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....-