Loading...
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