Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.09.18CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Burlingame Fire Station No. 34, Training Room 799 California Drive, Burlingame, CA Thursday, September, 18, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Osterling called the September 18, 2003, special study session of the Planning Commission to order at 6:32 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran (left meeting at 7:45 p.m.), Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Bojués Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. IV. STUDY SESSION ON THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN CP Monroe presented a brief overview of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan update process, noting that it is an update to the existing Bayfront Specific Area Plan which has been in place since 1981. She also noted that this was a study session to discuss the preliminary draft of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan update. At the joint presentation of the plan on August 18, 2003, staff was directed to prepare an analysis of having housing in the Bayfront Area. She noted that the analysis was completed and was included as a part of the packet materials for tonight's meeting. The purpose of tonight's meeting was to give the Commission an opportunity to do a close review of the content and assumptions underlying the preliminary draft of the plan. CP Monroe suggested that the commission review the document section by section beginning with the goals and policies, and discuss each in detail. Once the Commission discussion concluded, there would be an opportunity for public comments from the floor. CP Monroe noted the there have been four public workshops including the Joint Study Session with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Bayfront Plan Working Group. In addition, the Working Group has met six times with staff to review the input received at the workshops and to fine tune the concepts and language of the plan. She noted that the next step in the process after the Commission's study sessions will be to hold a public hearing before the Planning Commission and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would also hold a study session and would then hold a public hearing to consider and act on the plan. Once the plan is adopted, the Planning Commission Bayfront Plan Subcommittee will work with staff on any necessary zoning code amendments. Staff will then implement an updated Bayfront Development fee and the new community standards and design guidelines will be used in the review of all proposed projects. The Commission then began a review of the Goals and Policies chapter of the plan. Commissioners made the following comments/suggestions for revision: • Policy A-1: change "office-warehouse commercial employment center" to "corporate campus, biotech and commercial employment center" to reflect a broader diversity of use for the area in 2003; delete the statement that the area is "separate from"; the rest of the City; include "hotels" in the description of uses to encourage. • Add Policy A-5: Encourage land uses which provide a connection between the east and west sides of U.S. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 2 101. • Amend Goal B: Protect and enhance the unique qualities of Burlingame's shoreline environment. • Amend Policy B-2 - change "continue to value" to "enhance" the role of Burlingame's bayfront and shoreline, clarify that the definition of shoreline includes all areas affected by tidal waters. • Policy B-4: include "enhance" in addition to protect and preserve. • Goal C: change "San Francisco Bay and its local estuaries" to "San Francisco Bay shoreline environment"; use consistent language regarding the shoreline throughout goals and policies, make sure it is clear that the goals and policies apply to all areas affected by tidal waters. • Amend Policy C-1: Design criteria for development shall take best advantage of proximity to, recreational use of, and public access to the San Francisco Bay shoreline environment. • Add Policy C-5: Encourage safe pedestrian and bicycle access on the public right-of-way within the Bayfront Area and access to provide convenient east-west connections across U.S. 101. • Add Policy C-6: Work with adjacent public agencies to improve pedestrian/bicycle access at least from the north and south of the area to the recreational opportunities in the Bayfront area, additional pedestrian/bicycle access at a midpoint is also highly desirable. • Combine Policies D-1 and D-2: Policy D-1: Actively encourage land uses such as destination hotels, restaurants and employee-supporting retail uses which will provide a revenue base that will offer long- term economic support for improving service levels, as well as revitalizing and maintaining essential municipal services throughout the city. • Add new Policy D-2: Promote new uses which enhance the Bayfront Area as a destination for visitors and residents in order to support the local hotels, adjacent businesses and the economy. • Policy D-2: Relates to the discussions on residential land uses - will be revisited at next meeting. • Add Policy D-6: Promote diversification of the lodging base by encouraging extended stay and destination hotels in certain subareas. • Amend Policy E-4 by adding: When considering realignment or new alignment of roadways, encourage arterial roadways to be located away from the bay edge. • Add Policy E-10: Development should occur within the capacity of the city's water and sewer infrastructure and within Burlingame's water allocation from the San Francisco Public Utility System's Hetch Hetch Water System. • Amend Policy F-4 to add " . . . the Bayshore Highway should be enhanced with consistent landscaping to extend the "tree city" image of Burlingame." • Add Policy F-5: In order to achieve the aesthetic goals of the plan and implement the Bayfront Design Guidelines, extend the requirement for commercial design review to include all properties within the Bayfront Area. • Add Policy F-6: Develop a sense of place by creating a unifying gateway treatment at entrances and throughout the area. • Amend Policy G-5: Recognize that the Anza Point Area offers a unique opportunity for Burlingame given its location and development potential. Create a structure of streets, walks and open space to organize a mixed use district of development that takes advantage of the area's unique opportunity and its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. • Add Policy G-6: Develop common design elements which unify the Subareas, particularly within the public right of way. The Commission then looked at the Land Use chapter of the plan and made the following comments: • In the description for each subarea, add a statement that links to the design guidelines for that area. • In the Anza Point Subarea, add a statement: This area offers a unique opportunity for Burlingame given City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 3 its location adjacent to the Bay and Sanchez Channel, with the unusual development opportunity provided by size of the two prominent underused sites in the area. • Also add the following to the Anza Point area land use discussion: The development of this area will require realignment of Airport Boulevard and the possible creation of a new local street system. In designing the new street