Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2000.05.04NOTICE BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MAY 49 2000 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM "A" AGENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2000 MEETING III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes) V. OLD BUSINESS A. CalTrans `Adopt -a -Highway' Program/Triangle Area Off Southbound 101 @ Broadway B. Shoreline Improvements Discussion VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Cancellation of June 1, 2000 Commission Meeting VII. REPORTS A. Park Superintendent B. Chairman C. Commissioners CITYCITY OF BURLINGAME BURLI 'GAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT r ORAT[D MEMORANDUM °'. May 1, 2000 TO: Beautification Commissioners FROM: Parks & Recreation Director Qr SUBJECT: Commission's Role In Waterfront Issues As per our discussion at the April meeting of your Commission, I have discussed the above subject with the Mayor, City Attorney, and the City Manager. Everyone has concurred that each Commissioner has the right to attend any or all public meetings regarding any issue at the bayfront--or anywhere else in Burlingame. You always have the right to comment in public meetings as an individual citizen. Please do note that you should never make statements in any public forum that appear to represent the Commission, the City Council or the City of Burlingame unless that position or �-' policy has been adopted by the City Council. Commission actions making recommendations to the City Council or City staff are only recommendations until acted upon by the City Council. Commission actions should not be presented as public policy unless adopted by the City Council. These same rules guide City Council Members or City staff members who must represent the majority wish of the Council when meeting with other groups. Your Commission is charged with several specific duties regarding public and private trees in Burlingame. You are also asked to make recommendations about matters that might help beautify the community. The Beautification Commission is not charged with land use planning or transportation (pathways) matters. While you are welcome as individuals to observe the activities of BCDC, San Mateo County, the City Planning and Public Works Departments, and other groups or individuals; any policy questions that you believe need to be addressed should be brought to this Commission and passed on to the City Council by a majority vote of the Commission. The City Council can then take action on your recommendation, decline to take any further action, or refer the matter back to the Commission or to others for further study. Only after the Council has taken action and given direction can City Council Members, Commissioners and City Staff represent the City's position appropriately. If you have any further questions about Commission responsibilities, I would be happy to discuss your questions or take them on to the appropriate person/s. CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: APRIL 27, 2000 TO: BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FROM: TIM RICHMOND, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT RE: SHORELINE CHARETTE Last week Director John Williams and I met with architect Jerry Winges on a matter unrelated to the Commission. At that meeting I mentioned that the Commission had discussed what it thought to be an impending charette focusing on the Burlingame bay front. In the course of the conversation Jerry told us that the Chamber of Commerce has no plans for a new bay front charette. The Chamber plans only to review the findings of the charette that was held several years ago. The focus of the Chamber review will be the Old Bayshore Highway commercial section. The Chamber would like that section to be more attractive as a gateway to Burlingame.. There are no current plans for a comprehensive review of the entire Burlingame bay front. ir 'Or ` �.� 7► A �{ r : t sY+y- �• ����� s� � :;,- 'r �� . '; � ; r ;�� ,,,,:,, ._.___ f +.fit-"' . .r„` . _:mm. Ts`c's .- "t, �� fig _ .. : l-..