HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1992.09.23448
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING
Wednesday, September 23, 7992,7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
Mayor Frank Pagliaro convened the study session of the Burlingame City Council on the
above date in the City Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. The meeting had been moved from
Conference Room A because of audience size.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO
STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, MONROE
1. REGULATION OF RESIDENTIAL MASS
Mayor Pagliaro introduced this item by noting that council had studied this issue three times
in 1992. Council had reviewed the City Planner's report and he asked if council had any
questions of staff. Councilman lrmbi asked how staff selected the sample of homes studied
for "as built" floor areas. The Planner indicaM that the sample was based on old assessor
records and a random 5% sample by subdivision developed before 1960. The Planner
reviewed the study summary table indicating the wide range of existing square footage and
FARs of existing construction. Councilman Harrison commented that we are looking at a
variety of approaches and data for each. Councilwoman O'Mahony thought that the new
houses are causing most of the public comment, along with houses on comers which have
double street exposure so seem to present more mass. An example would be the corner
house at Hillside and Carlos. She also felt the three houses on Cabrillo near Broadway
presented a problem. By combining houses and garages, it seems to add to density. She
believes there is a basic question of at what size a house is too big and changes from a
dwelling to something more like a motel.
Councilwoman Knight addressed the issue of a definition of new house. She thought
something might be defined as new if it is over 10% of the square footage in the original
home. She believes that the existing codes are allowing houses which are too big and that
the community is very concemed about mass and bulk. On a current 5,000 square foot lot,
we allow up to 3,750 square foot of structure. She felt this was too much. She was
interested in exploring the concept of maximum square footage for a house and how it would
fit into FAR.
Mayor Pagliaro stated that over the past eight years, we have added various restrictions to
try and address the issue of overbuilding and that bulk may be the last item that we needed to
address. He indicated that he would seem to prefer the FAR concept to some type of rear
setbacks for second stories which would cause various construction problems and increase the
cost of remodels. He felt the FAR should be different for differing size lots. Councilman
I*mbi agreed stating that we should have a variety in our housing stock and try and avoid
situations such as San Bruno where the regulations cause all additions appear in the center of
the house. We do not want all the houses to look the same, so we need differing FAR
depending on the size lots.
Councilman Harrison stated that we have many regulations now and that he supported the
idea of the FAR varying by size of lot. Councilman L-embi stated that some base size should
cause review. He also felt corner lots cause problems, and we should possibly address
regulations to require limiting size at the corner. Mayor Pagliaro thought that we are
indicating that we want to review a variable FAR with some type of maximum size'
Councilwoman O'Mahony liked the idea of reviewing comer lots and restricting development
so that there may only be one story on a portion of the corner. She supported some type of
maximum size. Councilwoman Knight stated we needed to receive more information and
explanation on maximum size. They also need to know more about what the impact on staff
would be of the various options being discussed. She felt we needed much more public input
into the process.
Mayor Pagliaro indicated that whatever concept is developed would go through two or three
public review processes. The City Planner reviewed the three altematives available: (l)
additional building regulations which reduce size such as applying declining height to rear
setbacks; (2) a maximum size house for various lots; and (3) floor area ratio. By using
FAR, a maximum is established for each lot.
Councilman kmbi thought this was a very difficult and technical issue. He suggested we
form a citizen committee similar to what was done to develop the declining height regula-
tions. He indicated property rights are an issue and we needed to be careful how we limit
those rights. He proposed a committee of local architects, builders, citizens, and realtors.
Councilwoman Knight questioned why we could not use the planning commission as a forum
for public input. Councilman kmbi noted the planning commission had expertise in
reviewing projects but did not have, in most cases, training for the technical evaluation
needed to develop FAR.
Councilwoman O'Mahony favored formation of a committee no larger than frve or six
individuals reporting to the planning commission. Councilman Harrison supported the idea
of a committee, and suggested that the chairman of the homeowners association FAR
committee, Mr. Transano, might be a good member of that committee. Mayor Pagliaro
summarized the council discussion noting that the dire.tion for the committee would be to
look at: (1) some type of variable FAR; (2) how to soften the mass of new houses on comer
lots; (3) how to break up the mass of clusters of new homes; (4) review the concept of
second story rear setbacks, how they would affect mass and FAR; and (5) whether detached
garages should be encouraged to reduce mass and encourage separation between properties.
Council directed that the regulation would apply to all major remodels and new construction.
The committee should also consider the economic impacts of any proposed regulation on
property values.
Mayor Pagliaro asked that any citizens interested in serving on this committee should address
a letter to the city manager's office by 5:00 p.m., October l, 1992. Council would then
review those interested and decide if additional time was necessary to form a committee.
Mayor then asked for public comment from the floor.
Mr. Bemard Transano of Laguna Avenue, representing the homeowners, addressed the
council on the need to look for ways to reduce mass and bulk. He noted that while
Burlingame has always had a wide variety of houses, we need to protect the small houses; by
houses being maxed out, we are removing the open space that makes Burlingame a desirable
place to live. He was not sure that a committee of experts would have all the answers. He
was concerned that the views of the average homeowner be considered first and not those of
construction or real estate interests. He was encouraged that the council seemed willing to
seriously address this issue.
