000 3,186,928 5,481,928 9/1/201 105,000 3.85% 1 1,300,000 3.85% 1.695,552 2,995,552 34,873 239,873 975,000 3.85% 1,270,441 2,245,441 2,380,000 3,100,865 5,480,865 9/1/201 5 9!1!2017 1,350,000 3.95% 1,645,502 2,995.502 110,000 3.95% 130,830 240,830 1,010,000 3.95% 1,232,903 2.242.903 2.470.000 3,009,235 5,479,235 9/1/2018 1,405,000 4.04% 1,592,177 2,997,177 110,000 4.04% 126,485 236,485 1,050,000 4.04% 1,193,008 2,243,008 2,565,000 2,911,670 5,476,670 9/1/2019 1,460,000 4.12% 1.535.415 2,995,415 115,000 4.12% 122.041 237,041 1,095.000 4.12% 1.150,588 2,245,588 2,670,000 2,808,044 5,478,044 9!1/2020 1,520.000 4.19% 1,475,263 2,995,263 120,000 4.19% 117,303 237,303 1,140.000 4.19% 1,105,474 2,245,474 2,780,000 2,698,040 5,47 9/1/2021 1,585,000 4.28% 1,411,575 2,996,575 125,000 4.28% 112,275 237.275 1,185.000 4.28% 1,057,708 2.242,708 2,895,000 2,581,558 5,4766.558 .040 9/1/2022 1,650,000 4.36% 1,343,737 2,993.737 130.000 4.36% 106,925 236.925 1,235,000 4.36% 1.006,990 2,241,990 3,015,000 2,457.652 5,472.652 44% 1,271,797 2,996,797 135,000 4.44% 101,257 236,257 1,290.000 4.44% 953.144 2,243.144 3,150,000 2,326,198 5,476,198 9/1/2023 1,725,000 4. 9/1/2024 1,800,000 4.44% 1,195,207 2,995,207 145,000 4.52% 95,263 240,263 1,350.000 4.52% 895,868 2,245,868 3,295,000 2,186,338 5,481,338 8,709 238,709 1.410.000 4.60% 834,848 2,244,84 9/112025 1,880,000 4.60% 1,113,847 2.993,847 8 3,440,000 2,037,404 5,477,404 150.000 4.60% 8 9/1/2026 1,970,000 4.67% 1,027,367 2.997,367 155.000 4.67% 81,809 236,809 1,475,000 4.67% 769,988 2,244,988 3,600,000 1,879.164 5,479,164 5,481,044 911/2027 2,060,000 4.73% 935,368 2,995,368 165,000 4.73% 74,571 239,57 5,472.723 1 1,545,000 4.73% 701,106 2,246,106 3,770,000 1,711,044 9/1/2028 2,155.000 4.76% 837,930 2.992.930 170,000 4.76% 66,766 236,766 1.615.000 4.76% 628,027 2,243.027 3.940.000 1,532.723 9/1/2029 2,260.000 4.78% 735,352 21995,352 180,000 4.78% 58,674 238,674 1,695.000 4,78% 551,153 2.24 4.135,000 1,345,179 5,480.179 9!1/2030 2,370,000 4.80% 627.324 2.997.324 190.000 4.80% 50,070 240.070 1,775.000 4.80% 470,132 2.2455,153,132 4,335.000 1,147,526 5,482,526 5,479,446 911/2031 2,480,000 4.81% 513,564 2,993.564 200,000 4.81% 40,950 240.950 1,860,000 4.81% 384,932 2,244,932 4,540,000 921,072 5,476,072 9/1/2032 2,600,000 4.82% 394.276 2,994,276 205,000 4.82% 31,330 236.330; 1,950,000 4.82% 295,466 2,245.466 4,755,000 9/1/2033 2,725.000 4.82% 268.956 2,993,956 215,000 4.82% 21,449 236,449 2,040,000 4.82% 201,476 2,241,476 4,980,000 491,881 5,471,881 9/1/2034 2,855.000 4.82% 137,611 2,992,611 230.000 4.82% 11,086 241,086 r 2,140,000 4.62% 103,148 2,243,148 5,225,000 251,845 5,476.845 Total 48,790,000 40,315,829 89,105,829 3,895,000 3,209,580 7,104,580 36,555,000 30,209,380 66,764,380 89,240,000 73,734,789 162,974,789 Ory of Burlingame laalities Muster Plan.$Mdy © Gensler Ufu,Ger2004 Page 24 Attachment 7 MEASURE H PROJECTED IMPROVEMENTS Easton Watershed Recreation Center Upgrade Marsten Road pump station Upgrade building to seismic standards Install force main from pump station to Install fire sprinklers Bay Remedy electrical code deficiencies Improve catch basins and creek Make facility ADA accessible embankments Improve heating and ventilation system Burlingame/Ralston Watershed City Hall Install bypass from Burlingame Creek to Upgrade building to seismic standards Bay with floodgates Install fire sprinklers Install bypass from Ralston Creek to Remedy asbestos contamination channel Make facility ADA accessible Sanchez/Terrace Watershed Police Station Increase box culvert size Improve heating and ventilation system Install debris basis upstream from Improve security Carolan Avenue Install emergency power Install new pump station and force main Provide equal access pipeline in vicinity of Carolan Make facility ADA accessible Avenue Improve catch basins and storm drainage Fire Stations in Laguna Avenue neighborhood Make facilities ADA accessible Provide equal access Mills