�..: x j � � ':,;f 'y , 9 ,-, ,. �-�::y-"r: � e 4/r j S -f C n, 1j c�( t'"'n o u 1 l .. s i G� _Ic�� J� . � �' SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557 - 3686 December 30, 1981 TO: All Commissioners and Alternates FROM: Michael B. Wilmar, Executive Director SUBJECT: REVISED PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR THE ANZA AREA, BURLINGAME (For Commission consideration on January 7, 1982) Sumary The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached public access guidelines. They have been revised slightly in response to Design Review Board and Commission comments as presented by the staff at the public hearing on December 17, 1981: (1) the first two sentences of Section "A" were revised so they are not so ponderous; (2) landscaping is required to be com- patible with the Bay edge environment; (3) a note was added to Section "B-7" stating that virtually all fill for public access will be pile -supported; and (4) a note was added to Exhibit "B" stating that no part of the restaurant is to be on fill and the building must be designed so it is not perceived as an obstacle to public access. The staff has not recommended changing the language in the guidelines concerning the possible bridge across Sanchez Creek Lagoon connecting Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard as was suggested by several Commissioners. The City of Burlingame believes that the guidelines must be adopted in their entirety (although the City is willing to consider changes in language). As the staff believes that effective implementation of the guidelines requires the cooperation of the City, and that the guidelines represent a reasonable compromise, the staff has not proposed any changes to this section. The guidelines allow the construction of a two lane, pile -supported bridge if the City can demonstrate such things as: 1. there are no upland. alternatives to handling the traffic; 2. public access is maximized by such measures as retaining and improving the eucalyptus grove next to Highway 101 for public access; and 3. environmental impacts are minimized including demonstrating that the on and off ramps will be safe and mitigation is provided for unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. -2- Under these limitations, the staff believes that the impacts of the bridge will be minimized and the public access benefits of the guidelines can be realized with the cooperation of the City. The staff believes these benefits outweigh any detriment to the Bay caused by the fill. Furthermore, the staff does not believe this sets a precedent that requires the Commission to approve fill for bridges whenever someone wants to develop an area that has limited accessibility without such fill. Those decisions would be made on the basis of, among other things, whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the detriments. Such a determination would involve so many different factors that the staff believes they could be easily distinguished from the situation in the Anza area. Procedure Formally, these guidelines could be adopted by a majority of those Commissioners present at the Commission meeting. However, because the guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for making permit decisions, the staff recommends that the Commission require a majority of the Commissioners to adopt them. Staff Reco=endation The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: ^ _ The Commission hereby adopts the attached guidelines to use in evaluating maximum feasible public access consistent with the project in making permit decisions in the Anza area. To achieve the implementation of these guidelines, the Commission directs the staff to continue working cooperatively with the City of Burlingame. In adopting these guidelines, the Commission finds that Section "G" should not be construed to establish a precedent for authorizing fill for traffic improvements desired because of traffic congestion or limited accessibility created or allowed by poor planning. Each such case will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to determine its consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. I PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR ANZA AREA, BURLINGAME I-,— A. Use of Guidelines These guidelines are intended to be general in nature and, therefore, it is expected that individual developments will vary somewhat from the specific numbers included in these guidelines. However, any reduction in the amount or widths of public access or other amenities should not be accepted unless there is a corresponding and offsetting improvement in public access to the Bay through some other aspect of the design not contemplated by these guidelines because of their general nature. Moreover, as these guidelines only establish the relationship of public access among the various parcels, they should not be considered as the maximum requirement. Individual permit applications must still be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine whether the public access proposed is the maximum feasible for that specific site and use. B. Generel 1. Public access should be continuous along the shoreline and paths and other improvements should be coordinated between developments. 2. Buildings and improvements should be designed to encourage use of the adjacent public access areas by the public. 