HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1993.02.10506
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING
Wednesday, February 10, 1993, 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
Mayor Bud Harrison convened the study session of the Burlingame City Council on the
above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7'.32 p.m.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS HARRISON, KMGHT' LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO
STAFFPRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, MONROE
REPORT FROM COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO STUDY REGULATION OF RESI-
DENTIAL MASS/BULK
Mayor Harrison welcomed the large standing-room-only audience. He briefly reviewed the
history of the appointment in October of a committee to review six different items concerning
regulation of residential mass. He noted that the group which mailed notices to all residents
conceming tonighfs meeting is a different group than the Burlingame Homeowners' which
was formed approximately a year ago. He asked Mike Nilmeyer, the chairman, to begin his
presentation.
Mike indicated different members of the committee would make presentations on each of the
six items outlined in the study. The committee included Mike Nilmeyer, Bob Blunk, Jerry
Winges, John Simmons-Wellford, Bemard Transano, Thomas Gilman, Wayne Gehrke, and
Tom Byme. Mike Nilmeyer began with reviewing slides on the city's existing regulations
conceming lot coverage, setbacks, and declining height. Bob Blunk reviewed the FAR
section of the report. He noted that the committee had reviewed ordinances in other cities
which use FAR. From these, they had identified a simple formula approach which would
facilitate administration of such a regulation. The formula approach proposed for council
consideration is one which would use .32 FAR plus 1,000 square feet for interior lots, and
.32 plus 700 feet for corner lots. It was suggested that a maximum size house of 8,000
square feet be considered. John Wellford reviewed the section conceming garages and the
pros and cons of detached garages and attached garages as well as their effect on the
hardscape at the front of a lot. Tandem garages and stepped double garages as a way to
address reduction of mass were also reviewed. Tom Byrne discussed the report on rear
setbacks reviewing a fixed rear setback versus a variable setback. Jerry Winges reviewed the
slides concerning how to soften the mass of development on corner lots where two sides of
the building are prominent at one time. The committee has suggested a slightly smaller FAR
be considered for corner lots and a bigger second story setback on the street sides also be
considered. Tom Gilman outlined the proposal conceming a design review board and the
concept that if a project exceeded the FAR guidelines a design review procedure would be
used. Wayne Gehrke outlined the six guidelines proposed for design guidelines including
respecting existing neighborhood patterns, minimizing bulky appearances, respect view
access, respect privacy, design to retain solar access, and recognize that comer lots are
visually prominent. Mike Nilmeyer gave a summary report and indicated that the purpose of
the report was to provide alternatives for council consideration.
Council followed up the presentation with questions on various aspects of the report. It was
noted that currently 55% of the existing lots in Burlingame are 6,000 square feet. Council-
woman Knight thanked the committee and requested that copies of the committee's report be
made available to the public. Councilman Pagliaro asked if the committee had discussed
applying declining height to all four sides of a building. He noted that the diagrams show a
40% maximum lot covenge on the first floor which limits the amount of square footage left
for the second floor. He asked how the committee arrived at the .32 FAR. Committee
responded that .32 represents the slope of the graph line of the existing residential buildings,
by using .32 they were trying to develop a line which would encompass the majority of the
existing built environment by matching the slope of the line. The size is adjusted by adding
square footage to the .32.
507
Councilman I€mbi questioned whether there were floor plans available urider the proposed
FAR to indicate what kind of house--i.e., 3 bedroom/2 bath/family room-could be built
within the FAR proposed. He felt there was a difference between new construction and
additions tb existing homes and we had to look at how to handle second floor additions. He
indicated that his home was approximately 2,200 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot, but
it is too small. He liked the proposals conceming garages but was concemed that the
stepped double car garage approach would increase the cost of construction. He also asked
whether design review would be for the whole project or only the portion over the square
footage limits. Committee indicated that their concept was if the project exceeded the FAR,
the whole project would be reviewed.
Mayor Harrison questioned how subjective a design review board is. Councilwoman
O'Mahony was also concemed about the subjective nature of design guidelines. The
committee pointed out that guidelines are not rules. She was also concerned with the cost of
the various second story setbacks and that the proposed FAR would leave a very small
second story if built to the maximum 40% on the first floor. Councilwoman Knight stated
that our current regulations allow too much to be built. We needed to review the informa-
tion from the committee and take action. She was concemed with design review and asked
whether the planning commission can act in this capacity. Councilman I-embi noted that we
needed to carefully review any additional regulations and that we should look at a larger
room and handouts for the public at the next meeting.
Mayor Harrison called for a break at 9:45 p.m. Council reconvened at 10 o'clock.
Councilman Pagliaro stated he needed additional time to review this proposal. Mayor then
opened the floor to public comments.
Gloria Barton stated that there are two basic questions being asked: Is FAR going to hurt
property values, and are houses too big? She lives on a 6,000 square foot lot and could
almost double the size of her existing house under the proposal by the committee. The
notice mailed out by various realtors regarding the threat to property values caused by
instituting an FAR has many people worried.
Other residents noted that more restrictions add cost and people are building for their needs,
and they were against additional regulations. Another also against the FAR proposed feeling
it would generate another level of bureaucracy. A Mills Estate resident questioned the effect
of this proposal on the curent hillside ordinance. Tim Auran stated that he represented
approximately 30 homeowners who had sent out the notice conceming tonight's meeting. He
was concemed about the effect of the proposals on property values. He also felt the city
should do additional study on the curent built environment because it is different than it was
in the 1960s.