Watershed Widen channels and raise Parks Yard embankments/headwalls Make facilities ADA accessible Raise or remove footbridge Provide equal access Add box culvert across Rollins Road EI Portal/Trousdale Watershed Repair liner in EI Portal and Gilbreth Creeks and Trousdale channel Install corrosion protection system in drainage pipes Bayfront curb/gutter Rehabilitate storm drain systems and pump'stations CITYo� STAFF REPORT IA� .SAMAGENDA ITEM # 7b MTG. �`' DATE 12/13/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: December 8, 2006 APPROVED (a0/ FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY suB.I m Financial Options for Capital Improvements RECOMMENDATION: That the Council review and discuss information relative financial options to address unfunded capital improvement needs. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study session item is to discuss some basic alternatives to address the continued structural financial imbalance between our operating and CIP budget needs and our projected revenues and determine what, if any, course(s) the Council may want to consider implementing in the months ahead. Nature of our current fiscal challenge After implementing millions of dollars of reductions to the operating budget in 2002 and 2003 we have kept the operating budget balanced by avoiding (for the most part) responses to reinstate the budget cuts made three and four years ago and by funding between $1 and 2 million of CIP from onetime funding sources (i.e. refinancing library certificates of participation and financing PERS unfunded liability). However, structurally speaking our ongoing revenues are $4 million below the desired minimum funding for CIP needs. We have been experiencing some public pressures for more investment in traffic/speeding enforcement, library hours, parks and parking lot maintenance, as well as, sidewalk repairs. This would require an additional operating cost of$1 to $3 million more annually. In addition the public facilities master plan identified an investment need of$90,000,000 including storm drainage and excluding sidewalks. Therefore the City Council placed a General Obligations bond measure on the November ballot to address our most urgent storm drainage and other public facilities needs. The defeat of the measure, which required a super majority, by less than 250 votes, leaves the city unable to address those urgent needs. Basic Alternatives 1. Cut departmental operating budgets to free up operating money to fund pay as you go capital improvements. Ramification: if one assumes that you will need to save enough money every three years to fund each major storm drainage project one at a time you would need to cut costs by about $3 million per year, which is equals an across the board cut of 7.5%. This approach would also mean completing the storm drainage improvements would take about twice as long as the eight years anticipated under the measure H approach. 2. To avoid the need to cut$3 million we could go to voters to ask for operating money for things that we would otherwise have to cut like traffic enforcement, library hours, parks and downtown maintenance, fire truck staffing to free up operating money for pay as you go capital money. Ramifications: would need to generate at least another$3 million in new revenue and more if you actually wanted to reinstate funding for enhancement of the current level of service in traffic, library hours,parks and retail area maintenance. 3. Go to voters for one or more CII' needs to the maximum amount that voters are likely to support. Measure H on the November ballot is an example of this approach. 4. Some combination of 1-3 above. Attachment#2 reviews full array of tax revenue options available and Attachment#3 reviews those that staff feel are more fruitful for consideration. Since the Community Facilities District may be the most responsive to the objectives raised by the no on Measure H group Attachment#4 provides some very preliminary calculations on variations on that approach. Outline of Discussion at the meeting: 1. Background information on current financial situation and model. 