3. Parking and service facilities should be integrated with any development they serve, located so as not to interfere with or detract from public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaped to minimize visual impacts. 4. Landscaping around buildings and in public access areas should be compatible with the Bay edge environment and similar to or compatible with the existing landscaping in the area. 5. The usable portion of the public access area, as measured from the top of the bank, should be a minimum of 40 feet wide. Where buildings taller than 40 feet are proposed, the minimum width of the usable public access area between the building itself and the top of the bank �- should be increased.to the height of the most prominent part of the building as viewed from the shoreline. 6. As used in these guidelines, "public access area" means available exclusively for public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaping consistent with such use. 7. With the possible exception of the pile -supported direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon (see Section 0), no other traffic Revised 12/30/81 -2- improvements to serve the Anza area involving Bay fill should be authorized. Minor fill to improve shoreline appearance or public access, however, may be authorized. Virtually all such fill will be pile -supported. C. Bay Proper 1. Development within each of the three blocks of the presently undeveloped lots along the shoreline of the Bay proper should be coordinated in terms of design, public access to and along the shoreline, view corridors, uses, and traffic circulation in a manner similar to that shown on Exhibits B and C. The height of development in the block of lots immediately west of Bayfront Channel should be only one and two or two and one-half stories to provide variety from the taller development along the rest of the shoreline and to conform to the height of existing development in that area. 2. Major public access areas should be provided next to Fisherman's Park, on both corners of the entrance to Bayfront Channel, and on the peninsula between the Bay proper and Anza Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. 3. Along the shoreline of the Bay proper, the public access area should average a minimum of 75 feet in width as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Any exceptions to the minimum widths of public access areas shall be allowed only if the design of the building and adjacent public access is such that the public is encouraged to make. greater use of the shoreline and other substantial public access areas are provided to offset the reduction in the minimum width, such as is shown on Exhibit B. D. Bavfront Channel 1. Major public access areas should be located at the corners of Bayfront Channel and the Bay proper and at the �-- corner of Bayfront Channel and Sanchez Creek Lagoon, as shown on Exhibit A. 2. Public access along both sides of the Channel should average a minimum of 65 feet in width. Where lots are narrow, the average can be calculated over more than one parcel if the public access on the other parcel has been guaranteed. 3. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be provided across Bayfront Channel where it meets the Bay. The existing bridge across Bayfront Channel at its intersection with Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be retained for public access. MZ E. Sanchez Creek Lagoon Area 1. A major public access area should be located at the corner of Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Bayfront Channel, as shown on Exhibit A. 2. A major public access area and view corridor should be provided on State Parcel One and include approximately 50 feet of each of the adjacent parcels between Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Airport Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A. Within the 50-foot-wide setback adjacent to State Parcel One, parking may be authorized on the 20 feet farthest from State Parcel One provided it is adequately screened by landscaping. 3. Public access should average 65 feet in width along the remainder of the entire shoreline of Sanchez Creek Lagoon as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Building heights along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should progress from a maximum of five stories above the elevation of existing curb grade at each end of the Lagoon to a maximum of two stories adjacent to State Parcel One at the center of the Lagoon. Taller buildings far from the shoreline at the eastern end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon are appropriate. 5. Development along the shoreline of the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be coordinated in terms of design, public access to and along the shoreline, view corridors, uses and traffic circulation. 6. Public access connections from Airport Boulevard to the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be provided every 200 to 400 feet to encourage public use and awareness of the access along the Lagoon. These areas should provide a direct physical and visual connection to the public access along the Lagoon, be landscaped, and be free of service or parking uses that can detract from the purpose of the connections. Adjacent buildings should be designed to complement the connection. 7. Development along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be designed and located. to avoid long expanses of building mass. Building masses should be varied, and separations between. buildings should be coordinated with separations in existing buildings in the -area, to reduce the visual impact of the development from Highway 101. --4 - F. Anza Lagoon The last vacant parcel with shoreline frontage only on Anza Lagoon may be developed with high density uses provided most of the shoreline band is devoted to public access and any tall buildings are sited away from the southern -most portion of the Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. G. Bridge Connection from Hichwav 101 Any direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not be authorized unless it has all n f the < following characteristicsC�MOLO-Ap— 1. There is no feasible upland alternative, ,3 Cu_-Zk � 2. Fill is minimized by use of a pile -supported bridge. structure in a location that minimizes the amount of fill with no more than two lanes and a pedestrian and bicycle pathway. 3. Maximum feasible public access is provided by such measures as: a. Retention and improvement of the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 for public access provided that improvements at the grove, such as parking, should minimize impacts to the grove and maximize public use of the grove and shoreline (these improvements need not be extensive as most use will likely be by fishermen and highway travelers); b. Linking the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 with public access around the rest of the Anza area and integrating such access with consistent development of the City's proposed park on the landfill site north of Sanchez Creek Lagoon, provided that public access connections to the marsh at the western end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not take place unless they are coordinated with the City's development of the park and only in a manner that protects the �-- marsh from intrusion; and c. Provision of inland public parking connected to public access around the rest of the Anza area. 4. The environmental impacts of the overcrossing should be minimized by: a. Locating any on or off traffic lanes near Highway 101 to preserve the trees in the eucalyptus grove and retain a large portion of the grove between the traffic lanes and Sanchez Creek Lagoon for public access; 1 -5 - b. Designing the on and off traffic lanes to be safe; C. Elevating the crossing sufficiently from the Lagoon surface to allow light to reach the water's surface; and d. Mitigating any unavoidable adverse impacts from the fill. 0 ii I 6, o z o cz� u i rt' .ttt' I oWW,� W z E<-• Lri CJ G; - G � C v�c:C Q C: �c> c < ��- zLa< c a t; 3 Iza c t + c "IN '"1 exhibit !� . l�%un; tilap 7�h?.rL k bd.�-}�lSior� I DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT (City Council Resolution No 9-80 adopted 2/19/80) 1. BUILDING HEIGHT a SO' maximum should be observed along Bayshore Highway and in the western half of the Anza area. a 65' maximum' my be ipproved with a special permit in the eastern half of the Anza area. 30" maximum i ■ ■ 6Srmaximum APPENDIX 8 - 'the minimm setback should also be not less than half the apparent width ('AM') of the- building from the adjacent street. building height is defined as the vertical distance between curb grade and parapet line. Building height shall apply to not less than 95% of the total roof surface. the remaining 5% (possible elevator penthouse. etc.) may project not more than 10' above the parapet line. 2. LOT COVERAGE a 30-3S% maximum should be observed for all buildings 50' or less in height. a 20-25% maximum should be observed for all buildings over 50' in height. 3. SETBACKS FROM STREETS - the minimum setback should be not less than the building height. A SS' maximum allows S story office development. equivalent to the existing buildings at 433/533 Airport Boulevard. $ AN 'AW' h 1f Awj i - .in all cases.'i 30' minimm setback shall be observed to any portion of the building. 4.. ViEW CORRIDORS AND VISUAL ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE buildings located close to a street (at a distance half its apparent width) should not obstruct more than 40% of the frontage. • buildings located at a distance greater than their apparent width should not obstruct more than 60% of the frontage. ram, '� AW rtiuKMum'ai' io7. FKa>"n�6E. faa�n�e AA%1 I M •Avi' 6 9. tr.NuK.E MI + N ■ C CJ O V q V S ?