HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1978.10.24 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
October 24 , 1978
CALL TO ORDER
A study meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the
above date in the City Hall Council Chambers . Meeting was called
to order at 7 :45 P.M. by Mayor Crosby. All Council members were
present as well as representatives of Planning Commission and
Traffic , Safety, and Parking Commission.
BURLINGAME BAYFRONT ALTERNATIVES
Mayor Crosby announced the purpose of this meeting as the joint
review by Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic , Safety and
Parking Commission of consultants ' reports- on the Bayfront Plan -
John Blayney Associates with the Proposed Waterfront Element,
and J. D. Drachman Associates with Phase III of the Traffic
Study.
At the request of Mayor Crosby, Director of Public Works
addressed the meeting . He emphasized the importance of making
a definite policy decision on a specific plan so that steps may
be taken in the matters of getting permits from various agencies ,
implementing a General Plan amendment, rezoning, and a prelim-
inary approach to the State for necessary freeway changes .
Assistant City Planner reviewed past Council discussion of the
land use alternatives presented in Blayney Associates ' second
report, and the decision to request a third report based on a
land use pattern which includes residential . He emphasized de-
sirability of Council review of this last report before ex-
pensive and time-consuming steps are taken such as the prepar-
ation of a detailed EIR.
The Assistant City Planner discussed his staff report of October
24, 1978 on "Burlingame Bayfront Alternatives" and suggested for
Council consideration the following issues therein:
1 . Preferred Bayfront land uses .
2 . Locations for each use .
3 . Flexibility for future development .
4 . Balance and timing of development .
5 . Other projects .
6 . Preferred residential qualities .
He detailed these issues and raised appropriate questions for
Council discussion. He projected a time frame which extends to
June, 1979 for the completion of EIR process, General Plan
amendment and zoning ordinance changes ; and suggested for ex-
pediency a public meeting in November for community input on
land uses . He then presented Mr. John Blayney.
- 2
Prefacing his presentation, Mr. Blayney presented report on re-
vised fiscal impacts to the City of the plan, which included
updated figures on sales tax. He stated that because of Prop-
osition 13 ". . .comparison of tax revenue produced by alternate
land use patterns within the city no longer is a meaningful
element in the cost-revenue analysis of the Waterfront Element
plan. "
Mr. Blayney emphasized that the major decision for the City is
residential use in this area . He touched briefly on schools,
noting the plan is designed for families without children. He
spoke of 30 acres as a minimum area for a good residential
"feeling", and stated the density average of 32 units per acre
is developed by townhouses at 20 units per acre and some high-
rises at 50 units per acre . He estimated this residential
development would cause about an 8% increases to the City 's
population.
Mr. Blayney added he thought residential would add to the
quality of what is going to be a hard, glassy, basically com-
mercial environment .
Addressing the cost of capital improvements, he stated biggest
cost would be traffic improvement . He suggested, however, there
would be very little difference in the capital improvement costs
with or without residential since improvements will be required
whatever the use . He counseled the City to get agreements as to
how public improvements are to be financed before private de-
velopment is authorized.
He touched briefly on the other areas of the plan including north
of Broadway, Millbrae cl.ty limits to Broadway on the Bayfront,
and others, noting there was little to be determined on these so
that the issues are concentrated on the Anza property. Also
within that area some uses are dictated by the conditions of the
State lease .
He defined the biggest negative impact on residential as the
noise from Bayshore Freeway, and suggested such mitigation as
fixed windows on the freeway side since State leases make it im-
possible to move residential from its proposed site . He noted
necessity for firm standards of noise mitigation before lending
agencies will approve development .
In response to Council questions, Mr . Blayney commented people
like to live near the water and residential provides a better
ratio of green for patrons of restaurants and hotels in this area.
The relationship between highrise and low rise will be the res-
idential problem, particularly with site distance to the Bay re-
quired from both the inner and outer lagoon. The drive-in movie
site would be the only other area possible for residential . He
made comparisons of other areas in California where residential
`, and commercial have been mixed compatibly, noting controls ove-r
- 3 -
commercial development must be strong and buffering must be
developed between the two uses.
In response to Planning Chairman Ruth Jacobs, Mr. Blayney
agreed the major problem facing residential would be noise
and design should be largely interfacing buildings . Fine
waterfront development would be possible with upgraded
design.
Traffic, Parking, Safety Chairman Victor Subbotin stated
that existing improvements inadequately support the ultimate
proposal, proposed improvements marginally support it, and
traffic improvements will probably support it unacceptably.
He did not personally believe that residential development
is appropriate since it would divide the community into
specific areas .
Richard P. Foley, Traffic , Safety & Parking Commissioner,
stated that Commission's concern with the possibility that
development of this area would also adversely affect traffic
on the west - or town - side of the freeway.
Planning Commissioner Charles Mink was concerned that plans
should provide adequately for public access to the Bay. He
found design criteria (page 17 of the report) too vague, and
the whole report too "soft" as to specific purpose and develop-
ment as an outcome .
Councilwoman Barton asked for comparison of fiscal impact of
plan incorporating residential and plan without them. Mr.
Blayney explained that residential would result in a quick
buildout of the area by 1985-90 with revenues from auto
licenses, gas tax subventions, cigarette tax, etc . In con-
trast, the other plan would not be able to fill out the area
with high sales tax generators in a short time, possibly not
until after the year 2000. Of course, after 1990, there would
be more income derived from hotels, motels and the like but
the City would have been paying for the cost of services for
all those years .
Mr . Blayney, in response to Commissioner Mink's comments ,
agreed that report language was soft and said that the City
should definitely upgrade its design standard. However, he
did not think that residential development need impede water
access, and considered dedication of access should be the same
as commercial . In respponse to questions from Councilman
Amstrup regarding the 25 ' strip along the Bay, he considered
a policy statement by the City and policing would insure com-
pliance . As to safety from people using this access, he
stated security could be provided in the design of the condo-
miniums .
- 4 -
Mayor Crosby questioned how people could be informed of the
public easement aspects of condominium purchase . Mr. Blayney
suggested policy of a real estate report on sales of property.
RECESS
There was a short recess at 9 :05 after which the meeting re-
convened .
Councilman Amstrup questioned arrangement with Sheraton re-
garding trade of land for the addition to that hotel . Staff
informed him that this study area permit expired in March,. 1979
Mayor Crosby requested report from J. D. Drachman, traffic
consultant . Mr. Drachman reviewed existing and proposed
traffic conditions . His particular emphasis was on the widen-
ing of Airport Boulevard, and improvement of Broadway inter-
change.
Mr. Drachman detailed methods of measuring acceptable levels
of freeway service . He emphasized that access must predate
construction in this area, and that the City must unify on a
definite plan to be presented to the State to institute freeway
improvements . He added that the "tenuous relationship" between
cities and the State is such that only the more forceful cities
in the State that show a firm intent are the ones that have a
chance of getting freeway improvements .
Director of Public Works stated the improvements at the Broadway
Overpass entailed the State offramp and the signalization at
Airport Boulevard, which latter is a condition of the Sheraton
variance . He thought that the commitment of this Council to
adopt either the General Plan as shown here or an alternate is
a commitment to the State that the City would proceed.
Mr. Drachman again emphasized the importance of plan adoption
and suggested the possibility of the City's adopting a plan on
the basis of a circulation element.
Chairman Jacobs questioned the cost of traffic improvements to
the City. Director of Public Works estimated $420,000 to
widen Airport Boulevard. He stated the cost of on and off ramp
and the 'Y" at the lagoon depended on several things - how much
the City could get the State to contribute and how to cross the
lagoon - and it could be anywhere from $500,000 to $850,000.
He did not recall the cost of the Peninsula interchange, but
stated the City would have to contribute along with the City
and County of San Mateo.
Again he emphasized that state of readiness is very important
in getting environmental and legislative agency permits .
0
5
Council after further discussion decided there should be
public input on the inclusion of residential in this plan,
with a definite decision as soon as possible. To this
end, the meeting was continued to the night of Wednesday,
November 8, with Planning Commission and Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission also invited to attend. Newspaper
representatives present were requested to give this matter
publicity.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. to the meeting of November
8, 1978.
Notes: B. Geralds