2. Basic alternatives available. 3. Review of voter approved options for additional -revenue 4. Staff's preliminary thoughts on the most fruitful options. 5. Comments from the Public 6. Council discussion, questions and areas where more in formation would be desired. Although during the meeting the Council may be comfortable in identifi;ing one preferred option, it is likely that you will narrow the choices down and identify additional information you would like in the next month to allow you to finalize your direction to staff in January. In preparation for this discussion staff has met with representatives of the citizen group that opposed Measure H, as well as,those that supported Measure H to solicit their perspective on the options. We have also invited them to join us at the Council Study session on December 13th. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget Model 2. Revenue Brainstorming Worksheet 3. 2006 Table of Financing Options for further consideration as identified by staff 4. Preliminary Calculations for storm drain user fee 5. Storm Drainage Projects 6. Capital Funding Needs as identified under the pragmatic plan of the Public Facilities Master Plan 7. Measure H Projected Improvements CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL FUND BUDGET MODEL FOR FY 08 &-FY 09 (Showing 5% Revenue Growth and Average 3% Increase in Operation Costs) FY05-06 FY06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Actuals Adopted Budget Forecast Forecast Beginning Unreserved Fund Balance: 1.65 3.31 0.08 (4.02) Revenues: 38.68 39.09 41.04 43.10 Transfers In: 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.75 Annual Ongoing Revenue: 39.26 39.69 41.69 43.85 Use of Reserves: 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 State Take Aways: Included Included 0.00 0.00 Total Available Financing: $42.51 $43.00 $41.77 $39.83 Operating Expenditures: 36.25 39.12 40.29 41.50 Transfers Out(Debt Svc. 8r Shuttle Bus): 1.65 1.50 1.50 1.70 Total Operating Expenditures: $37.90 $40.62 $41.79 $43.20 Ending Fund Balance Before CIP Contribution $4.61 $2.3.8 $0.02 ` -$3.38 General Fund Contributions ta'C{P:' $1,30 $2:30' $4,00 $4.00 Total Annual General Fund Expenditures: 1 $39.20 $42.92 1 $45.77-97-1 $47.20 End166 Fund!Balance After C[P Contributlon $3.31 $0.08. 44.02�J -$7.38 Annual Ongoing Revenue Operating Expenditures Only; $1.36 -$0.93 $0.10 $0.64 Surplus (+) or Shortfall (-): Including Minimum CIP $0A6 -$3,23 ,, -$4.1':0 -$3.36 Cortlbutlon� General un eservei Balance: $5.74 $5.7= ( $5.7 ' Economic stability $ 2,600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Catastrophic: $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Ca1PERS Reserve $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Contingency $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 \` Centennial $ 40,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total General Fund Reserves: $ 5,740,000 1$ 5,750,000 $ 5,750,000 $ 5,750,000 Budget Model-FY07 FY08 Forecast(Updated).xls 5%Rev Growth 12/13/2006 4:59 PM REVENUE BRAINSTORMING WORKSHEET REVENUE SOURCE Statutory Basis Vote Requirement Mail-in Allowed? When Held Advantages Disadvantages Comments General Obligation Bond -- General fund Only for acquisition only a revenue source by GC 43600 2/3 No Any time or improvement of Ad valorem tax bound receiving bond proceeds real property adjusted each year Has a difficult Popular in various Community Facilities Can be reputation in the parts of state; District GC 53311 2/3 Yes Any time ST balanced/ State-- need to bonds are not apportioned provide some general fund benefit analysis obligations _ Any time ST Simple to Parcel Tax XIIIA(4)(a)/XIIIID(3) 2/3 Probably not Council administer and Flat tax on Used by schools (a)(2) election GT explain everyone GC 37101/R&T 50% if general; 2/3 if Any time ST Taxes non- Only taxes Could go to gross Business License Tax 17041.5 special No if GT--Yes if ST Council voters business receipts versus flat election GT tax Common tax- An time ST Does not Takes Utility Users Tax Fenton vs. City of 50% if general; 2/3 if No if GT--Yes if ST Council taxpayer can necessarily relate administration Delano special control how election GT much paid to needs or sources effort — Across the Limited to library Library Tax GC 53717 2/3 Yes Any time ST board No balancing facilities and services _ Public Safety-- can be Limited to Fire and Police & Fire Protection GC 53970/53978 2/3 Yes Any time ST apportioned to Parcel Tax Police Services _ locations/zones Must Uusually limited to Act of 1913 Assessments benefits to each Municipal Improvement S&H 10000 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time Broad authority identify/specify certain geographic parcel area Must Limited to Specifies identify/specify landscaping, Landscaping & Lighting projects, can be benefits to each lighting and park& Act of 1972 S&H 22500 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time used for ongoing parcel; requires rec facilities; services annual assessment administration like BID intensive 1 12111/2006 REVENUE BRAINSTORMING WORKSHEET REVENUE SOURCE Statutory Basis Vote Requirement ' Mail-in Allowed? When Held Advantages Disadvantages Comments Must Specifies identify/specify Limited to drainage, flooding, Benefit Assessment Act of projects, can be benefits to each 1982 GC 54703 Majority of ballots cast Yes Any time used for ongoing parcel; requires and street lighting; services annual assessment administration intensive dike BID Would violate Prop Any time ST be Ad Valorem Property Tax XIIIA(1(b)) 2/3 Probably not Council Tagged to 13 Tagged to values election GT values balanced can't nced orr apportioned o Any time ST 50/o if general; 2/3 if Taxes daytime Probably Payroll Tax R&T 17041.5 special No if GT--Yes if ST Council population Income tax in drag unpopular election GT Can seek Legislative Any time ST authority for Sales & Use Tax R&T 7287 2/3 No if GT--Yes if ST Council None Graffiti tools only election GT broader authority; anti-competitive question Can go to Adopted in 2003 Any time ST 0.25 percent session; similar Transactions & Use Tax R&T 7285.9 2/3 No if GT--Yes if ST Council general fund; increments only; provision did not 'election GT spread among anti-competitive pass County vote the community in November 2006 50% if general; 2/3 if Any time ST Taxes non- Anti-competitive-- Transient Occupancy Tax R&T 7280 special No if GT--Yes if ST Council voters already high election GT Probably unconstitutional or Documentary Transfer Tax See ad valorem tax violation of statute to raise rate Devoted to specific purpose; Difficult to calculate clear on a parcel-by- Property-Related Fees For storm drainage:H&S 5471 50% Yes Any time relationship; can parcel basis; does 'Administratively I intense be be used for not provide clear capital or financing vehicle operations 2 12/11/2006 - f - c . Redistributes overtime Requires 66.6% of the voter approval Can not be repealed Opposition will fight Allows mixed uses Can't use toward long term maintenance Can easily borrow against No cap allowed Public already educated from Election dates not flexible -previous election Most commonly used approach. No special categories for different prop owners Will fund maximum amount Allows senior deferral if -qualified No debt reserve Y W" I'm ELECTION DATE PRO CON 2/3 - General election June, 2007 Before Council Quick decision election needed November, 2007 During Council election March, 2008 After Council More public election education and costs * Based on analysis from previous Measure H election. S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDUUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Gen Obligation Bond overhead table 12-13-06.doc ;W 2 a, COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (MELLO-ROSS) x'$157 'average/parcel for SFR - $44 million` PRO CON Date of election is flexible Requires 66.7% voter approval Can be tailored to maximize Negative public opinion support Tax structure is flexible (caps) Lien against property Allows mail-in (date is flexible). City pays and administers One vote per parcel. election Addresses opponents' concerns Requires consultant to determine tax structure estimate of $50,000 Unrepealable Requires debt reserve Not a debt of the city Confusing to explain to voters Nexus to improvements Higher administration costs includes all facilities Council creates district Not typically used for built out cities Allows mixed uses Allows senior exemption SCHEDULE ELECTION DATE PRO CON Flexible — 2/3 mail in August, 2007 Before Council election March, 2008 After Council More public election education and costs * Estimated costs for single family residence based on recommended amounts from the poll. The figure is a preliminary estimate for illustration purposes and will need further verification. S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BOND\JUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Com Facilities District overhead table 12-13- 06.doc STORM DRAIN PROPERTY FEE *$157 average/parcel for SFR - $44 million PRO CON 50% + 1 vote — Property owner No mix of uses - specific OR 2/3 citizens vote Clear Nexus — relates directly to Subject to repeal need Allows mail-in (date is flexible) Takes time & is costly to develop Addresses opponents' issues Requires consultant to determine tax structure (estimate of $50,000) Vote is not weighted. Senior exemption from City One vote per parcel general fund Could be used for maintenance and CIP Can borrow against Could generate needed amount Election date flexible SCHEDULE ELECTION DATE PRO CON Flexible — 50% mail in August, 2007 Before Council election March, 2007 After Council More public election education and costs * Estimated costs for single family residence based on recommended amounts from the poll. The figure is a preliminary estimate for illustration purposes and will need further verification. S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDUUNE BALLOT WASURE\Storrn Drain Fee overhead table 12-13-06.doe T Easy to explain Required 66.66% voter approval Fair (addresses current Less revenue -opposition concern Accepted in the area Loose commercial bum Could be used for CIP & Places more burden on long maintenance. term homeowners Allows mixed uses Subject to repeal Senior exemption possible No adjustment for cost of livin Probably more support from More problematic to borrow voters ELECTION DATE PRO CON 2/3 General Election June, 2007 Before Council election November, 2007 During Council election March, 2008 After Council More public election education and costs * Estimated costs for single family residence based on a cost of$160 or less per year as recommended by the poli. The figure is a preliminary estimate for illustration purposes and will need further verification. S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDUUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Flat Parcel Tax overhead table 12-13-06.doc �v vV 50% + 1 of the vote Lack voter support as general tax Flexibility in uses Generates less revenue Easy to administer Subject to repeal Fairly applied (Tax payer affects No link to funding need amount. Can be adjusted for cost of Only at council election living increases Optional sunset clause Problematic to borrow against Can choose which/all utility and Not tax deductible amount for each Can be used for CIP and Senior exemption difficult to maintenance administer Address current opposition's May create new opposition concerns ELECTION DATE PRO CON November, 2007 Only at Council election More public education and costs * Estimated costs based on statistics from other Bay Area communities. The figure is a preliminary estimate for illustration purposes and will need further verification. S:\A Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDVUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Council Study session 12-13-06\Utility Users Tax overhead table 12-13-06.doc U l� Preliminary Calculations for storm drain user fee CATEGORIES TOTAL NO. TOTAL AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA $35 M BOND $30 M BOND $44 M BOND TOTAL PAYMENTS OF LAND USE PARCELS IN ACRES IN ACRES COST/PARCEUYR COST/PARCEUYR COST/PARCEUYR $44 M BOND Single Famil Residen 6755 984 393.6 132.61 106.73 156.53 $1,057,377.03 Multi Famil Residenc 348 215 172.0 1124.84 905.30 1327.77 $462,065.17 Commercial C1-C4 700 324 307.8 1000.71 805.40 1181.26 $826,881.73 Commercial/Residenti 6 1.3 1.2 468.44 377,02 552.96 $3,317.74 Industrial 700 319 303.1 985.27 792.98 116: $814,121.21 Total 8509 1843.3 1177.7 314.99 253.51 371.81 $3,163,762.87 M-ANNUAL PAYMEN'M.ANNUAL PAYMENT ..ANNUAL PAYMENT NOTES AND ASSUMPTION: $2,680,210.49 $2,157,111.05 $3,163,762.87 1. The number of parcels need verification as the actual numbers may vary slightly 2. The impervious area for each category is based on the lot coverage typically allowed by zoning code. The SFR lot coverage is typically at 0.40, Multi-family is 0.80; commercial and industrial is at 0.95. 3. The total estimated payment for both$30M,$35M and$44M bond is based on a 6.5%annual interest rate using uniform payment formula 4. The figures do not include any issuance costs separately CHECK FOR TOTAL PAYMENTS 30 YEAR REVENUE COLLECTION BY CATEGORIES CATEGORIES $35M BOND $30M BOND $44 M BOND Single Family Residen( $26,872,997.00 $21,628,166.50 $31,721,310.87 Multi Family Residence $11,743,281.21 $9,451,332.92 $13,861,954.95 Commercial(C1-C4) $21,015,011.37 $16,913,489.96 $24,806,451.95 Commercial/Residentie $84,319.49 $67,862.77 $99,532.06 Industrial $20,690,705.64 $16,652,479.32 $24.423.636.33 CHECK $80,406,314.71 $64,713,331.48 $94,912,886.16 City of Burlingame Secured Property Tax Roll for FY 2006-07 Potential Potential Total Parcels Total Net Taxable Potential Revenue Revenue Potential Taxable Exempt Parcels Value Fee (i) Taxable Exempt Revenue Vacant Land 50 11 61 $ 38,780,024 $ 500` ' $ 25,000 $ 5,500 $ 30,500 Residential Single Family 5947 3 5950 $ 3,108,613,631 Residential Duplex 152 0 152 $ 57,403,522 Residential Triplex 18 0 18 $ 10,555,212 Residential Fourplex 73 0 73 $ 35,989,022 ' Residential Apartments 5 Units + 348 1 349 $ 410,456,834 Total Residential Designations: 6538 4 6542 $ 3,623,018,221 $ 10.' $ 1,046,080 $ 640 $ 1,046,720 Multi-Residential - More than 1 detached unit 93 0 93 $ 42,361,228 Multi-Residential - SFR Converted to 2 Units 88 0 88 $ 38,383,516 Multi-Residential - SFR and duplex or triplex 21 0 21 $ 7,368,592 T Multi-Residential - Two Duplexes 11 0 11 $ 5,489,813 Any Other Combination of Multi-Family 54 1 55 $ 24,807,502 Four Plex plus Res, Duplex or Triplex 21 0 21 $ 15,552,516 Residential Condominium 804 0 804 $ 299,786,652 Residential Co-Operative 5 0 5 $ 299,190 Total Multifamily Designations: 1097 1 1098 $ 434,049,009 $_ 16911 $ 175,520 $ 160 $ 175,680 Residential Hotel or Motel 13 1 14 $ 320,551,749 $ 5,gg0 $ 65,000 $ 5,000 $ 70,000 Commercial - All Categories 478 34 512 $ 755,488,549 $ 2,;5gU: $ 1,195,000 $ 85,000 $ 1,280,000 Industrial - All Categories 191 5 196 $ 386,006,038 573,000 $ 15,000 $ 588,000 Recreational - All Categories 5 11 16 $ 3,352,359 ,xt1,ggtl $ 5,000 $ 11,000 $ 16,000 Institutional - All Categories 35 47 82 $ 35,300,981 ,`; 1,g04,` $ 35,000 $ 47,000 $ 82,000 Miscellaneous - All Categories 7 38 45 $ 2,348,813 7,000 $ 38,000 $ 45,000 Grand Totals: 8414 152 8566 $ 5,598,895,743 $ 3,126,600 $ 207,300 $ 3,333,900 Notes (1) Potential Fees are arbitrary amounts shown for demonstration purposes only. Actual amounts will be determined by formal fee study. T Burlingame