( Y> N q 1 L pLp i N Y W w V Y V M O p 8 Li N • 7 C N 4 O •.V• G C d t m rJ r yy c 5 0 • Y 0 q V = �7Y � _ > L O . A Y 0 q N M YN i M 4 � Csy Lp N Y L pp Y L N q S Y - 0 q N •,•• pp col N y y V Y Q. O. q N C C M N q Y N 0 V JL Jit ^ Y q w O V CI 7 L v q L N M 0 Y Cy�J L �. C NppN V N O Y= i d C C «93 "8 Y Yq g Sg'o o' 2T O C e y L C S V C Y q aOr E L q O Y •0 Y LN• O N .0 Y 0 N 7 ^ N Y a's W w- u Y 4o u C x TACD c L O = - W r0 0 40 o L. ^ o M in ' _� S Y O• EE p 0C O Y Y 0 N 4 ' V q Y > L.2 ` Y • a on > M t N 4 p 7 w O O CY Y N Y C Y 01 ytlj N yy� C 7 C w r V • •rCp. V M > 0 Y `` S. M Y b �0 N 4 �. N Y Y/ Y Y i 1••• N V C p C C Y O r V V w C w COO �Nff 4 > !' C L Y a O Y `06 O. L q O L O •r. Y cpL q Q N A I O N 01 L C O O E. •� . ^i O iY 0 S L b. N M G Y Of O.N w ~ A HOIS Y 7 L i O M N M O M V L O • a �o • " o i v w O 1 .0 q � O• d Y Y� M .0., �O r «i Y • M O L G .� w M q G' M.�pp. C r YYpp V Y CC P C 4 N N N C ` 7 •'i Y N O i[ 0 VN ~ C L y O CA^ Y - NC� O•• V O G w a V ���0111 vyy Y P OTC6 C p «N 1 V i 9 0 M q 41 CI U 0 4 C C. CI • Y w�• x 10 X c C O Y J( N' 0 M tt M IV q N O N V M pp {�JJ L70 •_•. 7« ^ C Y Mr V O' N C N • N Y Z O C M •ZW.. !y • N O L Ji N N V� 6 q NY�pp� C+M N LN E Y pW[ O r. L N OG M O� Q Y •^f �L• 'JM N L O.L W Y L. 0 SS N C g01 d�1 V C OL O i .rC V CC Op 3 M0C CL ^ O C w M VN N O ~ O O V•Y•N L. Y 7Y MY Cam_ O. Y Yq L. •�. O 7 .20 to N C M T ~ d q 0 M Nt Y M c i N V S Q �• N 'N O Y M yq4 O O H Y O w •.r V OC M Y v u w N O p ~ L 00 `'q M O L N > 7 0 Y w q G• rY MS OM P 0 C + CC � Y M w> N g~ C w' 0 YY�• M JP •� /� O •YA Jt i C YO Y Y ^Y YY• Y V M C E �.. '� Y � V V' L/ 6'f ` O N> y Y •.V.Y C N L ' w x C M • q Y L^ ` O Y L> Y�� L w S: H 1 J 1 8'' .yLY.1Poj N a,•O p �o Yce J C[ t! APPENDIX A 1 are achieved. Additions shall only require the payment for the added area. Changes of use of existing buildings to a use requiring a higher charge shall require the payment of the difference between the charges. •section d. refs. (See Ordinance 1305 for revisions) Fats are hereby established for all property within the Bayfront Area of Benefits owhalf of Said rots shall be deposited with submittal of project assessment and one-half shall be paid prior to the approval of final foaming of the buildings or additions subject to this ordinance. Any project which has submitted a project assessment prior to the effective date of this ordinance but has not received a building permit shall pay the Initial one- half of the (to at the time of obtaining the building permit. Sold rots shall be io the following amounts and shall be prorated for portions of an acro: Land Utes Charge Office Uses S77S/thousand Square Feet of Building Restaurant Uses S2.32S/Thousand Squart Feet of Building Hotel Uses S16S/per Room Office Warehouse Uses S420/Thousand Square Feet of Building Car Rental uses S5400/ptr Acre Commerical Recreation Uses Se0SO/per Acre Uses not Identified or not reasonably within the above classifications Shall pay such charge as may be determined by the Director of Public Worts. Subject to an appeal to the City Council. Combined tests shall pay fees for the area of each via. Fees shall be annually reviewed and adjusted to reflect the increase or decrease in the latest Engineering News Record Highway Construction Cost Index. as of July 1. IF a project does not proceed to construction for reasons determined by the Council to be beyond the control of the applicant and loses its traffic allocation. the portion of the bayfront development fee on deposit may be returned to the applicant. ►lanning and' environmental fees will not be returned.' Section S. Use of Funds All charges collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the Bayfront Benefit Area Fund. Payments from said fund shall be limited to costs related to construction design and right-of-way acquisition for the*improvements set forth in the above -referenced report of the Director of Public Works or*for the reimbursement pursuant to agreement of a property owner required to construct a portion of said improvements, the construction costs of which exceed'the charges which would otherwise be required of said developer. Additionally, said funds may be used to reimburse City for any city funds advanced for either construction or developer reim- bursement purposes in conneepion with the completion of said work if said city funds exceed more than 60 per cent of actual costs of the improvements. Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. • a .._.- -Mlmt -W."— W._., imamw M+«�*ee�er wromr OWNS!' @Maws wmlwP w.enec 0--+ ..w- /no-' mmomw downer, 00.0. M....-