HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.01.29THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
January 29, 19i)
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting
Plan Presentation,
called to order at
ROLL CALL
Jacobs
City Planner Swan
City Attorney Karmel
of the Burlingame Planning Commission for General
Visual Analysis and Urban Design. Framework, was
8:10 P.M. by Chairman Cistulli.
The above -named members were present.
Chairman Cistulli announced the presence in the audience of Mayor
Victor Mangini, Councilmen Irving Amstrup and Dorothy Cusick, and City
Manager Charles Schwalm.
At the request of the Chair., City Planner Swan addressed the audience.
He told them this meeting had been called for the purpose of getting
their ideas on two reports prepared by William Spangle and Associates
on urban design issues. He stated that two elements of the General Plan,
the open space and conservation elements, have both been mandated by
the State and each city must adopt them by June 30, 1973. The City
Council has an Agreement with Wm. Spangle and Associates to prepare
these required elements. This Agreement also includes preparation of
criteria for projects affecting visual qualities and amenities. This
evening Wm. Spangle and an associate firm, Eckbo, Dean, Austin &
Williams, would present an i4ysis,bf visual effects. The City Planner
directed attention to the questionnaires attached to the meeting agenda,
and requested audience cooperation in completing them. He then
introduced Mr. Wm. Spangle.
Mr. Spangle prefaced his remarks by commenting that the problem of
identifying issues is complex in that it involves both the professional
viewpoint and the interaction with the citizens and officials of
Burlingame. Each city is different in the -things its people want and
each city has unique characteristics. The kinds of new issues that he
sees at this time involve mainly differences of view between the residentia
community and the business community. For many years Burlingame has
been primarily a residential community but in the :last 10 - 15 years the
city has developed substantial commercial and industrial areas, with a
large area being developed on the Bay front. It is the Bay front area
where most of the issues have been surfacing. This is the area with
the most opportunities and also the most problems. Mr. Spangle commented
that the way this area develops is probably the most important issue
facing the city now. Subordinate to that are the ;problems of sign
control and architectural control. He noted that ,some communities have
- 2 -
very rigid controls on signs and buildings, but here in Burlingame it
is a question of what the citizens actually want to achieve - what they
consider important and how'to achieve this through ;programs, regulations,
etc.
Mr. Spangle then introduced Mr. John Stevenson, of the firm of Eckbo,
Dean, Austin & Williams, for a presentation of their visual analysis
of the city.
Mr. Stevenson initiated his report by showing slides of various areas
of the city. These included views of Hillside Drive, looking toward
shoreline, Canyon Park toward the shoreline with the impingement of
the Airport Marina Hotel, a typical residential area, a manufacturing
area, downtown Burlingame, the railroad corridor with its potential
in terms of vacant land, the Northpark Apartments, the shoreline with
a view of The Fisherman, the Airport Marina Hotel, a Bayshore highway
view, and the area south of the Broadway interchange looking toward
Bayside Park.
Mr. Stevenson then presented. various maps for audience viewing. The
first, "Existing Urban Design Conditions" showed basic areas of the
city - residential, industrial, shopping, manufacturing, and the
transportation routes. His comments were that residential neighborhoods
are mostly single family homes on tree shaded streets. Some areas have
good views of the Bay. The most modern buildings are in the manufactur-
ing and industrial areas. The major open space is Canyon Park.
Map No. 2 showed "Views, Vistas, Focal Points." Map No. 3 illustrated
"Major Projects Since 1970." He commented that most of these have
been out by the shoreline and in downtown Burlingame. Most of the
tall buildings being proposed of 60• - 70' in height are on the shoreline.
Map No. 4 delineated "Existing Building Heights Based on Present
Zoning." Mr. Stevenson pointed out that apartment building heights
range from 35' to 751. He commented that there are no existing height
limitations along the shoreline in the very area where the city has
the worst problem in visual terms.
Map No. 5 presented "Urban Design Issue Areas." These are basically
the problem areas, which are the shoreline, along Bayshore Freeway,
the railroad corridor, E1 Camino, downtown Burlingame, Broadway Avenue,
near Peninsula Hospital, and Skyline Boulevard.
The last map was "Criteria for Placement of Tall Buildings."
Mr. Stevenson explained that this most important criteria had been
developed as preliminary steps. The effects of a 'tall building are
minimized if placed next to activity concentrations, e.g. where many
people are doing many things. This is a more acceptable place. Also,
tall buildings can have less impact when placed next to other tall
buildings or next to tall trees. He mentioned El Camino and the
railroad corridor as being good places for tall buildings. Other
acceptable areas would be in downtown Burlingame, :near the Airport
Marina, near Peninsula Hospital, and perhaps the drive-in theater area
near the freeway. Mr. Stevenson stated tall buildings should not be
placed on a high point of land, in existing open space, or on the
shoreline where they would be highly visible.
Mr. Robert Delzell, 1345 Desoto wanted further clarification on areas
for tall buildings. Mr. Stevenson made the point that a tall building
- 3 -
on a plain can indicate an important point in the city, and that the
real question is not that the buildings are tall but what they look
like and how they are sited.