Secured 2006-07.xls 12/13/2006 \/ CITYWIDE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS MASTER PLAN BUILDINGS COSTS (2006 dollars) 1. Community Center $41,000,000 2. City Hall $ 8,000,000 3. Park Corporation Yard facilities $ 4,000,000 4. Fire Department $ 3,000,000 5. Police Building $ 2,000,000 6. Aquatic Center $ 500,000 7. City Wide Miscellaneous facilities $ 500,000 Total $59,000,000 FLOOD CONTROL 1. Easton watershed $ 7,500,000 2. Burlingame/Ralston watershed 10,000,000 3. Sanchez/Terrace watershed 11,000,000 4. Mills watershed 1,000,000 5. El Portal/Trousdale watershed 500,000 6. Bayfront watershed, curbs, gutters,pumps &bridges 9,000,000 Total $39,000,000 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT $10,000,000 STREET LIGHTING $2,000,000 GRAND TOTAL $110,0009000 S:W Public Works Directory\2006 FLOOD PROT-SAFETY BONDUUNE BALLOT MEASURE\Council Study session 12-13-06\Facilities Improvements Costs-$110 m 12-11-06.doc r ' Attachment #6 Q, K Funding Pragmatic I Community Bond Safety Bond SD Bond Total Bond Sources Sources Sources Total Sources Par Amount 48,7 ar ount 5, ar ret 555, Uses Uses Uses Total Uses City Hall $ 77ire StationStorm Drains $ 36,000,000 Projects Community Center $ 37,700,000 Police Station $ 1,500,000 I Parks Yard $ 3,100,000 Cost of issuance $ 150,000. Cost of Issuance $ 150,000 Cost of Issuance $ 150,000 Cost of Issuance $450,000 Underwriter's Discount Q$6.50 $ 317,135 Underwriter's Discount Q$6.50 $ 25,315 Underwriter's Discount Q$6.50 $ 237,608 Underwriter's Discount Q$6.50 $580,060 Bond Insurance Q 25 bps $ 222,765 Bond Insurance Q 25 bps $ 17,761 Bond Insurance®25 bps $ 166,911 Bond Insurance Q 25 bps $407,437 Excess Proceeds $ 100 Excess Proceeds $ 1,921 Excess Proceeds $ 482 Excess Proceeds $2,503 otal S 48,790, 3,870 36.555,OW $89,240,000 IPeriod Debt Service Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Principal Interest Debt Service Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Principal Coupon Interest ' 9/1/2005 720.000 1.62% 1,525,912 2,245,91 60,000---T.-6f,—/. 121.638 181,638 540,000 1.62% 1,143.270 1.685.279 1,320,000 2,790,830 4,11 ,830 9/1/2006 970,000 1.82% 2,022.886 2,992,886 80,000 1.82% 161,213 241,213 730,000 1.82% 1,515,624 2,245,624 1,780,000 3,699,722 5,479,722 9/1/2007 990,000 2.05% 2.005,232 2,995,232 80,000 2.05% 159,757 239,757 740,000 2.05% 1,502,338 2,242,338 1,810,000 3,667,326 5,477,326 ' 9/112008 1,010,000 2.35% 1,984,937 2,994,937 80,000 2.35% 158,117 238,117 755,000 2.35% 1,487,168 2,242,168 1,845,000 3,630,221 5,475,221 9/1/2009 1,035,000 2.68% 1,961,202 2,996,202 85,000 2.68% 156,237 241,237 775,000 2.68% 1,469,426 2.244,426 1,895,000 3,586,664 5,481,864 ' 9/1/2010 1,060,000 3.03% 1,933,464 2,993,464 85,000 3.03% 153,959 238,959 795,000 3.03% 1,446,656 2,243,656 1,940,000 3,536,078 5,476,078 9/1/2011 1,095,000 3.23% 1,901,346 2,996,346 90,000 3.23% 151,383 241,383 820,000 3.23% 1,424,567 2,244,567 2,005,000 3,477,296 5,482,296 9!1/2012 1,130,000 3.38% 1,865,977 2,995,977 90,000 3.38% 148,476 238,476 845,000 3.38% 1,398,081 2,243,081 2,065,000 3,412,534 5,477,534 ' 911/2013 1,165,000 3.53% 1,827,783 2,992.783 95,000 3.53% 145,434 240,434 875,000 3.53% 1,369,520 2,244,520 2,135,000 3,342,737 5,477,737 9/1/2014 1,210,000 3.64% 1,786,659 2,996,659 95,000 3.64% 142,081 237,081 905,000 3.64% 1,338,633 2,243,633 2,210,000 3,267,372 5,477,372 9/1/2015 1,255,000 3.75% 1,742,615 2,997,615 100,000 3.75% 138,623 238,623 940.000 3,75% 1,305,691 2,245,691 2,295,000 3,166,928 5,481,928 ' 9/1/2016 1,300,000 3.85% 1,695,552 2,995,552 105,000 3.85% 134,873 239,873 975,000 3.85% 1,270,441 2,245,441 2,380,000 3,100,885 5,480,865 9/1/2017 1,350,000 3.95% 1,645,502 2,995,502 110,000 3.95% 130,830 240,830 1,010,000 3.95% 1,232,903 2,242,903 2,470,000 3,009,235 5,479,235 911/2018 1,405,000 4.04% 1,592,177 2,997,177 110,000 4.04% 126,485 236,485 1,050,000 4,04% 1,193,008 2,243,008 2,565,000 2,911,670 5,476,670 ' 9/1/2019 