Jerry Deal of the planning commission indicated that there was a need to address the mass
issue in some form. He noted, however, that builders are currently building the product a
segment of the population wants; he supported the idea of a committee to review the issue.
He indicated that we need to avoid the types of regulations which discourage design features
which improve appearance and provide variety such as eaves.
Alan Hom, Paloma Ave, indicated that he knew that the homeowners FAR committee had
done lots of work. He suggested council use their recommendations. These recommen-
dations should apply to new and remodel properties. He suggested council may want to
propose a momtorium or some type of review on all applications while we are studying this
issue.
Eric Cox of Arguello indicated that he was surprised with all of the discussion concerning
FAR when he felt there are other problems such as heights of structures and views which
needed to be addressed.
Mike Beltran of Cabrillo indicated that there were five new homes on his block and none of
them fit the curent character of the neighborhood. He advised the council on the need to
move very fast.
449
450
Dorothy Transano of I-aguna noted that their area is zoned for duplex and that many of these
units are being torn down and large duplex condos are being built which overdevelop the lot.
She asked that the study include the problems of the R-2 zone. Mayor asked staff review
this issue and report to council as soon as possible.
Peggy kke indicated that FAR may not be the answer since she has a very large 50x240' lot
which with a .33 FAR would allow over 4,000 feet of house which would be too big for her
area. She felt we needed to address the issue of design review.
Karl Vorsatz, McDonald Way, thought FAR was a good idea but we needed to be sure we
are reasonable. To allow only a 5% addition on a 1,200 square foot house would be too
small. He stated that declining height has worked well. We should be encouraging home
improvement in our neighborhood.
Alan Olin stated that many of the older 2-bedroom/1-bath houses need to be improved.
Their plumbing and electrical systems are old and they have dry rot. If we do not encourage
improvement, we may develop blight in Burlingame.
A resident on Coronado Way indicated she did not feel there would be blight ever in
Burlingame. She supported the idea of some type of design review.
Former councilmember Irv Amstrup asked council to remember that when the declining
height envelope regulations were proposed, there was a rush of applications to beat the
regulations. He suggested that we needed to keep that in mind and plan accordingly.
Mayor Pagliaro ended the public comment section at 9:20 p.m. and asked for a short recess;
recess ended at 9:30.
Councilman Irmbi indicated that he had talked to San Mateo councilman Paul Gumbinger
conceming San Mateo's recently adopted revised R-l regulations and the role of an Ameri-
can Institute of Architect (AIA) committee in developing those regulations. Council asked
staff to contact the president of the San Mateo County AIA to see if they would be willing to
assist the city in this matter and provide that information to council.
2, REVIEW OF C-3 ZONE
Mayor Pagliaro asked council whether it wished to consider opening up the allowed uses in
Tnne C-3 for group residential for the elderly use. City Planner reviewed her report on this
matter and indicated the limited area currently zoned C-3. She noted office use, including
financial institutions, are the only permitted use in this zone. Councilwoman O'Mahony felt
that financial institutions are currently on the decline. She commented we should look at
allowing group residential and possibly medical uses as well as establishing rear setback
requirements in this area.
After discussion by the council, staff was directed to prepare for further council consider-
ation legislation to allow group housing for the elderly as a conditional use in this zone.
City Manager reviewed the current problems with the loss of approximately $405,000 in
property tax as a result of the state budget. He noted the fact that our major revenues have
been static for the past three years. To offset 3.5% inflation for next year alone, we need
$680,000 in additional revenue. He also indicated that we are currently underfunding our
capital improvement program. The suggested approach would be to reduce general fund
capital improvements by $150,000 for 1992-93, to implement cost shifts of $100,000 in gas
tax and utility revenue, and to implement a selective replacement program with a goal of
reducing six positions (approximately 2% of our general fund work force) over the next two
years. Council has the option of using our unbudgeted 2% hotel tax; but in the long run,
since 75To of our general fund costs are in personnel, there may continue to be a need to
address the personnel issue.
3. 1992.93 BUDGET REVISIONS
451
Councilwoman O'Mahony indicated that we should plan for a major overhaul of the library.
She did not favor using the 2/o holel tax since she supports the idea of a conference center in
the future. Councilwoman Knight indicated she did not favor reducing direct services to the
homeowners, such as sidewalk repair. She reminded the council that we had recently bought
property on Chula Vista. This expenditure would offset more than the current loss in state
funds. Councilman Irmbi stated that the commitment to the Broadway commercial zuea was
not the issue at this time and that investment would reap future sales tax increases. While
we need to protect the 2% TOT for future use, he would not favor the loss of police and
fire. He suggested that we follow the approach proposed by the city manager.
Mayor Pagliaro stated that rather than reducing $150,000 out of the departments, he would
favor the use of the unbudgeted hotel tax. Councilman Harrison stated that we needed to
review the budget as a whole. He noted that any losses in personnel being proposed would
be by attrition. Councilwoman Ituight indicated she would favor using the unbudgeted 2%
hotel tax rather than reducing staffing. She had reviewed the minutes of the meeting when
the council established the additional hotdl tax. It was not reserved for a convention center.
City Manager indicated that the suggested staff reduction approach would be that when a
vacancy occurs, the department would have the option of proposing other reductions instead
of personnel and the final choice and decision would come to council. Babed on this
understanding, the council supported the city manager's suggested approach for revising the
1992-93 budget.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk