HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.07.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersWednesday, July 13, 2016
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Sandra Lang spoke on this item:
>Serves on a county commission on aging.
>Has concerns with decisions being made regarding senior citizens, and effects planning could have.
5. STUDY ITEMS
a.Envision Burlingame (General Plan Update) – Led by Representatives of the General
Plan Consultant Team from MIG
Planning Manager Gardiner introduced the item.
Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden of MIG consultants made a presentation, covering the following items:
>Project Schedule and Update
>Community Involvement, including workshops and online survey
>Regional Growth Trends
>Emerging Land Use Concept
>Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Feedback
Commission questions:
>What engagement has there been with the school district on land use and population projections?
(Stetson: There is a representative from the school district on the CAC. There needs to be follow -up, as
we are aware of concerns with additional school children.)
>Is the Emerging Land Use Concept a reflection of the survey primarily, or is it a reflection of the CAC
recommendation? (Stetson: Combination of the workshops, CAC, intercept surveys, and stakeholder
interviews. The consultant team synthesized the input, then presented it back to the CAC for specific
comments.)
>Why was the CAC not in favor of mixed use at the corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real, and
instead favored stand -alone residential use? (Stetson: It was not a vote, but various CAC members had
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016
July 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
concerns that commercial uses could create a nuisance. El Camino Real is primarily residential in
Burlingame.)
>Why did CAC members suggest lowering the residential density south of Broadway? (Stetson: It's a
nuance. The high-density category has a range from 20 to 50 units per acre. It is a large range. The
areas south of Broadway are presently zoned for multifamily development up to 50 units per acre, but
are probably not built to 50 units per acre. Concern may be that if the high -density designation is
retained in the area, it may encourage consolidation of lots to build something bigger that would be out
of character with what exists today. If the cap was 30 units per acre the current land use pattern would
continue and remain stable. Could be implemented through an overlay.)
>Does the term "Emerging Land Use Concept" refer to future trends of what land use is heading
towards? (Stetson: No, it refers to the land use plan not being settled yet. It could be considered a
"draft." The term "emerging" because input is still being sought.)
>In the future when streets are discussed, will it have been vetted through traffic studies? (Stetson:
Yes. Preliminary studies were done before any concepts were discussed.)
>How much land is within the anticipated "change" areas versus the areas that are considered stable
and not anticipated to change? (Amsden: Has not done the calculation. The Downtown Specific Plan
area is also not expected to change significantly, given the plan was adopted relatively recently.)
>Have the projects in the residential pipeline been projected on a map to see where they fall?
(Stetson: Staff has mapped the locations of the various applications and approved projects. Currently
residential development is allowed in a lot of areas .)(Gardiner: None of the current projects require
General Plan amendments - they are all accommodated within existing zoning. The City has a lot of
zoning capacity, in theory, however most of the land is already built on.)
Questions from the public (submitted on question cards):
>Given that schools are already at capacity, how would schools be factored into the discussion?
(Stetson: It is a critical part of the discussion. Schools are required to accommodate the students that
are generated by new development, but there needs to be balance to have a vibrant, healthy city. Some
of the housing may not generate school children, such as senior housing. Schools need to be addressed
in the planning.)
>Do general plans ever have a development "cap" in population or numbers of units, if the community
decides on what would be the right number for future growth, even if there is more land zoned that could
accommodate more growth? It could be based on capacity issues such as schools, infrastructure, etc .
(Amsden: Yes, it can be a policy decision to limit growth based on capacity of facilities, or constraints .
The environmental analysis would include the cap /threshold. There could be a later policy decision to go
beyond the cap, but then there would need to be further environmental analysis on the potential
impacts.)
>To what degree have FEMA flood zones and Sea Level Rise been a consideration or will be a
consideration going forward? (Stetson: Sea Level Rise is a consideration in new projects submitted on
the Bayfront, and FEMA regulations apply to new projects in the flood zones .)(Amsden: There may be
specific overlays to address requirements such as raising of buildings.)
>What if any reduced parking requirements are being considered for mixed use projects? (Stetson:
The plan can set a policy framework for parking regulations. The regulations themselves will be included
in the zoning update, which will be done in conjunction or right after the General Plan.)
>What is the City's current jobs /housing balance? (Stetson: Approximately 33,000 jobs, and just over
12,000 housing units, for a ratio of approximately 2.75 jobs per housing unit.)
>Does the General Plan include parks and green spaces for future growth, particularly if there is an
increase in population? Would there be provisions for more parkland? (Stetson: There could be a policy
direction to have a parkland ratio per 1000 residents. There would be a need to find places for additional
parks if that was the policy.)