alignments, emphasis should be given to a design which keeps the roadways away from the Bay edges. This is less important for Sanchez Channel. • In the Anza Point land use discussion refer to the height restrictions in the Design Guidelines. • On the land use map for the Anza Point Area: Because of environmental constraints, especially wind, hotel density should be 65 rooms per acre. Given the site constraints and height restrictions due to wind impacts, we should not give the impression that more can be built than would actually be possible. In the Beach/Lang Road areas it is not clear what is meant by "Recreation-related Retail". The intent is not to encourage gyms but to promote those recreation retail uses such as sailboard makers, deli and sandwich places, boat sales, which support the recreation users at the nearby facilities in Coyote Point Park and on the Bay Trail. The Commissioners had a question regarding the traffic and circulation chapter, noting that the table in the Plan differs from the table in the September 8, 2003, memo. Table IV-1 in the plan shows lower percentages of capacity consumed than the Table on Page 7 in the September 8, 2003 memo. Staff noted that Table IV-1 in the plan document reflected intersection counts done in 2002, which were lower than counts taken by the traffic consultants in 1999 for the same intersections. The consultant was concerned that the 2002 lower numbers reflected the regional economic downturn and, to account for this possibility, the existing traffic volumes were factored up from 10 to 20 percent, based on the approximate decrease in traffic since the 1999 traffic counts. The 2002 numbers were also revised to include traffic from approved projects under construction. The Table on Page 7 of the September 8, 2003 memo reflects this revised calculation, and the Table IV-1 in the Draft Plan document will be revised accordingly. Regarding the design guidelines, the Commissioners noted that the "Grand Boulevard" concept shown for Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard includes an 8-10 foot wide sidewalk, a parking lane on each side and four travel lanes; this represents too much hardscape and paved area, can this design be revised. CP Monroe noted that there is no parking now on either Airport Boulevard or Bayshore Highway, the design could be revised to show bike lanes, as well as a center median with turn pockets. It was also noted that the conceptual design sketch for Anza Point shown on Page V-27 should indicate the height limits as reflected in the drawing on the previous page. CP Monroe and SP Brooks gave an overview of the Community Standards and Plan Implementation chapters, and there were no comments. However, it was noted by a Commissioner that the choice of community wind standards was up to the City to choose, e.g. could focus just on velocity, not turbulence or tolerate a higher level of each, etc. The Commissioners then reviewed the information presented in the "Analysis of Housing Alternative" memo dated September 8, 2003. Commissioners asked how the alternatives evaluated were determined. It was noted that in analyzing the traffic and economic impacts of the two alternatives (Alternative and Housing Alternative), staff chose ten sites with the greatest development potential and, using the land use proposals and densities set forth for each of these sites in each alternative, came up with a "best guess" description of the development potential for the whole area using that alternative. It was noted that the same assumptions were used for properties outside the Anza Point Area in each of the alternatives. The differences shown in the analysis came from the development on the two vacant/underused sites in the Anza Point Area. In the Land Use Plan proposed as the plan is now drafted, the assumption was that these two sites would develop with a combination of office and hotel uses, while in the Housing Alternative, these two sites would both be developed with multiple family residential uses, at a density of 30 units per acre. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 4 Commissioners noted that the economic analysis was a "static" analysis, in that both alternatives were compared to the existing plan based on full build out of the plan area. It was noted because development by use is cyclical, that the different land use scenarios would develop at different rates and generate revenues and costs at different rates as well. The revenue/cost issues might look different because the market for housing might result in development in a shorter time frame, while the hotel and office markets may take 10 to 20 years to pick back up. Commissioners asked if staff could contact the economist that prepared the analysis, and see if he could provide some kind of simple analysis which shows the cost/benefit information for the alternatives over time. CP also suggested that she would see if the economist could come to the next Planning Commission study session on the Bayfront Plan. Continued commissioner discussion: • If you do housing, it might help tie the two sides of town together, shouldn't make decisions solely based on the financial implications; • should focus on a destination magnet on the Bayfront, typical hotel development has spread to other areas outside Burlingame, need a unique destination or use on the Anza Point site; • the plan should address the hotel industry of the future, look at different types of hotel such as extended stay or resort hotels; • close to build out now, should look at hotels as a secondary use, consider uses which would enhance the use of existing hotels; • housing would not create that dynamic destination enhancing effect with hotels, would be neutral; • do not agree that you could create a viable residential "neighborhood" in the Anza Point area; • there would be a "nimby" affect with residential use, new residents may be concerned with traffic generating destination uses that come in after; • should look at providing incentives for "corporate campus" kind of companies, such as different development requirements for combined lots. V. FROM THE FLOOR Vice-Chair Osterling asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. Mark Hudak, 210 Park Road, requested that there be better public notice for the next study meeting, everyone that signed up for notices should be contacted, noted that his clients have crunched the numbers, would like to have the assumptions made public as soon as possible, noted that he represents developers, they are sensitive to the market, the single most important thing regarding the Anza Point area is to leave the options as open as possible so developers can bring to you a project that could work on that site, everything will be a conditional use so City will always have control, will bring a project to be proud of, if density is reduced, will not have the freedom to move with the market. The Commission then discussed the next steps in the plan review process, and decided to hold another study session on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. in Conference Room A. Staff will bring to that meeting redlined corrections to the plan document and additional information from the economist. Public notice will be expanded but public input will follow guidelines of a Planning Commission study session. VI. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary Miniutes09.18-SPECIAL MTG