HomeMy WebLinkAbout032204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, March 22, 2004
Conference Room A
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the March 22, 2004, special meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioner Auran
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES The Commission noted that on Page 5 of the minutes of the March 8, 2004
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, regarding the application at
1261 Balboa Avenue, a statement should be added that "given the mass and
bulk of the house proposed it would be difficult to approve the lot split."
There were no other changes and C. Osterling made a motion to approve the
March 8, 2004 regular meeting minutes with the change noted. C. Keighran
seconded the motion. The motion to approve the March 8, 2004 minutes
passed on a 6-0-1(C. Auran absent) voice vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Since this is a special study session, the chair determined that the public
comment should be moved to after the study session, and noted that
comments would be limited to the subject of the study session. There were
no other changes to the agenda.
V. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
1. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE
DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (279 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe introduced Tom Ford with Design, Community and Environment, project consultant, who
presented a brief summary of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the workshops and
subcommittee meeting decisions which led to the Draft Specific Plan. He noted that there had been five
public workshops and three meetings of the Planning Commission subcommittee. He then reviewed each of
the plan subareas and highlighted some of the concepts proposed. He noted that there had been a comment
in an earlier study session regarding bike lanes at the northern gateway on Rollins Road, and explained why
they were not included; this concept was reviewed with Fehr and Peers, the traffic engineer working on the
project, and it was determined that there is not enough right-of-way on the northernmost end of Rollins
Road to include bike lanes and parking. Commission noted that California Drive, which runs parallel to
Rollins Road, also connects to the BART/Caltrain station and useable bike lanes are proposed there. The
traffic engineer suggested the use of what is called a "sharrow", which is markings in an auto travel lane
showing that the lane is intended to be shared by bicycles and cars. The twelve-foot width proposed for the
travel lanes on Rollins Road are a standard and required given the truck traffic on that street, it would not be
appropriate to consider narrower travel lanes.
To show how a planning concept works through the plan document, CP Monroe introduced a discussion of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004
2
the Adrian Road Auto District and the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. This also demonstrated how a
staff member or developer would use the plan to determine if a given project were appropriate in these areas.
Commissioners made comments and asked for clarification as follows:
El Camino Real North Area:
• There is a strong pattern of residential uses along El Camino Real in Burlingame, this should be
continued.
• Like the idea of having narrow setbacks with raised residential entrances and front stoops on
California Drive.
• Is the first floor retail component along the east side of El Camino Real viable, will there be a
market for the small, service retail space proposed, does it introduce a strip commercial experience
that Burlingame has avoided; where will customers park, and if off-street, how will the parking be
managed?
• When referring to the BART station, it should be called an intermodal station, there are CalTrain and
SamTrans services there as well.
• Would like to see a plan view illustration of the El Camino Real/Trousdale intersection as proposed.
• Would like to see more thought given to what happens on the west side of El Camino adjacent to the
Burlingame Plaza shopping center, if the frontage road area is to be developed, it needs to be
something that the owners of the shopping center would like to see there; if frontage road is to be
abandoned and the entrance to the shopping center reconfigured, would like to see how it would
look.
• Need to have a visual simulation and plan view with aerial photo base comparing existing versus
proposed improvements for the El Camino Real right-of-way in this corridor.
• Think that the block east of the hospital along El Camino Real should be treated differently than the
block to the north, should encourage medical uses or institutional uses such as convalescent
hospitals; the California frontage of the block could continue residential.
• In Subarea B-4, north of Trousdale, could there be an additional incentive for affordable housing if
someone were to offer to keep the units affordable in perpetuity?
• Subarea B-4 should also be considered for Senior Housing/Assisted Living opportunities.
• Could a policy be added that would require that the sidewalks on El Camino Real in the planning
area be connected with the pedestrian network on El Camino Real to the south.
• Bicycle access should be encouraged along California Drive rather than El Camino Real.
• Can El Camino Real in the planning area be narrowed even more, to four lanes, like the rest of El
Camino Real in Burlingame?
o Staff and the consultant noted that in meetings with Caltrans, it did not appear that they would be
amenable to a change in the lane configuration or willing to give up right-of-way.
• Will people actually use the parking proposed along the west side of El Camino Real in front of the
Plaza shopping center, could that parking be eliminated to further narrow the street?
• The illustration of the Magnolia/Trousdale intersection should be modified to reflect the revised
hospital entrance (when revised plans are submitted).