>What is the thinking behind reducing density near Broadway if there is also a desire to make
Broadway successful? (Stetson: It is a policy question reflecting comments from CAC members. The
question is whether to keep the neighborhood at the intensity it is today, or allow additional intensity to
create more activity on Broadway.)
>Have there been calculations to determine if there would be adequate infrastructure if all properties
were developed to their maximum capacity under current zoning? How is the maximum potential
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016
July 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
determined if both residential and commercial are allowed? (Stetson: There will need to be a build -out
analysis for all uses in the city. Some assumptions will need to be made including how many existing
parcels would turn over, and the proportion of residential and commercial uses. Over a 25 year period
not all parcels are going to turn over. However there would not be an exercise to see what would happen
if every single parcel turned over because it is not a credible scenario to consider.)
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Public comments:
Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>The Housing Element prepared two years ago expressed skepticism towards ABAG projections as
they applied to Burlingame. Burlingame's population has remained flat over the past 40 years.
>Forecasts have been wrong in the past.
>Do we blindly approve transit -oriented development defined loosely around High Speed Rail and
electrified Caltrain that are unfunded? They may no longer exist with autonomous driving technologies.
>Through regional pressures may have to decide how to absorb housing requirements and what to
protect in existing quality of life.
>Bayfront is underutilized, whereas infill development west of Highway 101 and along the El Camino
Real corridor is contentious. Bayfront housing in exchange for protecting areas that are already
constrained.
>Hillsborough is exempt from ABAG requirements; Burlingame has agreed to accept all externalities
and costs of high-density development, while Hillsborough is allowed to count nanny units as housing
growth.
>Residential developers should contribute to shools, fire and police.
>Mixed-use development at Adeline Drive and El Camino Real beyond what exists now will create
more controversy than the condominium proposed at 1509 El Camino Real. It should be zoned R -2
Residential.
Michael Barber spoke on this item:
>Was on the school board for 16 years. The schools have not been included in this process.
>If the concept plan was built out, there would need to be a place for another school.
>The schools are at maximum capacity. In 16 years grew from 2200 students to 3400 students now.
Without a new school, the existing schools would have to become denser with larger class sizes.
>Countywide Sea Level Rise assessment will be completed in September. Should be careful about
putting residents into a flood-prone area.
Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item:
>If some areas are allowed to have residential development where they do not currently, need to
consider trend of losing local control. Latest is the Governor's by -right housing proposal to fast -track
housing that includes 10-20% attainable units.
>Local review is strong, which is why Burlingame looks the way it does now.
>Trend is towards regional rather than local.
>If rezone areas to allow multifamily residential, may lose control over how the City looks.
>Would advocate having a development cap.
>While current plan is from 1969 there have been updates including the Downtown Specific Plan .
Plans can be altered over time.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Laura Stetson and Dan Amsden facilitated the commission discussion, with the discussion organized by
geographical area.
Bayfront:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016
July 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Have the flood zones been considered? (Stetson: Yes, they are discussed in the background
reports, and have been factored into the consideration process.)
>The distinction is allowing the possibility of something to happen, as compared to proposing it. There
are many layers of regulation including FEMA that would apply to a project. Codes and regulations
would need to be followed.
>The Bayfront and Rollins Road areas have underutilization of properties. It's almost like these areas
have been "poisoned," whether by policy or economics.
>Likes the proposals that have been put forward such as live /work, and that they are not the standard
approach. Worthy of being studied further.
>The area cannot be ignored just because it is within a flood zone, since there are already uses in
place. The issue needs to be addressed regardless.
>Would like to see something vigorous and vibrant, since that would not describe the area currently .
Likes the direction of what is shown in the concept.
>School issue is a "chicken and egg" situation, since a school won't be built until there is residential
development, but there can't be residential development until it can be accommodated with schools .
Would like to see residential development on the Bayfront but understands the challenges with the
schools.
>Live/work would not necessarily generate a lot of school children. They are more likely to attract
young professionals and single people. They would be smaller units that would be less likely to
accommodate families, not single family homes. (Stetson: Cannot dictate who could live in the units, but
could limit the size of live/work units.)
>The area is underutilized and there is a desire for the parking lots to be developed.
>Concern over how to make the desired development happen, since zoning in itself won't necessarily
bring the development. (Stetson: One tool is to create land use regulations that provide flexibility and
attract the types of users desired. The other is going out and seeking the developers and letting them
know where the opportunities are. One or two catalytic projects can start things.)
>Likes the direction of the concept on the North Bayfront. However residential on the south end would
be out of character with the rest of Burlingame. It's like Redwood City compared to Redwood Shores,
they are so disconnected from each other. It would also be more car-centric than the rest of Burlingame.
