HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.08.18APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, August 18, 2003
Joint Study Meeting
Burlingame City Council, Burlingame Planning Commission
and Bayfront Specific Area Plan Working Group
1. STUDY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
A joint study meeting of the Burlingame City Council, Burlingame Planning Commission and the
Bayfront Specific Area Plan Working Group was held on the above date at the Burlingame Recreation
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Mike Coffey.
2. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony
Council Absent: None
Commissioners Present: Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele*, Keighran*, Osterling and Vistica*
(*these Commissioners are also working group members)
Commissioners Absent: None
Working Group Members Present: Bruce, Heathcote, Dwyer, Mink, Carlton, Green
Working Group Members Absent: Housley
Staff Present: CM Nantell, CP Monroe, CA Anderson, SP Brooks
3. Discussion of Preliminary Draft Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Mayor Coffey called the meeting to order. CP Monroe gave an overview of the Preliminary Draft
Specific Area Plan, noting that this is an update of the plan, because the existing plan has been a
success. She discussed the limited access points to the area, the plans for improvements to the
Peninsula Interchange, which is scheduled for reconstruction as part of the auxiliary lane project to be
commenced in 2004, and the Broadway interchange, which has been redesigned but which will not be
rebuilt for at least ten years. She noted that these roadway projects will not increase roadway capacity,
but will improve intersection operations and improve safety. The auxiliary lane project will include a
separate bicycle and pedestrian access at the Broadway interchange.
CP Monroe continued by describing the plan document, noting that the plan is divided into unique
subareas, with different uses and design guidelines proposed for each. They are unified and linked by
five streetscape and gateway themes. She discussed the environmental constraints in the area and
identified the studies done to evaluate the potential impacts. She noted that the goals and policies of
the original plan were used as a basis for developing the new refined goals and supporting policies. In
conclusion, she noted that neither the goals and policies of the original Bayfront Plan nor the proposed
update address providing residential uses in the Bayfront area and the current zoning for the area
prohibits residential development in the Bayfront area.
City of Burlingame Joint Meeting City Council/Planning Commission/Working Group regarding the Preliminary Draft
Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Unapproved Minutes August 18, 2003
-2-
Mayor Coffey opened the discussion on the Preliminary Draft Bayfront Specific Area Plan. The
Council, Planning Commission and Working Group members made the following observations and
comments.
• the uses proposed are appropriate, but with office/hotel market the way it is today we may have
put a severe land use limitation without meaning to; property taxes may play a bigger role in
the future and it may be punitive to leave out a housing option, would like to see a way to leave
the door open to consider a residential proposal if one comes forward;
• if you look at the demographics, Burlingame will have more empty nesters, a self-contained
senior housing facility might be feasible on the bayfront if it had amenities internalized to the
site, it could take advantage of the recreational facilities in the area, we should leave the door
open to consider it if someone comes in with a viable plan;
• the State Lands parcel is designated for hotel use only, this site was originally under the bay,
when the area was filled it became private ownership; in settlement of a lawsuit regarding the
fill, this parcel became property of the State, it belongs to the residents of California, would
like to see a recreation opportunity there, should be required as part of any hotel development
that some land be set aside for public use;
• this has to be a plan for the next twenty years, not a reaction to the burst economic bubble, the
whole thrust should be to strengthen the tried and true hotel industry; wouldn't count on the
property tax structure changing; heard good ideas in the workshops, don't think the office
industry is dead, there is empty space in the County and there is very little going on now, but
that's not going to be forever, should act, not react; extended stay hotels are recommended in
the economic report, not all guests will stay longer than 29 days, and City would get its
transient occupancy tax; other things mentioned at the workshops have been biotech and
nanotech, this is a special area and an exciting time, should be a time of constraint, don't wor ry
about the empty nesters, we can look at the North end of Burlingame near BART for that kind
of use, there is the opportunity for a residential project to have more height and density there;
• PKF market analysts are predicting hotels will have 59% occupancy by 2004 and 69%
occupancy by 2005 which is a healthy gain, the conclusion in the economic analysis shows that
housing is not the way to go, the market has changed, moved south and north closer to the
biotech in South San Francisco and major offices in the South Peninsula, there are no demand
generators for hotels in this area other than the airport in this market and we need some; the
long-term economic viability of housing doesn't work, it does not support hotels and will
require infrastructure and support services;
• would love to see completion of the bay trail, it's needed for the hotels and it provides a public
benefit, need to complete it now even if we need to put a lien on private property, we shouldn't
have to wait 20-30 years, we need to be proactive;
• housing at Anza Point has possibility, would not like to see that scrapped; real estate property
taxes have been the one dependable revenue in our budget; office and commercial would be
fabulous if it gets built; we now have housing issues for our City workers, it would be a
requirement that some of the units be affordable, we require shuttle buses for office
development, and could also require them for housing, the area is closer to Burlingame Avenue
than other residential areas in Burlingame, would like to see the possibility for housing left in
the plan;
• residential development costs the City twice as much as is generated in taxes; even apartments
built by a non-profit generate costs because they don't pay property taxes;
City of Burlingame Joint Meeting City Council/Planning Commission/Working Group regarding the Preliminary Draft
Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Unapproved Minutes August 18, 2003
-3-
• if this were a 5 year plan, wouldn't worry about it because we'll be looking at it again, but
shouldn't shut out the idea of housing now since this is a long term plan, if someone comes in
and has a terrific idea, want to give them the opportunity to make their case;
• if left residential use open ended, you would never have zoning at all, it's clear that the
economic analysis is important, building something that costs the City money is problematic,
need to look at which uses produce what revenue, should craft a use for Anza Point that is a
demand generator for the hotels;
• in workshops we looked at religious institutions and convention centers, but actually a
convention center does not make money, religious institution would be a wash but would only
be an occasional destination;
• while we have to be fiscally responsible, this is our last best chance to get any housing by the
bay, can enjoy dynamite views, economics aside it would be great to have housing there for
seniors or young professionals, yes, there are no schools and it will take longer for a fire
response; the plan is perfect as is, except we should add housing in the Anza Point area with its
views out to Coyote Point;
• if you look at Police and Fire, you will not need another Fire Department, we have shared
services, we already have an officer in the area 24 hours with additional staffing during the
critical hours;
• can we limit housing to one particular area, there seems to be one area identified, the Anza
Point area;
• we do not need housing in this area to meet the community housing needs as identified in the
Housing Element adopted last year, also the Housing Element identified as a priority in areas
near transportation where housing would be more beneficial;
• if Anza Point is developed with housing, we will be looking at creating a separate community,
against the goals we are trying to accomplish of encouraging a visitor-oriented employment
center, putting housing there defeats these goals;
• agree this is a great location on the waterfront, but its also cold and windy, if we did have
housing what would we do about police and fire service, there will be families, where will the
children go to schools, the area schools are already impacted, there is no accessibility to
shopping, laundromats or deli, should look at uses compatible with the hotel industry and look
at housing at the north end of Burlingame;
• as far as the social aspects of providing housing for hotel workers, only a small percentage of
the units would be dedicated for low-cost housing, this wouldn't make a dent in the need
because of the cost of the land, the market rate per unit costs will be high;
• in favor of housing, understand the economics but shouldn't do away with the possibility, one
of the main goals of the plan is to connect the two sides of the town together, now there is no
connection and providing housing would help that connection, will create a neighborhood and
the recreation area will be more widely used, it provides an alternative, having the possibility of
living there makes a stronger, more vibrant community, still need to draw an industry base, but
we will have that at the north end of the Bayfront planning area;
• my fear is that we will create a rich enclave cut off from the rest of the community, don't think
residential is an improvement, don't see any kind of a great road connection, even with a
bicycle connection there is a physical divide, the freeway;
• at the workshops, we talked about a gateway at the Bayshore/Airport intersection to have a
direction sign as a wayfinder, think this is important, strangers don't know which way to turn,
City of Burlingame Joint Meeting City Council/Planning Commission/Working Group regarding the Preliminary Draft
Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Unapproved Minutes August 18, 2003
-4-
repeated signs going from large message to more detailed would strengthen the sense of
gateway and finding one's way;
• we have a good thing going, let's make it better, the Anza Point area has the most vacant land,
there doesn't seem to be consistency between the two wings of the plan area, north end has
more hardscape and dense commercial development; the right wing is more green, full of
lagoons, it flows into Coyote Point, more interested in that part of the area and thinki ng it
through; want to draw more community members to the area;
• would like to see more in depth analysis of commercial recreation facilities, such as facilities
for little league, indoor soccer or basketball, want to have something that draws people to the
area, would like to look at ways to fund a waterfront park;
• when South San Francisco attracted the biotech industry, they began with that emphasis and did
a refinement of what was allowed in that area, would like to look at the Inner Bayshore area,
other than a few office buildings it is underutilized single story buildings could we look at the
strip fronting on Bayshore and making it complementary to the streetscape of the hotels on the
other side of the street, would like to see incentives to make that happen;
• should consider requiring commercial design review for this area;
• would like to make it a priority to maximize use of the recreational facilities we already have
and use them to draw people from the community into the area;
• the Inner Bayshore area has a special proximity to the Airport and there are a lot of smaller
parcels which makes it attractive for start-up businesses.
CM Nantell noted that one of the reasons we have all come together is that the citizen's group is split
on the issue of housing in the Bayfront area and it appears that the split continues. After some
discussion it was concluded that the next step seems to be to go forward to the Planning Commission
with the plan as it is now drafted without including housing, after staff has will provided information
regarding housing and its affects on services, traffic and the environment, and analysis of what it
would cost the City to provide services to residential uses on the east side of U.S. 101. There will be
an opportunity for public comment when the plan goes to the Planning Commission, the additional
information can be taken in and a recommendation made.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Gloria Barton, 734 Winchester Drive, Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, Colman Conneely, General
Manager, Sheraton Gateway, John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero Avenue,
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, Mike Spinelli, 1301 Mills Avenue, Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way,
Linda Lees Dwyer, 324 Dwight Way, Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive, and Paul Prendiville, 909
Azalea Avenue, spoke regarding the proposed update of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan and had the
following comments.
• when we studied the Bayfront back when the original plan was adopted, we heard the same
arguments for housing we're hearing now, and felt it was a plan that would last forever, when
you look at the revenue the City has received from this area over the years, the old adage
applies "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", this economy is flat, but we live in the most desirable
place on the Peninsula, if you put housing there it will make nightmares for Councils to come,
just go listen to the residents in Foster City, with housing in the flight pattern, there will be
complaints, the condos will sell for over a million dollars, even if we require public access,
City of Burlingame Joint Meeting City Council/Planning Commission/Working Group regarding the Preliminary Draft
Bayfront Specific Area Plan
Unapproved Minutes August 18, 2003
-5-
people who buy these units will not want people trooping through, Council will hear about it; a
wise decision was made then, please take a very good look at what will be created, once
housing is allowed, can't reverse it and it will cost the city a lot of money, people will demand
nearby stores, we have successful retail areas at Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, it will
create two separate communities by having housing there;
• went to every public workshop and housing was only mentioned by developers, this idea is
back in after citizens voiced opinions against, a few hundred residents on the east side will be
an exclusive group;
• like to see extended stay hotels as a use allowed in the Anza Area as well as in Anza Point;
• realize hotels are important and there is increasing competition from the north and south,
should take as much input as you can get from the hotels, a convention or conference center
should be considered, they may lose money but can help the business of the community;
• think we have lost sight of the goals stated at the workshops, need to take advantage of the
bayfront and make it a destination place, add cultural and civic opportunities, the area has great
freeway access, if people come specifically to the bayfront for places such as aquariums or
museums, it will help the hotels and provide something for residents as well;
• housing on the bay side is antithesis to good urban planning, housing should be near
transportation, walkable to stores and amenities, there is nothing there to support housing, next
there would be requests for mini-malls, it would take away a revenue source for hotels, it would
be a pandora's box we would never be able to close; we shouldn't panic, we are not in the
position of bailing a developer out of a bad decision;
• regarding gateway design, there was a charette held in the 1980's that dealt with that issue,
should look at what came out of that again;
• have an office in the area, when you are out there on a regular basis, you see what a
magnificent site this is, in the long term view it has economic value, if you look back from a
50-year perspective, this area was almost worthless decades ago, now it's priceless, potential for
interaction between users and the bayfront area, the Anza area is particularly beautiful, the
keystone is the Anza Airport Parking site and what will be there, it could be a recreation space
with a mix of offices, hotels, restaurants, the key is that and the State Lands site, if we can
develop a public park it would be a long-term advantage, now the area is in transition and
disjointed, there is a need for retail to support the existing employee and visitor base in the
area, hotels are key but there has to be multiple uses, also need to connect this area with the
housing across the freeway, a convention center could be funded through a Business
Improvement District;
• it's very important to preserve open space while honoring the economic uses, we should not be
destroying what we have;
• this is an important decision, need to ask the community what they want, when it gets to the
Planning Commission we will hear more people that do not want housing, want to have more
recreation;
• support housing in the area, have some ideas of what could be done.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Coffey thanked the participants and closed the public comment. He noted that the plan would
be before the Planning Commission for study in the coming months. The meeting was adjourned at
9:15 p.m.