HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.07.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersWednesday, July 11, 2018
General Plan Study Session
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner and Planning Manager Ruben Hurin.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Terrones, and TsePresent5 -
Kelly, and GaulAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Overview
Staff Report
Exhibits A and B: Comments Logs
Draft General Plan - August 2017
Draft EIR - June 2018
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the consultant team: Dan Amsden, Laura Stetson,
and Lillian Jacobsen of MIG.
Dan Amsden and Laura Stetson made a presentation to the commission.
Commission questions/comments:
>In the General Plan list of figures in the Table of Contents the figures noted under Community
Character (CC-63, CC-64, CC-65) are mislabled.
>CC-17 "Badlands" should be "Baylands."
>CC-46 discusses Broadway mix of uses but the diagram shows downtown. Should show the Broadway
diagram.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>EIR inconsistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan and 2017 Scoping Plan is noted, with updated Climate
Action Plan underway. Does the Significant Unavoidable Impact need to go to Council? (Stetson: It is a
process issue. The Climate Action Plan is not finished but it will be finished by the time the plan goes to
public hearing. The mitigation is to do a Climate Action Plan, so the impacts will no longer be significant
and unavoidable.)
>EIR page 210 indicates two alternatives, not three. (Stetson: That is a typo.)
>Recalled in previous discussions that environmental justice is an emerging element. Where is it
referenced? (Stetson: The Legislature has passed legislation to require General Plans to address
environmental justice. If there were census tracts that were identified as disadvantaged it would need to be
addressed, but Burlingame does not have any of those ares that would be considered impacted due to
income or exposure to environmental hazards. As such there is not an explicit addressing of
environmental justice in terms of complying with State Law, unless the Commission or Council sees an
issue that requires policy to be to be addressed.) It is addressed under Community Character in the plan,
so is there something that should clarify in the EIR why it is not included? (Amsden: It is a clarification
that can be made in the Final EIR.)
>The amount of land designated for Institutional development is being reduced because of
redesignation. What does that mean? Particularly since the Existing Land Use Map does not have an
Institutional designation. (Jacobsen: It relates to whether the Mercy property should be designated as
Institutional or Residential. Ultimately it was decided to designate it Residential, which would provide them
with more flexibility. The base line is what is on the ground, not what is shown in the previous General
Plan.)
>Would Institutional uses be allowed in those neighborhoods with a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner:
Yes. There were discussions whether or not to designate an Institutional use with the underlying land use .
The decision was made to retain the underlying land use to allow more flexibility in the future.)
>Table 12-81 on page 12-8 mentions Policy CC-3.1 - comprehensive historic surveys should indicate
policy CC-3.2. (Stetson: Will fix that.)
>Page 17-7 Burlingame School District should be abbreviated as "BSD" not "BUSD."
>Regarding wastewater collection and treatment, are the cumulative effects of growth in the Town of
Hillsborough included? (Stetson: Will need to check. Does not anticipate Hillsborough will have significant
growth.)
>Page 21-11 of the EIR mentions noise impact on Broadway between El Camino Real and Bernal
Avenue, and attributes it to new residential units in the hillside neighborhood west of the road segment. Is
that really the reason, the right description? Or is it better described as hillside residents accessing
Broadway and the Broadway interchange? (Stetson: Correct, it is the latter. It is due to regional traffic.)
>Does Policy CC-3.1 indeed require historic resource evaluation of any project that significantly alters a
building that is more than 50 years old? Is it really intended to be that broad? (Stetson: CC-3.1 addresses
the City initiating surveys for historic districts to get a baseline for evaluating projects rather than
continuing to do things on a case by case basis. The aim is to have a more rigorous assessment of
projects for buildings that have been designated as potentially significant.)
> If the requirement is to evaluate every building over 50 years old that would significantly effect
everything that is done in the city. It would be a waste of money and time. (Stetson: The commission can
provide guidance on this if it is not clear or providing the desired direction. Can tie the two historic
measures together.)
>How would traffic be reduced through the bicycle network? (Stetson: The idea is to make it easier for
people to do a mode shift. If someone is hesitant to ride a bike, the bicycle master plan and the
associated improvements to the network might encourage them to make more trips on bikes.)
>What would be the potential impact to circulation with shifting to more bikes? (Ollie Zhou, Hexagon
Transportation Consultants: The traffic model analysis assumes bike mode share would remain 2 percent
of the total. Traffic is projected to increase overall, and the bike share would increase proportionally and
remain at 2 percent.)(Stetson: The potential could be greater, but the analysis is conservative.)
>Not clear what the Rollins /Road mixed use live/work zone would be comprised of, and how successful
it has been in other areas? (Stetson: There are emerging examples of live /work. The district would not
need to be fully mixed use buildings, but the district itself could have a mix of uses. For example a small
office or commercial building with a residential building adjacent. Or it could be where there is a work
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
space on the ground floor and a residence above, with the same owner of tenant using both. It has been
shown to work in urban areas .)(Amsden: The proximity to the BART station would allow the area to
become more urbanized, with a live/work mix. There could be either horizontal or vertical mixed use.)
>Would it just be a change to the land use designation in Rollins Road, but it would be up to the land
owner to make the application for the development project? Or would the City do anything to encourage
that change? (Stetson: It is up to the property owner. The City could be proactive in education if it wanted
to move it along, but could not force anything. An example is the "funk zone" in Santa Barbara, which is
an older industrial district that is changing fairly quickly. There is re -use of industrial buildings, as well as
new buildings. There are wineries, restaurants, and maker spaces mixed in with residential uses .)
(Amsden: Fourth Street in Berkeley, and the west side of Santa Cruz are other examples.)
>Could a use such as an artist studios, cabinet shop, and furniture shop go into one of the spaces, but
also have an apartment associated with it? (Gardiner: The approach would acknowledge the existing
industrial uses and allow those uses to stay if the property owners choose. However multiple uses could
coexist, so the environment would be different than a more conventional residential neighborhood which
would expect industrial uses to be phased out. In this instance the expectation is the residential and
live/work uses understand they are moving into an area with eclectic mix of uses. It could evolve over time
organically, or could be more defined though the zoning and possibly a specific plan.)
>The San Francisco design area is slowly seeing tenants being pushed out by new housing and
commercial buildings. If there was a design center like that here, there would be a number of gallery
spaces and design spaces to support the showrooms. Would the FAR be sufficient to support that type of
development? (Stetson: The FAR may not be as high as in San Francisco, but we can re -evaluate it to
make sure it could accommodate the concept.)
>Ferry service is mentioned. Is it being considered as a transportation option for the Bayfront?
(Stetson: It is not excluding the possibility, but because of the dredging that would be considered it would
be a fairly complex undertaking. It could be considered in the future but the implementation would be a
challenge.)
>Rollins Road has high -power lines requiring development to stay away from power lines. How far does
development need to be from the power lines to accommodate housing? (Stetson: Can bring a more
detailed response back in the public hearing.)
>Could the threshold for historic review be 100 years, not 50? There were so many homes built in the
1950s and 1920s. (Gardiner: There is the CEQA threshold, versus a city policy threshold. A 100-year
threshold would be a city policy choice .)(Stetson: 50 years is a standard threshold used throughout the
country.)
>Would be difficult to have a 50-year historic evaluation threshold since most homes in Burlingame are
more that 50 years old. (Stetson: Some communities have begun designating mid -century homes such as
Eichlers as representative of certain eras. While 50 years is a standard practice, a community could
decide to have a two -tiered system.)(Gardiner: The framework in the plan intentionally emphasizes historic
preservation. This was the direction of the Community Advisory Committee, to have a higher, more
rigorous level of evaluation than exists currently.)
>There is a difference between historic and nostalgic. Believes it would be hard to make the case that
many of the buildings that are more than 50 years old are actually historic. In the Burlingame Park
neighborhood, most of the evaluations have come back as not being eligible. If this practice is applied
citywide, it would have an impact that would unnecessarily constrain the city.
>Believes the intent is have a more comprehensive analysis of the city. Right now there is a limbo that
there was an historical evaluation survey of Downtown, and then Burlingame Park has a status where each
individual project has to prepare its own evaluation. The goal here would be to have a more comprehensive
evaluation, sponsored by the City, which would remove the burden from the individual property owner.