Mrs. John Barton, 734 Winchester, commented that if tall buildings
were placed next to tall buildings on the shoreline they could present
a wall of height. Mr. Stevenson replied that they should not be
built along the entire waterfront, blocking the view. Mr. David
Larson, 1216 Cortez, asked if consideration had been given to the
problem of long, low structures on the waterfront, such as some parking
garage structures which are 30'-40' high. The answer was that view
corridors must be provided and these buildings would be more appropriate
further up the hill.
Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence of Councilman David Martin.
A Mr. Eppley stated the present traffic problems on Old Bayshore are
very bad, and this should be considered before more tall buildings.
Mr. Spangle agreed that judgment must be made because traffic is a
definite problem in the total design of the area. However, the traffic
does not relate to tall buildings but to the total traffic resulting
in that area. One factor is the specific kind of use that is going
in - how many customers, how many employees, will it generate. He
stated there is a need to establish overall aspects that relate to the
traffic problem. He went on to say it is possible to consider buildings
in a way which is balanced by the open space around the buildings.
Low, long buildings if placed one way would obstruct the view of the
Bay; if turned another way would present view corridors.
Mr. Tom Valluchi questioned if "view corridors" applied only to
higher sites in the city. Mr. Spangle said this term applied to the
edge of the Bay where tall buildings are located in piecemeal fashion.
He advocated clustering tall buildings together at some points with
large open spaces around them. Mr. Lester Gunther, 333 Chapin Lane,
asked if it was ordained that Burlingame had to have high rises. He
was informed that this was not so; the very point of this meeting was
to get public opinion.
Mrs. John Barton suggested an emergency ordinance be immediately
enacted stating that any building over 10 stories come before the
Planning Commission or the Council, as with any building over 4 stories
in the downtown area. She commented there must be a way for intelligent
progress without ruining the shoreline.
Mr. Delzell questioned what other cities had done with height limitations
on their shorelines. Mr. Stevenson stated Santa Cruz had height limit-
ations which insured that the closer the buildings came to the
shoreline edge the lower they must be. As buildings moved back toward
the city, they became higher.
Mr. Spangle stated that Sausalito had a height limit of 30' on the Bay,
and that for many years San Francisco had a 40'-45" hIght limit on
buildings along the Great Highway. San Francisco also had a height
limit of 45' on most of the northern waterfront. Fie added, however,
that allowing a flat ceiling in an area of expensive real estate
usually insures that all buildings will be built up to that ceiling
with extensive coverage of the land. Mr. Larson again voiced concern
over building bulk and commented that a large portion of downtown
- 4 -
San Francisco has a length limitation of 170'.
Mr. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, expressed the opinion that there
should be height limits together with provisions that as a building
gets taller it should get narrower on the principle of a triangle.
Also a provision that taller buildings should take up smaller portions
of the total lot.
Mr. David Keyston, of Anza Pacific, commented that visual impact of
buildings seemed to be of major concern, but there were other important
impacts: the traffic impact, the amount of total floor space, which
has a direct relationship to the amount of people; the impact of use -
whether commercial or industrial; the impact of development of utility
services; and the need for public access, which is important along the
Bay front. He added the impact of parking, and stated he advocated
stricter parking requirements. In addition there is the impact of site
coverage, which is sometimes more important than the height of a building.
He spoke of proposed buildings on Anza Pacific land which will be
designed to take up less than 15% of the site, thus leaving much open -
space. This is a matter of importance to the people who work in these
buildings. Regarding placement of buildings, they will attempt to use
the slope intercept principle which is applied in the city of Monterey.
This involves different height liiinitations for each certain amount of
distance from the Bay. He also spoke of the economic impact- the
impact of a 15 story hotel as opposed to the impact of a 15 story
office building in terms of city receipts. He added he hoped the city
would not be overwhelmed by height considerations and visual impact.
Mrs R. Anderson commented she felt that the downtown area should
be for shops, leaving office buildings to the commercial and industrial
areas. Mr. Jim Finch questioned the safety of building highrises on
the Bayfront which is filled land, and mentioned earthquake hazards,
etc. Mr. Spangle replied that this is a general consideration, but.
from earlier studies of the Bayfront it appea3W that the distance to
solid material in Burlingame is less than in other parts of the south
Bay. Thus the safety of a tall building is more a matter of design
and construction. Mr. Keyston added that the soft mud layer on their
new building project went down only 4-5 feet, whereas on other sites,
such as the San Francisco Airport, it went down as far as 801; therefore
safety is largely a function of design: foundations, steel:
There were questions from the audience if a definitive ordinance
for the waterfront area would be enacted. There was discussion and
comments that there was no ground left for tall buildings. There was
also a request that an emergency ordinance be put into effect until
the waterfront plan is formulated, particularly to stop the construction
of the 16 story building next to the Airport Marina.
At the close of the discussion, Mr. Spangle assured the audience that
all comments and suggestions would be examined very closely as well
as the remarks on the evaluation forms. He repeated it was essential
to good future planning to know what the people of Burlingame think
about the city and what they want.
City Planner Swan thanked the audience for the many good ideas that
they had expressed at this meeting, and stated the,city needed their
further help.
- 5 -
Each of the Planning Commissioners voiced his appreciation of the
audience participation and -agreed that they were looking forward
to public response in future meetings on this plan. Chairman
Cistulli requested that the audience fill out the Feedback Forms
A and B, Visual Impressions, and brought to their attention future
meeting dates. He thanked them for their help.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm M. Jacobs
Secretary