Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.11.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, November 27, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION AB 2449 – There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft November 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft November 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not present at the November 13, 2023 meeting and therefore will be recused. Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Page 1City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Master Sign Program and Sign Variance for new exterior wall signs on a mixed -use building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (CP VII Adrian LLC, applicant and property owner; The Design Factor, designer) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1 Adrian Ct - Staff Report 1 Adrian Ct - Attachments 1 Adrian Ct - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Lisa Phyfe and Gary Underwood represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It looks fine, and the scale is proportionate to the building especially when you look at the elevations as a whole; they are big elevations. The large signage does not scare me at all. The one tower element with the two signs being the same size will work well. I don’t have any objections to this proposal. >I can see moving forward with this project. >I appreciate the use of a very attractive looking font. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.Recommendation of Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and Addendum to The Burlingame General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (notice published in newspaper). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Page 2City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report 2023-2031 Housing Element - Draft for Adoption 2023-2031 Housing Element - Tracked Changes Version Appendix A - RHNA 5 Programs Appendix B - Outreach Appendix C - AFFH Appendix D - Sites Inventory Resolution EIR Addendum Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >What are the vacancy rates of the projects that have been finished? Do we have numbers to show if we are filling these because we have an influx of people leaving the State. (Gardiner: We talked to Housekeys, they manage the affordable units and get information on the general lease of the new projects. Each of the new projects has affordable units within them. They do tend to lease up. They do take longer than they used to but ultimately, people do take these new units. The affordable units can be a little trickier particularly in the moderate -income category. That is something the Housing Element looks into by focusing on some of the other income categories which are a little more of what people would expect of affordable housing. Because the median income is so high, that moderate -income category means rents are pretty much at market level. The market -rate units tend to fill up; the deed restricted moderate ones are a little harder.) > Does RHNA provide any guidance on the mix between rental and for -sale units? (Gardiner: It does not. Most of what we see are rental apartments. That is largely the function of the scale of the development. The projects that go forward into construction tend to be the larger rental projects. There is a lot of interest in having condominiums as entry -level ownership type, those are riskier in terms of investment. We talk to developers all the time regarding getting condominiums and townhouses. They are financed and sold differently. There is also a higher risk and liability. We do get about 17% of them. RHNA is agnostic in terms of whether they are rental or for-sale units, but it is really the price point.) >Are we concerned that the site inventory buffer is very low at only 11%? (Gardiner: The way we’ve done our site analyses is we ’ve taken the proportions of the RHNA allocations that were given to us and then applied those proportionately to every site. It is how the math turned out. Some of the buffers are very low at 11%; 30% is a little healthier for the low and above moderate is way above what it should be.) >What if we are missing the target? (Gardiner: It will take more work. We know particularly with the very low-income category it will take more concerted effort to make sure those projects move forward.) >I think some of it is out of our control. The economics show that they don ’t have the financial capabilities to do these projects. We are just going to wait, right? (Gardiner: Yes. Particularly the very-low income units, in most instances, they are going to require some kind of subsidy. There was a flyer that was handed over to you, which we ’ll discuss at the end of this meeting, is one project where the city did subsidize. That project would not have penciled out if the city had not provided the land at more or less no charge. There is another project at the corner of California and Murchison Drive that has a complicated stack of financing, including subsidies from both the city and the county. That is Page 3City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes something that the very low -income category in particular will need. There is one market rate development under construction right now that does have very low -income units. That is a whole new discussion, which is very interesting, the way state density bonus law works; you get a bigger bonus for the lower income and developers will do the math and see what the magic combination would be. Do they provide more very low -income units for a bigger bonus or do they go with low income and moderate income for less of a bonus. They will look at different scenarios. But for those categories, regardless, it takes a lot more creativity and ingenuity to be able to get the number of units and financing to pencil out.) >There was some mention about schools and impact of schools in this report. Can you talk a little bit more about what that looks like in the city and how do we move through that? (Gardiner: Yes. We’ve been meeting with the schools regularly and sending them our monthly report. The Burlingame School District has seen a decline in enrollment in the last few years. The additional housing units will help backstop that decline. It is different than it had been just a few years ago where schools were full. I don ’t want to speak for the school district, but right now they are plugging in these numbers and are seeing that it will allow schools to stay open or keep enrollment up.) >Do we know why that is? Is there a mention of what ’s happened? (Gardiner: Most of the theories, and this is not unique to Burlingame, the cost of housing has become so expensive it is harder for families with children to live or stay in the city. Hopefully, some of these units will be suitable for families and that would allow children to still stay in the district. That is what we usually hear from the school district.) >Would it be more reasonable to think that it was because of COVID that parents brought their kids out of school due to the pandemic and now they are slowly bringing them back? I think they are coming back in full force. The executive summary says that in past years enrollment has outpaced the capacity of schools. We are going from 29,000 population in 2017 to a projected 42,500 in 2040. We are talking about a 13,000 population increase which is going to come with 4,000 to 5,000 kids. (Gardiner: The 42,000 projected population is related to the buffer. We’ll discuss it when we get to the environmental part of the presentation. There is an oddity on why the number is there and whether that is really expected or not. The enrollment declines started prior to COVID. COVID certainly accelerated things . We saw school children being transferred to private schools and maybe they have decided that ’s where they like it or maybe they are coming back, but the declines started prior to the pandemic.) >It seems that the conclusion is that they are going to pass the buck. These will all be taken care of by school impact fees and we are going to support the Burlingame School District in their plight to figure this out. It feels like putting the carts before the horse; we are going to build all these units prior to this taking place. As was stated in the summary, there are no new places or new projections to build new schools. It seems like there is a missing link here. How is this social environmental impact going to be handled? (Gardiner: It is a little odd with schools, we are bound by state regulations. Payment of the school impact fees is full mitigation in terms of environmental impacts. That is the rule we work under . School impact fees are given to the schools. They can provide more classrooms as they need it, at least that is the thinking behind the impact fees. The schools look into their impact fees on a regular basis to make sure they are where they should be. These are the basis which we are obliged to follow under the California Environmental Quality Act.) >It is unfortunate because we don ’t control those fees; they are controlled by the state and school districts. We just hope that they make the right decisions with these fees and plan accordingly . (Gardiner: That is why we talk to schools a lot, so we have an open dialogue. The situation changes over the years. The conversations we had with them ten years ago were different from what we are having now. We just make sure that we are on the same page, sharing the same information and they are looking at all the projects that are coming through the pipeline and planning accordingly.) >Are the school impact fees going to stay consistent to what they are now or are they going to be up or down in this Housing Element compared to today? (Gardiner: At some point they will probably go up . School districts set the fees rather than the city, we don ’t really control it. I would expect during the eight years of this Housing Element the fees will go up.) >Does the school decide if a multi -unit building gets assessed more impact fees than residential homes? Or is it the same percentage or dollar amount per square foot? (Gardiner: I believe the fees are assessed the same way; either residential or commercial. We could verify that.) >Have we had any SB9 applications? (Gardiner: We have not, and the Housing Element does not anticipate any. It is because we have not had any and the state, because there is no track record, is Page 4City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes suspicious of any community saying that they expect to have a bunch of SB 9 applications. They have not taken off the way people thought they would. We do discuss it in the Housing Element that there is no expectation of any SB9 projects over the eight years.) >Have we started to look at the sale of ADUs as separate properties, given that the governor has approved it? (Gardiner: That is a discussion for both the Planning Commission and the City Council. It is something the cities can do if they want. I honestly don ’t know if this is something people would want. It is a conversation we need to have. There is no obligation to do that. There will be pros and cons and it can be a discussion that we can have with the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the implementation. There is a lot in that implementation set of tables so we will continue working on the Housing Element hopefully next year. There are a lot of things to be done in the first year after adoption . Towards the course of eight years, there are other things, and they have timelines associated with them . Something like that is an implementation action that we want to talk to both the Planning Commission and the City Council.) >There is a correction needed on the Site Inventory slide, the buffer should be 164% instead of 181%. (Gardiner: Thank you. These numbers have changed so many times. We will make sure that we get that right in the next draft.) >How do we get more purchase options? We talk about giving away land for the very low income, but they are largely apartments. How do we, as a community, encourage more wealth -building through ownership? In my opinion, most of us have benefited from wealth -building in our homes. How do we remove barriers that are there? Because those barriers, such as condominiums, litigations and others, have taken those things out of the market or businesses just don ’t want to do them anymore. Yet, it is a great vehicle from a housing perspective more so than the apartments. (Gardiner: That is tricky because it is not something a city can necessarily control. It could incentivize serious development standards. For example, there is an implementation that says there could be a bonus if townhouses were provided as part of the development. This is something we saw on the Summerhill project on Rollins Road. People liked how it turned out in terms of both ownership and rental. Those are things that a city can try to put in some