>Earlier the modest 2 bedroom/1 bath houses were the ones being torn down and replaced, but those
are all gone now. Now those being torn down include some very nice houses. The potential tear -downs now
include more substantial houses that could be potentially historic, but there is no recourse to ask for
something other than allowing it to be torn down, or to consider incentives for the homeowner to preserve
and add on instead and do something through the Mills Act.
>Even the properties that have been determined to have historic merit have been allowed to do
substantial projects, while maintaining their historic nature. Historic designation does not mean that
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
something cannot be done to a house.
>Would prefer to look at the historic issue more holistically. Concern with the existing practice of
individual evaluations; does not feel like there is a lot of return, and it is a burden. Only a handful end up
being deemed significant.
>The focus should be on the character.
>Has anyone looked at the typical lot sizes of lots in Rollins Road for the types of projects being
intended? Should make sure the FAR being proposed is going to work for the types of projects
envisioned. (Stetson: There is no typical lot size in the area, but the FAR would likely apply only to the
non-residential development.)
>Given the water table in the area, underground parking may be difficult in the Rollins Road area. Not
convinced 1.0 FAR will be sufficient to encourage change.
Public Comments:
>Florence Wong: Is on the School Board for the Burlingame School District. Demographers project for
every 100 new single family units there will be 20 more students, with 7% middle school students. If by
2040 there would be 3,000 new housing units, that would be 600 new students. Even with the new school
recently added, all elementary schools are at capacity except for Franklin. BIS already has 1,100
students. Is not opposed to adding housing units, but in the future will need some help from the city to
identify land for a new school, a big school. There are rules for where schools can be located, minimum
distance from highways. Could not build a school in the North Rollins area. Needs to be able to have the
funding and be able to identify land for future schools.
>Kamran Ehsanipour: Owns land at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. Property was originally
zoned R-3, and surrounding area is R -3. Property was used as a commercial use as a grandfathered use .
In 1984 the zoning changed to C -1. At that time mixed use was allowed in C -1, but not allowed now .
Wants to be able to develop mixed use. Mixed use can add to quality of life and beauty to city. Opinion is
C-1 should be considered to allow mixed use. Would like the North Burlingame Mixed Use designation for
this property.
>Cynthia Cornell, Housing for All Burlingame: Concerned with 3,000 units. Burlingame Point will bring
4,000 new jobs. The old Hyatt movie theater redevelopment would add more jobs, as well as possibly two
new hotels and Top Golf. Jobs will be low income. Burlingame continues to develop commercial properties
without housing. Needs to consider where people will live in the future, and will need another school .
Renters are at risk of losing their housing once Burlingame Point opens.
>Jennifer Pfaff: Concern with not having a height limit on the northern end, concerned how the city
intends to handle design. How to get good design with overreach from the State, which does not allow
design standards to be imposed on projects? Not understanding how the two pieces will go together .
Historic preservation was a concern of the Community Advisory Committee given how much is being torn
down and the character changing; Burlingame Park was treated in a certain way from its characteristics .
Different areas of the city are treated in different ways, which is not equitable. There are older areas of the
city besides Burlingame Park, but they are not being treated the same. In Burlingame Park while most of
the surveys have shown the building to not have significance, there were more than a couple that were
designated as special. There were also some that were considered contributors to a district, but we do not
consider districts. Would like to look at what other cities do; some of it is legal. Should be equitable but
not be a nuisance to owners and developers.
>Tim Donnelly: Impressed with the plan: it is comprehensive and well thought out. A lot of effort has
gone into it. Don't let it get watered down.
>Leslie McQuaide: Has lived in Burlingame for 41 years, and was on the Community Advisory
Committee. Has fear of the city losing its character. People redevelop houses but then move on .
Concerned with traffic; there is a line of cars on Broadway heading to the freeway. Needs another way to
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2018
July 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
get to the freeway. Rollins Road will add more traffic. SFGate had an article quality of life, with South San
Francisco and San Carlos featured as being concerned with changing quality of life.
Community Development Director Gardiner noted that there will be meetings in the future to provide further
input and discussion.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2018