1,460,000 4.12% 1,535,415 2,995,415 115,000 4.12% 122,041 237,041 1,095,000 4.12% 1,150,588 2,245.588 2,670,000 2,808,044 5,478,044 9/1/2020 1,520,000 4.19% 1,475.263 2,995,263 120,000 4.19% 117,303 237,303 1,140,000 4.19% 1,105,474 2,245,474 2,780,000 2,698,040 5,478,040 9/1/2021 1,585,000 4.28% 1,411,575 2,996,575 125,000 4.28% 112.275 237.275 1,185,000 4.28% 1,057,708 2,242,708 2,895,000 2,581,558 5,476,558 ' 9/1/2022 1,650,000 4.36% 1,343,737 2,993,737 130,000 4.36% 106,925 236,925 1,235,000 4.36% 1,006,990 2,241,990 3,015,000 2,457,652 5,472,652 9/1/2023 1,725,000 4.44% 1,271,797 2,996,797 135,000 4.44% 101,257 236,257 1,290,000 4.44% 953,144 2,243,144 3,150,000 2,326,198 5,476,198 ' 9/1/2024 1,800,000 4.52% 1,195,207 2,995,207 145,000 4.52% 95,263 240,263 1,350,000 4.52% 895,868 2,245,868 3,295,000 2,186,338 5,481,338 9/1/2025 1,880,000 4.60% 1,113,847 2,993,847 150,000 4.60% 88,709 238,709 1,410,000 4.60% 834,848 2,244,848 3,440,000 2,037,404 5,477,404 9/1/2026 1,970,000 4.67% 1,027,367 2,997,367 155.000 4.67% 81,809 236,809 1,475,000 4.67% 769,988 2.244,988 3,600,000 1.879,164 5,479,164 90/2027 2,060,000 4.73% 935,368 2,995,368 165,000 4.73% 74,571 239,571 1,545,000 4.73% 701,106 2,246,106 3,770,000 1,711,044 5,481,044 9/1/2028 2,155,000 4.76% 837,930 2,992,930 170,000 4.76% 66,766 236,7661,615.000 4.76% 628,027 2.243,027 3,940,000 1,532,723 5,472.723 9/112029 2,260,000 4.78% 735,352 2,995,352 180,000 4.78% 58,674 238,674 1,695,000 4.78% 551,153 2,246,153 4,135,000 1,345,179 5,480,179 ' 9/1/2030 2,370,000 4.80% 627,324 2,997,324 190,000 4.80% 50,070 240,070 1,775,000 4.80% 470,132 2.245,132 4,335.000 1,147,526 5,482,526 9/1/2031 2,460,000 4.81% 513,564 2,993,564 200,000 4.81% 40,950 240,950 1,860,000 4.81% 384,932 2,244,932 4,540,000 939,446 5,479,446 9/1/2032 2,600,000 4.82% 394,276 2.994,276 205,000 4.82% 31,330 236,330 1.950,000 4.82% 295,466 2,245,466 4,755,000 721,072 5,476,072 ' 9/1/2033 2,725,000 4.82% 268,956 2,993,956 215,000 4.82% 21,449 236,449 2,040,000 4.82% 201,476 2,241,476 4,980,000 491,881 5,471,881 9/1/2034 2,855,000 4.82% 137,611 2,992,611 230,000 4,82%1 11,086 241,086 2,140,000 4.82% 103,148 2,243,148 5,225,000 251,845 5,476,845 Tota 48,790,000 40,315,829 89,105,829 3,895,000 3,209,580 7,104,580 36,555,000 30,209,380 66,764,380 89,240,000 73,734,789 162,974,789 City WLrlingame Facilities Mawr Pkin Study4— CCVsler 0,lDbrr200-f Page 24 lVV/ Attachment 7 MEASURE H PROJECTED IMPROVEMENTS Easton Watershed Recreation Center Upgrade Marsten Road pump station Upgrade building to seismic standards Install force main from pump station to Install fire sprinklers Bay Remedy electrical code deficiencies Improve catch basins and creek Make facility ADA accessible embankments Improve heating and ventilation system Burlingame/Ralston Watershed City Hall Install bypass from Burlingame Creek to Upgrade building to seismic standards Bay with floodgates Install fire sprinklers Install bypass from Ralston Creek to. Remedy asbestos contamination channel Make facility ADA accessible Sanchez/Terrace Watershed Police Station Increase box culvert size Improve heating and ventilation system Install debris basis upstream from Improve security Carolan Avenue Install emergency power Install new pump station-and force main Provide equal.access pipeline in vicinity of Carolan Make facility ADA accessible Avenue Improve catch basins and storm drainage Fire Stations in Laguna Avenue neighborhood Make facilities ADA accessible Provide equal access Mills Watershed Widen channels and raise Parks Yard embankments/headwalls Make facilities ADA accessible Raise or remove footbridge Provide equal access Add box culvert across Rollins Road El Portal/Trousdale Watershed Repair liner in El Portal and Gilbreth . Creeks and Trousdale channel Install corrosion protection system in drainage pipes Bayfront curb/gutter Rehabilitate storm drain systems and pump'stations s^ -fly `"* :, �i ✓;J" i § S +rP x Y � A