leverage. In terms of the litigation, that is harder. It goes with the territory, the same goes with the financing. The developers who we talk to state that condominiums are a high -risk development. The only higher risk is hotels. Apartments are financed differently and probably less risky. There are several policies and programs that do try to promote homeownership. Through financing, the city could support homeownership with down payment assistance and things like that. This has been discussed in the past and that is something the housing funds can be used for. It is true that you get to have a foot hold into building that equity and it is harder if the opportunities are not there.) >Have you heard or seen anything about apartment buildings being built and after ten years were converted into condominium complexes? (Gardiner: It depends on the project. Some of the rentals do have condominium maps associated with them and that provides the ability to be an interest. That does happen after ten years, the litigation period ends, and it provides the developer an opportunity to know and fix the defects after ten years, then it is a viable condominium. Not all of them do that though. Some of the developers that are here in town are in the business of owning and maintaining rental apartments . They do not do the condominium maps. We do ask them if they want to do condominium maps but some of them say no this is just rentals and that is what they do.) >When we worked on the Downtown Specific Plan, about fifteen years ago, we looked at housing . They were done in a few areas scattered all over; 20 to 30-unit apartments, one story, they are small and have a common wall with a common driveway and a little garden. They are great. At that time there were talks to have some of those for sale at decent prices. Has it been looked at? These are not condominiums but small houses. (Comaroto: If it is one parcel, then they are considered condominiums .) (Gardiner: It is something that can be looked at. Currently, there are condominium restrictions on buildings with 20 units or more. There is also another form of ownership called tenancy in common, where there is common ownership, and everybody buys a share. We do see a few of the smaller what had been apartment buildings here in Burlingame that were sold as tenancy in common. It is possible on a smaller scale. When we talk to developers on how we get these smaller scale developments, particularly townhouses which as an ownership type seem like a good option because it is less expensive than a single -family house. Under the current land prices, they are not quite feasible. That is why we looked into something that we can make a bonus where they take part of the site and do that and make it up financial with over development on another part of the site. Of course, things can change. There are some housing developments around the bay area that have been looking at reducing Page 5City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes their density just given what is going on with financing and the market. As far as the inputs we get from developers, the land prices are too much to develop townhouses.) >Have you heard from other municipalities that have not been able to get this done and what type of process they are going through? (Gardiner: It is unique to each one. We do have a 21 Elements group, that consists of all the 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County, that meet every moth. All we have talked about the past two years is Housing Element certification and everybody has a different story to tell . Some of the challenges here in Burlingame are building the case for having previously developed sites and convincing them that they are feasible for development. Hillsborough is completely different because they don ’t have a commercial district. It can be a challenge for them to make up their numbers with business as usual prior. For other cities, most of the scrutiny comes down to the site inventories and whether the other reviewer believes that these are bona fide housing potential sites.) >Correct the Table of Contents and typos to show the current changes made. >Since the draft was available to the public in September, have there been any public comments? (Gardiner: There haven’t been in the later drafts. We did get several public comments on the first drafts and those were dealt with in the second revision. For each subsequent draft, we put out notification on the e-newsletter and we also have this master list of anybody who have been involved in anything housing related in Burlingame. Over time, the comments started to trickle off and those that did come in were addressed in the previous revisions.) >Please correct the following errors: the addendum to the EIR has County of Alameda all through the document, spelling errors on page 72 about 2/3 down, and page HE-133 referring to 1214 Donnelly Avenue. (Gardiner: We can go back and catch the various typos.) Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to recommend that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Burlingame Housing Element and Addendum to the Burlingame General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she attended the November 20, 2023 City Council meeting regarding the discussion on potential updates to the Trees and Vegetation Ordinance. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner noted that at the November 20, 2023 City Council meeting, there was a discussion regarding the flavored tobacco regulations, particularly whether to allow the use of hookah and shisha. The City Council provided direction to allow hookah and shisha in establishments under the parameters of state law, with the added stipulation that where ever hookah is made available, steam stone (which does not involve nicotine) must also be available on the menu. The Council also had a discussion regarding potential changes to the regulations in the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance . Director Gardiner announced that there will be a grand opening event for the Village at Burlingame on Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11 am. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chair Pfaff suggested that landscaping regulations for multi -unit residential development be discussed in the future. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Page 6City of Burlingame November 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7City of Burlingame