>There have been lots of developers wanting to build residential on the Bayfront, but since it is not
allowed it is not clear what would be the next highest use. Typically it defaults to discussing hotels.
>Would not expect development to have the character of Foster City or Redwood Shores. Instead it
would be pioneering development that would cohabitate with what already exists, such as live /work or
condo hotels. Should think about the form and character of development to inform the vision, and is
worth studying further.
>The shoreline will have a different impact compared to the Inner Bayshore industrial area. Anything
east of Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard will have a different look and feel than anything west.
>Should consider the preferences of millenials, such as telecommunting and ordering goods online. Is
that being considered? (Stetson: It is always a challenge to predict how the next generation wants to
live. If land uses are adaptable and flexible, and buildings are adaptable and flexible, different ways of
living and working can be accommodated. The proposed concept creates that flexibility.)
>Needs to better understand population growth projections. (Stetson: The 5% historic growth
represents the availability of land and what could be accommodated with the zoning. Meanwhile the
regional economy has been booming, creating more demand for housing and therefore there have been
more requests for residential development in Burlingame based on the region changing. The ABAG
projections take in the regional factors.)
North Burlingame/Rollins Road:
>Denser housing at the southern end of Rollins Road will be a problem in terms of traffic, the train,
the traffic generated by Burlingame Point. Should not be putting in denser development that will bring
more cars. If more residential developent needs to be accommdated, the northern end of Rollins Road
makes more sense since it is near the Millbrae station.
>A design district with live/work seems to fit.
>Concept is good. Makes more sense to have higher density at the north end, but there ought to be
some at the south end too. Also likes the innovation district.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016
July 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The north end of Burlingame is not active at night and is underdeveloped. Focusing on the northern
end of Rollins Road is a good idea.
>The approach in the concept to the North Burlingame area on El Camino Real is good.
Broadway:
>The photo illustrating the development at the "nodes" or ends of Broadway is too intense, but having
three gas stations out of the four corners doesn't seem right. At least one of the property owners has
interest in doing something other than a gas station.
>Would not want to intensify the El Camino end but the California Drive end could be intensified.
>It doesn't need to be intensified, just needs to be different.
>The gas stations are successful so not sure how likely they are to redevelop.
>Conceptually the gateway development makes sense.
>Understands interest in having less density in the blocks south of Broadway since there is
competition in parking between the residential uses and the commercial uses on Broadway. There are
other areas of emphasis in the city that can be the focus for increased density.
El Camino Real at Adeline Drive:
>Having the market and small businesses there adds a lot to the neighborhood. Would be unfortunate
to zone them out of existence.
>Parking and traffic is a problem for the corner, given how busy it is.
>If it changes to residential it will feel like all the other blocks on El Camino Real. The market is a
great spot and should be developed as more of a commercial area.
>Depends on intensity. Term "mixed use" evokes intensification with more traffic and impact, but if it
is not intense can be a benfit for having local commercial uses and not always having to drive to a
shopping center.
>Accommodating parking on the corner lot will limit the potential for how intense the development can
be. Not likely to be more than two stories.
The survey had many responses from Easton Addition residents, and the response was wanting
services for nearby residences.
>Commercial use would be good provided it is not intensive.
Downtown:
>In agreement with the concept plan.
California Drive corridor:
>Seems there is potential as a connector between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. (Stetson: This
is an instance where having a change to the road configuration together with a land use policy change
will allow some transformation. Currently it is not friendly to pedestrians.
>The roadway is odd, in that it is four lanes to sprint between two lanes at each end.
>Makes sense to have some residential on the upper floors.
>It is a long corridor. Some of the uses such as automotive are not things people would walk to.
Other considerations:
>The chart showing growth trends for San Mateo County is not helpful. The chart should show
Burlingame instead, since growth in Burlingame is flat.
>There has been talk of having a ferry terminal on the Bayfront. That would change the discussion of
whether to put development on the north or south side of Rollins Road.
>The Bayfront is disconnected from the rest of the City. Need to discuss the above -ground grade
separation on Broadway, which will separate the area even more.
>There have been discussions with the school, including representation on the school district's
master plan committee.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016
July 13, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Needs to look at parking standards for transit -oriented development and other uses that would not
have as much impact. Perhaps a subcommittee with the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
>Dichotomy between millenials prefering to walk or bike to work rather than drive, versus concerns
with development at south of Rollins Road creating traffic. Needs to take a position. The Millbrae Avenue
end may be just as busy.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE HELD
ON MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016