Rollins Road Area:
• In some cross-sections, the sidewalks are shown as 5' wide, why are they so narrow?
o Consultant noted that the sidewalks on Rollins Road are shown as 5' wide because that is the
existing width, there is substantial cost in replacing all the sidewalks and there is not enough
right-of-way to provide wider sidewalks without narrowing the roadway (which would eliminate
either parking or make the travel lanes too narrow for trucks).
• Need to revise the plan to show that the road connection between Rollins and Adrian Roads is a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004
3
"floating" road, with the location to be determined as the area develops/redevelops and opportunity
presents itself.
• The plan needs to include a map of the proposed pedestrian trail system in the Rollins Road area;
this could also include bicycle routes and paths;
• Should look at the spur track right-of-way and drainage area between the Caltrain tracks and the
Guittard properties, it would be a great area for a trail, path or dog run, can we provide incentives to
developers to encourage them to incorporate a trail along this section.
• Alternatively, a bike trail could be provided west of the Caltrain tracks along California Drive in the
old street car right-of-way, which runs from Burlingame Avenue to the Millbrae border, this might
be more accessible and continuous than the area east of the tracks.
• There should be incentives provided for the properties at the Broadway/Rollins Road entry to make a
gateway statement, on the northeast corner the gateway should extend to include all the properties
north to the PG&E substation, taller buildings could provide an architectural statement if we give
direction on design elements which would be acceptable; one of the parcels on the west side already
has a building about 100 feet tall, could extend that statement to both sides on the north of the
Rollins Road intersection, perhaps allow a 50' height and greater density than is now proposed; the
future reconstruction of the Broadway interchange to become an urban interchange may affect the
design of the gateway, maybe even phasing; gateway statement should also include a landscape
element, need incentives to aggregate these parcels to get a safer access and circulation system and a
more pleasing design with on-site parking and the properties on both sides of Rollins on the north
side of Broadway should be included.
• Don't see that the Broadway/Rollins intersection is a gateway, when coming into town, can't see the
building on the corner now, don’t think just having a big boxy building there will be a gateway
statement, need to define better what we mean by gateway.
• Live/work option in northern Rollins Road Area should be kept, there is a need to provide a different
type of housing, most people who are attracted to this type of housing do not have children, so it is
not essential that the area be integrated with the rest of the city and the school system; still would
preserve the economic base if only allowed live/work on a limited basis;
• Need to be careful with the live/work option, how do we define what types of businesses would be
allowed and how do we maintain the live/work use and not see it abused as housing only or for
businesses not allowed in the industrial area; there is a very limited market for this type of housing
associated with manufacturing or fabrication uses.
• concerned with signage on Adrian Road, want to make sure the design guidelines establish that the
types of sign lighting that are appropriate as well as the size and design.
o Staff noted that the sign provisions in the guidelines are meant to be general and establish intent,
the specifics will be worked out with an amendment to the sign code for the area.
• concerned with the trees and other landscaping on the private property along Adrian Road, want to
make sure species, location and management, both on private property and along the freeway edge
are addressed carefully.
• Need to add maximum height regulations and amend the maps and figures for the Rollins
Road/Adrian Road areas, should be kept similar to existing heights, 35 feet review line.
General:
• Add titles to the graphic illustrations in the design guidelines to key them to the text.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004
4
VI. FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Bojués asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. John Ward, 792 Willborough Place, noted that he had
submitted a letter on behalf of the owners of property at Broadway and Rollins Road, was encouraged by the
Commission's discussion of this area and the possibility of offering incentives for land use, height and density in
exchange for creating a gateway statement at this intersection; suggested that the Commission look at examples of
live/work projects which have been built along El Camino Real in San Mateo to determine if that approach is
feasible, there were conditions attached to those approvals that placed limitations on the live/work use, maybe it
would be possible to see how effective they have been.
Bruce Balshone, Pacific Resources, 500 Airport Boulevard, indicated that the live/work concept has been a disaster
in San Francisco, residential lofts and industrial uses have turned out not to be compatible, negatively affecting the
industrial area; in San Francisco residential went into industrial area because the land was cheap, but there was no
use relationship between the lofts and the rest of the area, and the industrial base is being lost; in addition the
redevelopment sponsored concept of mixed storefronts and apartments has also had mixed success in San Francisco,
many of the retail spaces built remained vacant, now have either been used by non-profits or converted to residential
use; there has not been the demand for the small space retail of the type included in these projects.
There were no further comments and Chair Bojués closed the public comments.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Vice-Chair
S:\MINUTES\unapproved Minutes 03.22.04.doc