Another resident thought that these regulations did not fit the needs of the city and would
cause hardship. Richard Ames asked if under the existing ordinance he could rebuild his
existing nonconforming home if it was destroyed. City Planner noted that our current code
allows this. He felt that we needed a design review board but we should not enact additional
regulations. A resident who has his business in his home noted that he had purchased in
Burlingame rather than San Mateo because the city did not have the same regulations as San
Mateo. He felt that as a real estate appraiser an FAR would decrease property values; and if
this passed, his home would be limited and he would not be able to remodel his house.
Council discussed continuing this item to the March 17 study session and continuing some of
the items on that agenda to a future date. Councilman lrmbi requested that additional
examples of floor plans of what floor plans and room sizes were possible with the proposed
FAR be provided for that meeting. He felt strongly the need to protect property rights. We
need to be fair in how we address the needs of our rbsidents. Councilman Pagliaro asked for
examples of residential designs with the FAR as proposed on 5,000 and 8,000 square foot
lots. He was also concerned that the committee was donating a great deal of time to this
effort. The city should cover the cost of preparing the materials for the next meeting. The
Council concurred.
508
Mr. McNamara indicated that he had been trying to study the effect of FAR on property
values. While it is difficult, some sample data showed that property values in Burlingame
were down more than in San Mateo where they had FAR. Councilman Lembi indicated the
comparison was poor because of the size of the homes for sale in each of these markets. San
Mateo's market has more lower-valued single-family homes which moved faster last year.
The Mayor directed this item be placed on the study session agenda for March 17. He
suggested that city try to obtain a larger hall at Burlingame High School for this meeting.
NTR
City Manager briefly reviewed the staff material. Councilman Pagliaro stated he felt our
current ordinance was inadequate in tight of the recent studies on the effects of second-hand
smoke done by the EPA. He would propose a simple ordinance which would ban smoking
in all enclosed areas except private homes. He thought we should be 100% non-smoking and
that other cities such as San Mateo and Belmont are also considering revising their ordinanc-
es. He thought that Burlingame should be a leader in this area. Councilwoman Knight
stated that she agreed with Councilman Pagliaro's proposal. She thought it was a definite
health and safety issue and that with inadequate regulation, thele may be possible liability
under the federal ADA act. She stated that counties cannot regulate for cities and that the
state had been ineffective because of the tobacco lobby. She has reviewed some material
which stated that intemational travelers coming to this country are restricted by the airlines
from in-flight smoking. She supported a 100% smoking ban.
Councilman IJmbi stated he could support a ban on smoking in the work place and restau-
rants but would favor exempting bars and wanted to draw the line with hotels. He felt it was
important not to restrict our hotels or cause economic hardship. He thought hotels should
have smoking in private conference rooms and lobbies. He suggested the city might want to
consider a 6-month ban in restaurants and hotels, but we should review the whole impact of
any revised ordinance in six months to a year.
Mayor Harrison stated that he thought that govemment is regulating too much, and at this
time, he was not in support of any chalrge to our existing ordinance. Councilwoman
O'Mahony agreed with Mayor Harrison and stated the we have too many laws. She would
agree with a compromise that Councilmen Lembi and Pagliaro could propose. Mayor then
asked Dan McHale of the Chamber of Commerce to review the deliberations of his group.
Dan McHale stated that the customers of various businesses are requiring a stricter non-
smoking control than the cuffent Burlingame ordinance and indicated he would like to have
the chamber work with the city to draft a workable, revised ordinance. A representative of
the Califomia Restaurant Association stated that her group favored state-wide regulation. A
city ordinance would cause an economic hardship. If the city enacts any stricter ordinance, it
should do something positive for the restaurant business.
Roxy Stone indicated that the Hyatt opposed any additional smoking ban. She had sampled
1992 actual business and felt that for a one month pedod, over $600,000 in revenue would
have been lost if we had additional regulations. She has also contacted the World Cup
Committee and a southern Califomia meeting planner. They both indicated that a smoking
ban would hamper their activities. She felt that very large economic issues needed to be
considered.
Ron Karp stated, as a local restaurant owner, he was concerned with action at this time. He
felt we should wait for state action. He asked why hotels should be exempt. He thought
enforcement was a difficult issue and didn't think Burlingame should be a leader in this area.
Larry Lyons, representing the office council, stated that office buildings let tenants decide
where the smoking and non-smoking areas should be; he questioned who was going to
enforce any additional iegulations.
Nathan Schmidt, of Nathan's Reskuranq requested that the council wait until the economy
improves before considering any additional regulations. A representative of the tobacco
2.RDINI
509
education coalition stated that this was a health issue, the EPA reported it was a seriQus issue
that people are dying from, and only a total ban would work.
Mayor closed the public comment at approximately 11:45 p.m. Councilman Pagliaro stated
that Burlingame should be a leader in this area and we cannot wait for the federal and state
govemments to act. It's an issue of dollars versus lives, and this may be one of the most
important issues the council considers. He would agree to a compromise to allow smoking
in hotel rooms and in rooms privately rented but wished to ban smoking in public areas and
restaurants. He would agree to exempt bars and private rooms in some restaurants.
Councilman Irmbi stated that he felt the city should exempt hotels from any increased
regulations and leave the hotel regulations as is.
After additional discussion, the council directed staff to draft a revised ordinance for
introduction at our March 1 meeting and hearing at March 15 meeting. The proposed draft
would ban smoking in restaurants and offices and continue the existing regulations in hotels.
Mayor asked for additional comment frori, the floor; there was none.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjoumed at 12:01 a.m.
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk