HomeMy WebLinkAbout042404JointPC-CCminUNAPPROVED MINUTES
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Joint Study Meeting
Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission
1. STUDY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
A joint study meeting of the Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission was
held on April 24, 2004 at Burlingame City Hall in Conference Room A. The meeting was called to
order at 9:00 a.m. by Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony.
2. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony
Council Absent: Baylock
Commissioners Present: Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica
Commissioners Absent: (Keele left at 11:20 a.m.)
Staff Present: CM Nantell, CP Monroe, CA Anderson, DPW Bagdon, SP Brooks,
AE Gomery
3. DISCUSSION ISSUES
The Commission and Council discussed the following topics and gave direction to staff as follows:
CURRENT PLANNING
a. Current Planning: Workload Projections and Issues
CP Monroe noted that the Planning Department is primarily a current planning operation, until
recently, have not done a lot of advanced planning. The department's main operations consists of
processing applications, providing public information and some code enforcement. Given heavy
work volumes in recent years and long Commission agendas, thought it might be time to do a
thorough review of the regulations with an eye towards streamlining them and the review process.
Council and Commission comment: In looking at the data, it appears that some projects come
before the Commission three or four times, would like to see suggestions on how that number can
be reduced; how many applications have been on the agenda more than twice; the table shows that
code enforcement activity has gone down over the last few years. CP Monroe noted that fewer than
ten percent of applications are brought to the Commission more than twice. She explained that we
now have a code enforcement officer and enforcement activities that are interdepartmental are now
handled by others, reducing the Planning Department's time commitment. It was noted that the
number of variance applications processed has been reduced significantly.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-2-
Continued discussion: The Code regulations for setback, declining height envelope, floor area ratio
(FAR) are clearly spelled out, if we are dealing with zoning, should be staying with the code, if the
FAR regulations allow a certain square footage buildout, Planning Commission shouldn't be taking
it upon themselves to reduce it, if the floor area regulations are to be reduced, it should be brought
to the Council as an ordinance change. If someone buys a property and the code says you can build
3000 square foot house and then designs the house to be 2999 SF, and it comes to the Planning
Commission who asks to reduce it by 10%, the whole project has to be redesigned. Realtors will
start telling buyers that you can't count on the code, and buyers will be wary of Burlingame and
values will decline.
CM Nantell noted that it appears that this discussion is evolving to the residential mass and bulk
issue and suggested that we move that item forward on the agenda and continue to talk about it at
this time.
b. Residential Mass and Bulk – An Ongoing Debate
Council/Commission discussion: Burlingame's floor area ratio ordinance is a model for the
Peninsula, the rare aberrations where the design doesn't fit the neighborhood and the structure needs
to be reduced are par for the course; a house can be built to the maximum floor area and may not
look big if it is designed properly, the heart of the issue is design review, saying that a house needs
to be cut back by 10% is like fly swatting, it can be taken out of the back and the mass and bulk of
the house will still look the same, will not impact the streetscape; the bigger issues are creek side
lots and reemerging lots, we are working on code changes to address these situations, our current
policy on design review and FAR is being emulated throughout the Peninsula, we should nurture
the lots that can be built on.
When looking at mass and bulk through the design review process, the Planning Commission has
the discretion to occasionally ask for a reduction in FAR, can't rely solely on the code, it is intended
to be used hand in hand with the design guidelines, the application of the code standards depends on
the circumstances. With design review, a project may be maxed out on FAR with a design that
works well and fits in, that is not the issue, we may need to look at the design review guidelines and
refine them, consider incentives like providing porches because it softens the look of a house, a
porch shouldn't count in the floor area calculation. Other commissioners are concerned about open
space, on average most projects are not maxed out on lot coverage, it should be at the discretion of
the Planning Commission whether FAR is an issue on a specific project, FAR can also be addressed
with landscape screening which can be elaborated on a landscape plan. It is not necessarily an issue
of FAR, it's mass and bulk, might want to consider eliminating the declining height envelope, that
issue can be addressed through asking for more articulation on the side walls; yards are not typically
too small, the driveway and area in front of the garage are useable yard space, a lot of the older
houses, even large ones, seem less massive because of articulation.
Concur that we need more direction than to tell an applicant to reduce floor area by 10%, agree that
there are additional things to address mass and bulk, such as giving direction on porches, propose
that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission look at refining the design guidelines. It would be
helpful to give people examples of good design, perhaps with a recognition program; concur that
the guidelines give some direction, felt that within the guidelines could say that a house doesn't fit,
what is difficult is the cumulative impact of large houses like what we are seeing with the project at
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-3-
1537 Drake and the impact of the next house with the maximum FAR on the same block, with 70 to
80 homes built to the max in one neighborhood, it feels more crowded, maybe the FAR regulation is
okay, but could work on lot coverage and consider reducing it, encourage basements so that houses
are not built setback to setback; this diminishes the attractiveness of Burlingame as a residential
community.
Agree that the design review process is working well and is the envy of the Peninsula, it has been in
place for several years now and it might be good to go back and tweak the guidelines, concerned if
we see 70 to 80 houses built to the same size and shape, stucco with composition shingle roof,
homogeneous house pattern, that is not what we are trying to preserve, we haven't been seeing
houses with porches and other small elements at the front to break up the mass, should be
encouraging variation in the houses we see, don't know if the issue is FAR so much as lack of
diversity, design review is not about the plan of a single house, but fitting it in with each particular
neighborhood. Agree that we should modify the design guidelines and keep the FAR regulations as
they are now, Palo Alto has regulations that encourage basements which helps get away from the
postage stamp back yards, need to look at that and other alternatives so that we are giving sound
guidance. We have not requested that many projects reduce the FAR by 10%, it is a fairly small
percentage, but the 1500 block of Drake has been hit hard, an architect has come in with a house
that would be okay on any other block, but because of the cumulative impact on this one block, the
proposed house does not fit; would like to see guidelines that encourage large porches, and other
design elements without impacting FAR, and would like to see a requirement for a two-car garage
for any house with three or more bedrooms; would like to see some massages to the design
guidelines.
There are plenty of examples of good design, can take pictures of the good projects and add them to
the design guidelines; in discussing basements need to be aware that they are expensive to build,
$200-300 per square foot, in addition to the economics, should look at the issue of bedrooms in
basements, do you want the children sleeping in the basement when the parents are upstairs, it is a
safety issue, there is also a liability issue with basements, the developer is liable for ten years and
there could be mold and drainage problems because of our high water table, if it is not done
correctly it could impact neighbors with shoring and underground water flow; there are more
disadvantages than advantages.
Having photos in the design guidelines may be a good idea, it would give direction to new
architects, as kids get older, having some separation with bedrooms in basements can be a good
thing; we now have a cadre of architects who understand what we are looking for, would be good to
tighten up the design guidelines, it would be a realistic thing to do and could be done in a short time
frame; some people who buy a lot may not want a big back yard, should have the choice, need to
keep in mind that the driveway is part of the yard space, could establish a subcommittee to look at
design guidelines, and some of the code requirements that need to be tweaked based on recent
decisions on design review projects. Should discuss in more depth, happy with FAR requirements
now, but if we're concerned about the cumulative impact and equity, may need to look at FAR, but
explore other ways to address mass and bulk issue first.
If you look at the cumulative impact on a block, the first one on the block gets the best, with the
most FAR, second one doesn't, have a problem with the fairness of that, if the owner wants a bigger
house and less yard, it is not for us to decide, when we talk about the maximum profit of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-4-
developer, all houses built are for families. If we show examples of twelve houses that the
Commission likes, you will get the same twelve houses, it will decrease the diversity; also struggle
with the "I have mine, you can't get yours" equity issue. Agree with characterization that there is a
cumulative impact, but it also raises issues of accountability and predictability of numbers, the key
is balance, so that all the needs of the community are served and people who live here and those
coming in know what to expect.
Basements don't have to be sleeping rooms, they can be recreation rooms, storage, play areas, if we
are worried about mass and bulk, at least basements are invisible, let's consider that option, at least
it might encourage people to take the junk out of the garage and put it into the basement. In Palo
Alto, sixty percent of new construction is built with basements; when the issue of basements was
discussed in the neighborhood consistency subcommittee, the idea expressed was that basements
should not be mandatory, but could be offered as an option.
The consensus of the discussion was to look at the issue of mass and bulk, starting with a look at the
design guidelines and discuss some code regulations to provide incentives for architectural elements
that break up the mass and bulk as well as looking at encouraging basements.
c. Revise the Second Unit Amnesty Program: Add More Incentives for Affordable
Housing
CP Monroe noted that the second unit amnesty regulations were amended last year, and at that time
the Council directed that the program be reviewed again to waive the off-street parking requirement
for the second unit as an incentive if the unit is affordable.
Council/Commission discussion: The suggestion was brought up to help make the program
successful, parking is now a disincentive, the units are already there so whatever parking is not on
site is being accommodated now, hoping to bring more people forward and keep the housing costs
low; the incremental increase in on-street parking would be small and the total impact would be
minimal, would like to encourage more applications to come forward; one of the concerns is safe
housing, if the units are brought up to code it will increase safety for the tenants.
It was concluded that this code amendment would be a good idea and would not take a lot of staff
time to prepare, but should depend this year on the work program priorities.
d. Demolition Permit Process and Historic Buildings
CP Monroe described the demolition permit process and noted that it is not a discretionary permit, if
an applicant meets the requirements, a permit must be issued. Since there is no discretion, there is
no notification procedure and no CEQA action required. There is a better chance that application
for a demolition permit will be delayed when a planning approval is required for a project.
Generally such projects are also subject to CEQA.
Council/Commission discussion: A lot of the older commercial buildings are unsound, the Regan
building on California Drive had no reinforcing and was unsafe, with land so valuable would be
reluctant to change demolition regulations. Would like to see this as part of the work program with
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-5-
a higher weight on commercial buildings; would be a good way to keep track of the existing
building stock, there is an effort to see the City grow, but it should grow in the right way.
ADVANCED PLANNING
a. Zoning Implementation for the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
Plans and Housing Element Work Program Update and FY 2004-2005 Projects
CP Monroe noted that now that the Bayfront Specific Plan has been adopted and with the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan expected to be completed by July, there are some zoning
regulations which need to be revised and updated to implement these two plans. She noted that this
is not really an optional work item, because State law requires that the zoning be consistent with the
General Plan, including the Specific Plans. The main thrust of this work item would be to make
sure we update the zoning regulations to include uses envisioned in the plan, and that the
regulations related to development are consistent with land use direction and the design guidelines
of each plan.
Council/Commission discussion: It was noted that staff will also be working on the hospital
project, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and Council has been working with the
applicant and this has been a refreshing and rewarding experience; would like to compliment the
efforts of the applicants and their willingness to work with the Committee to revise the project to
match the vision of the community, we are making great strides. Would like to see an analysis of
the impact to services of the proposed changes in the planning areas. Staff clarified that the hospital
site is now zoned unclassified and is designated for institutional uses. A parcel which is owned by
the applicant on Marco Polo but which is not part of the proposed hospital project is proposed to be
designated for residential uses, together with the rest of the properties along Marco Polo in that
block. The remaining area on the hospital site that is not a part of the current project will be
submitted with a development plan for City consideration later.
b. Community Visioning/Comprehensive General Plan Update
CP Monroe described the community visioning process and noted that it is usually the first step in
an update of the General Plan which is a blueprint for future development. The first question to ask
is if there is a problem with the current blueprint; we have recently completed a visioning/blueprint
process for the Bayfront and North Burlingame areas as well as a comprehensive Housing Element
update.
Council/Commission comment: The visioning suggestion was made, but given the current
workload it may not make sense to do at this time, the key issue is downtown Burlingame and the
disconnect we have seen between development proposals and the vision of the citizens for this area;
visioning is important, the existing general plan and the principles expressed are great, but it was
written in 1969 and at some point we will have to go through an update, but think we might find
that the visioning now would validate the current plan. The existing plan is compliant with State
law, the Housing Element was certified in 2002, the question is, does the plan reflect the
community's values, and in recent applications, we have found that it is still valid.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-6-
c. Specific Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and its Environs.
CP Monroe noted that the concept for preparing a Specific Area Plan came up in two contexts, the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and its parking issues, and the multiple family development
activity happening in the residential areas surrounding the commercial area. The Burlingame
Improvement Committee (BIC) was recently formed to implement the 1996 streetscape program for
Burlingame Avenue. It was noted that although there has been discussion regarding funding the
streetscape program using the Business District Improvement capital improvement program (CIP),
the decision on funding will come through the budget process in June. CA Anderson noted that the
parking revenue received must be used for some parking purpose which has been defined to include
parking structures, sidewalks and streetscape, but this money cannot go to the general fund nor can
it be used to fund programs that are not parking related. DPW Bagdon clarified that at the budget
study session, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2004-2005 was reviewed and $500,000
was shown for Burlingame Avenue streetscape; the City Council will take action on the CIP in the
June budget hearings. Because of the recent rate increase and concern expressed about the fee
increase there will be a study done in the fall to see how the parking behavior in the area has
changed and determine if there is still a parking deficiency in the core area. It could be decided at
that time whether to build parking or to fund the streetscape program.
Council/Commission Discussion: would like to see the area studied, would like to encourage
Howard Avenue to mirror Burlingame Avenue, see the parking changes implemented to drive
vibrancy to Howard, that would also give direction to Safeway on what the vision is for Howard;
regarding Auto Row, now that we will be encouraging auto-related uses in the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, may see some changes to Auto Row on California Drive
and see land use changes and people being attracted to California Drive, want to make sure that the
parking issues on California Drive are addressed to encourage safe parking patterns.
Continued discussion: agree that we should be encouraging development on the Howard Avenue
corridor, the area is underused now, should look at the uses and streetscape for that area, there is
limited parking, but if the streetscape on Howard is improved, it could be a magnet for new uses,
the streetscape on Burlingame Avenue is not too bad, would rather see attention paid to Howard,
which is also included in the 1996 streetscape plan. Studying downtown makes a lot of sense,
Planning Commission and Council have spent a lot of time looking at proposals that don't match our
vision for the area, residents have expressed concern that the village feel of the area has been
compromised by chain stores, important to maintain a mix of uses; for the residential areas, the new
inclusionary housing regulations allow a height of 46 feet as compared to the current 35-foot review
line, this is a big change.
Concur that Howard is underdeveloped and could be tied better to downtown, also need to look at
the residential densities and height, should it be 46', the density may be appropriate because people
can walk to downtown, the train station, but it needs to be balanced, need to look at all the
information; also if we want to talk about preserving historic commercial buildings, there are some
charming buildings on Howard Avenue, but a lot of new uses require a parking variance, may want
to look at providing parking incentives to discourage demolition.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-7-
Discussion continued: See merits of a specific plan, but would like to see the Business
Improvement District (BID) born, don't want to do anything to jeopardize that, there might be
different priorities for improvements based on the BID, must not derail the merchant's efforts, need
to let them know that the area is in the City's priorities and that we are supportive, but think we are
putting the cart before the horse, maybe the efforts on the streetscape could be put off six months
and then get the BID and the BIC involved together in the process to implement the streetscape
plan.
DPW Bagdon noted that when the Broadway Streetscape Plan was implemented, Public Works
worked with the BID on the particulars of the streetscape implementation (made some changes and
adjusted scheduling), that was a positive experience and would like to approach Burlingame
Avenue the same way. The BIC was created before the BID movement got started and was
intended to create a group to assist in implementing the 1996 streetscape plan. We looked at starting
implementation now because we have just raised the rates and want to show the benefit from that.
Would like to involve both the BID and BIC as a resource for the streetscape process.
Continued discussion: At this point we need to take a deep breath and wait until it is determined
that the BID is in place or not, then we can revisit the issue in September, this is an important issue,
but want to get the BID going first. Not sure it has to be mutually exclusive, don't see the need for
extensive land use planning on Burlingame Avenue, that part could go ahead, need to look more
closely at the Howard Avenue area. Regarding the height issue in the residential areas, the zoning
code allows a conditional use permit for 46 foot height, should respect that, this is a great area for
seniors because can walk to downtown, the Planning Commission should honor that code provision.
Would like to see all three shopping districts addressed together in some way so there can be a link,
Burlingame Avenue, Broadway and the Burlingame Plaza.
Briefly the cost of a specific area plan was discussed and it was noted that at present there is no
money for advanced planning in the Planning Department budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2004-
2005. The consensus was that if this program was placed on the work program for FY 2004-2005,
the second parking study to determine the effectiveness of the recent rate increase would need to be
completed and a determination made on whether the funds in the Business District Improvement
CIP need to be used right away for additional parking or can be used for streetscape improvements.
This study will not be done until the late Fall. Meanwhile the decision on the BID will have been
completed. In the interim if the BIC wishes to meet on the streetscape improvements on
Burlingame Avenue (Subarea A) they can do so but they should take no action that would commit
funds until the BID and parking study results are known. The priority for land use planning appears
to be Howard Avenue (Subarea B), Auto Row and the residential areas adjacent to the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area. The timing of this study will depend on the availability of funding
which will not be clear until the December or January time frame.
d. Develop an Bicycle Transportation Plan and Be Eligible for Implementation Funding
CP Monroe noted that this issue was first raised last summer when we were made aware that in
order to be eligible for certain funding sources, a community needs to have a bicycle committee and
an adopted bicycle plan. Last year, in filling a position on the Traffic Safety and Parking (TSP)
Commission, the Council appointed a member with bicycle interests and a bicycle subcommittee
was formed. The subcommittee consists of two TSP Commissioners and one Planning
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-8-
Commissioner. The next step would be to draft a Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City, which
would be incorporated into the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In order to be eligible for
certain outside funding for the 2005-2006 funding cycle, the plan would need to be adopted by
Burlingame, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans by December of 2004. In
determining the priority for allocating funding for bicycle projects from the various funding
sources, scores are given based on a list of criteria, including community support for the project,
whether the project is part of a local or regional plan and whether the community provides matching
funds. The more local funds that are included, the higher the ranking. The matching funds could
come from Measure A or Gas Tax funds, would not have to come from the General Fund, however
they may end up being diverted from money set aside by the Public Works Department for local
roadway resurfacing.
Council/Commission comment: This project makes sense, we don't do enough to promote bicycles
in this community, the only issue is priorities, if we do this project what else would not get done.
Commissioner Keele left at 11:20 a.m.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue; Dan Anderson, 728
Vernon Way; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive; John Root, 1407
Montero Avenue; and Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way made the following comments: think the
Planning Commission is working hard, this meeting has been enlightening on all the issues, what a
neighbor does affects the property values for the area; appreciate the guidance regarding the
Burlingame Improvement Committee and the Burlingame Improvement District, want to know if
the BID is not formed, will the BIC still have a role in the process.
Interested in the discussion on mass and bulk, there should be an effort to balance smart growth, the
interest of developers and the interests of long time residents. Concerned with neighborhood
character and would like to see the reassessment of floor area on the list of projects for this year;
have observed the process and it does not work well, the developer goes to the Planning
Commission and the project is whittled down in size, the neighbors also leave in frustration; have
concern for all parties. The basement issue might be worth exploring, there might be a way to get a
solution to the problem, kids grow up fast, like the idea of separation provided by basements. Need
to look at the cumulative effect of residential development; one on one the FAR formula works, but
need to address cumulatively, it's always good to review the regulations and make the model better;
the regulations need to be fair to all residents, if one gets the maximum FAR, the next one will
expect it, and the overall cumulative effect is significant.
Don't think there is a problem with FAR, the problem on Poppy Drive was three buildings that
didn't fit in, if it sticks out like a sore thumb can understand, but can have a nice house within the
existing regulations, don't think we should discipline those that do it right. What is inside the house
is nobody's business but the person who owns the home, if they want to have five or six bedrooms,
that is their business, the problem is how it looks outside, not what is inside. The basement concept
is a good one as long as it is not mandatory, in addition to the cost to construct, there could also be
problems with seepage.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
-9-
We may or may not have a vision statement, but I don't know what it is, would be nice if there was
a nice, short, concise statement of where we are headed; as for as the BID, we need to encourage
that effort, it would be best if we don't do anything related to streetscape now, it looks as if the BID
will happen; but the streetscape plan for Howard and Burlingame Avenues is eight years old and
nothing has happened, it would be relatively inexpensive and it shouldn't be put off too long. Have
heard some excellent dialogue on tough issues, the most difficult is the cumulative impact versus
equity for existing owners, this is not a simple issue and will take a lot of time and thought, the
equity issue was similar when considered regulations for food establishments on Burlingame
Avenue; there are a lot of different concepts which should be reviewed, but can't ignore the changes
that take place gradually over time.
5. WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Based on the discussion of issues noted above, a consensus among the City Council and Planning
Commission members was arrived at and the following work program was identified:
• Residential Mass & Bulk – form a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to
review issues related to residential mass and bulk, including revising the design
guidelines and looking at adding incentives for architectural feature which benefit
design objectives.
• Zoning Implementation for the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plans – this item would include elements of the Housing Element Work
Program and would be undertaken by staff with subcommittees of the Planning
Commission.
• Specific Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Area – work on this item will be delayed
six months to see the outcome of the BID process and to determine available
funding.
• Bicycle Transportation Plan – Commence work with bicycle subcommittee of
Traffic Safety and Parking Commission and Planning Commission to develop a plan
to meet the December 2004 approval date necessary to seek project funding from the
next Federal/State funding cycle.
Two items among those discussed were identified for staff to consider as alternatives should other
items be stalled or time and opportunity become available:
• Revision of the Second Unit Amnesty Program – to allow second units without
any on-site parking provided the unit is affordable.
• Review the Demolition Permit Process – to see if there is a feasible way to address
the removal of buildings not subject to CEQA.
It was agreed that because of budget limitations in FY 2004-2005, any item not included in the FY
2004-2005 Work Program or which did get into the work program but could not be completed,
would be included for consideration again next year.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.