The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 2002.02.23MEETING NOTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2002 9:00 A.M. SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL BALBOA ROOM OPERATION ISSUES I. Fees Charged for Planning Services • Consensus that Planning fees are too low, should do fee study, some parameters to look at: • look at neighboring cities, especially San Mateo and Millbrae (Coffey) • don't necessarily want to be entirely fee dependent, can use some general fund to support planning function, fees shouldn't be so high as to discourage applications (Galligan) • Planning activities should be self sustaining (Baylock) • consider having higher fee for new construction and a lower fee for additions (Brownrigg) • fees do affect cost of housing, will increase affect affordable housing (Auran) • should be high enough for code exceptions such as variances and conditional use permits to cause thought before filing (Keighran) • Penalty Fees: • Set high penalty fees as a deterrent: penalty fee for failure to comply with approved plans for design review projects too many are not following plans, need to portray that we will not tolerate (Keighran) • Expedite any modification requests: if someone does come in requesting changes, should expedite review (Brownrigg) • Allow staff to approve small changes; should define the scope of changes that can be reviewed at staff level (Coffey) • design reviewer could possibly review small changes (Vistica) • Concern about length of time given to complete a project, some sit for years half complete, could there be a penalty fee for extensions of building permits (Osterling) • Create a monitoring resource: should there be a final Planning inspection for design review issues, and a fee for that inspection (Vistica) • height should be measured as building is framed (Keighran) II. Recommendations in Staff Reports • Planning Commission comments in minutes and/or CC staff reports should be identified by name (Coffey) • If project is appealed, then Council report should identify who said what, hard to separate ideas in support and opposed in minutes, use bullet point format in Council report (O'Mahoney) Notes from City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting February 23, 2002 -2- • Planning staff now writes reports with a comparison to existing codes and policies, if there are additional or ambiguous issues to be aware of, it is stated under Staff Comments section (Staff) • Consensus of Planning Commissioners that the reports do the job now, no need to change. CURRENT ISSUES AND SETTING PRIORITIES I. Bayfront Specific Area Plan Update • Residential uses East of 101 interesting idea, but see it as future issue, will learn first on North End Specific Area Plan (Keighran) • Feel strongly that existing policy to restrict housing to area west of 101 is good policy and should not be set aside, the 16 acre drive-in theater site is one of the most valuable commercial pieces of land on the Peninsula, shouldn't easily cast aside zoning as now set; do need to keep in mind the concerns of the property owner, ought to entertain a broader look at temporary uses; should not amend plan based on a reaction or panic. (O'Mahoney) • Think idea of housing on east side is actually fascinating, may be time to reevaluate but not right now, think that if the site were to develop as a complete neighborhood with commercial and public support facilities it could enhance the hotel environment. (Vistica) • Should focus on the North end first, don't know about residential, need to look at support services such as fire stations, schools, may want to look at mixed use but not now (Keighran) II. Housing Element Program Implementation/Multiple Family Zoning Regulation Update • As far as methodology for updated zoning regulations, would like to involve interested parties in developing new regulations; use committee approach (Coffey) • Why was R-2 left out, done the hard part with implementation of design review, R-2 may not be that difficult to do (Baylock) • Agree needs to be done, but we have a lot on our advanced planning plate now, have some tools to review multiple family uses now, CEQA and condo guidelines, could hold off doing this a while (Vistica) III. Second Unit Amnesty Program Revision • Need to look at date for eligibility, maybe move it forward to 1960 (Keighran) • Would like to see us up the year for eligibility to 1965 or 1970, look at ways to make program more attractive to those with second units, disappointing that more haven't come forward (O'Mahoney) • Live in neighborhood where there are a lot of second units, many are converted garages, requirement for on-site covered parking is difficult; also need to look at requirement that owner live on site, have some in neighborhood where there are two renters and it is not a problem, might look at increase from the maximum size of 640 SF(Baylock) • Agree, if want owners to come forward, will have to get rid of the covered parking requirement, have coexisted without garage until now, if want them to come in, need to have forgiveness; disagree regarding increase in size allowed (Galligan) Notes from City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting February 23, 2002 -3- • Agree regarding size, 640 SF is 160% of a standard 2-car garage, is big enough (Coffey) • Keep 1954 eligibility, support those that put in units during war when legal, don't agree that we should reward those that did it illegally, like to keep the parking requirement and protect the neighborhoods (Auran) • Compromise could be to require the parking space but that it can be uncovered; allow all required spaces to be uncovered (CA Anderson) IV. Sign Code Changes for Auto Row and Hotels • Hotels and Auto Dealers are our two largest revenue sources, need to look at what signage is there now and come up with an average that is reasonable (Galligan) • Agree, need to support auto row within reason (Coffey) • Concur, should be nurtured (O'Mahoney) • Existing hotel signage works, not "glitzo" LA, would like to see what other cities such as Sunnyvale have done for auto row signage (Osterling) • Should approach issue with an open mind, both of these industries are in transition (Vistica) V. Historic Inventory • Would like to have historic inventory done of properties in Burlingame, most cities on the Peninsula have done such inventories, some but not all have adopted ordinances with required procedures for properties on inventory (Baylock) • Preserving history is worthy, but some older structures were poorly built and can't be rehabbed, need to make sure that this doesn't become a ball and chain for property owner, may want to look at reproductions rather than preservation for seismic reasons (Osterling) • Like to reiterate consensus reached at goals meeting, if evaluation is undertaken it should be without danger to property owners rights, like to see this wait until financial situation is better (O'Mahoney) • Concern that if on the list and comes to Planning Commission for a change, would the historic designation be an issue (Keighran) • If historical society want a list, they can ask for funds, get grant and do it themselves, prefer not to tie hands, do not want restrictions to demo; in Los Gatos, if a property owner wants historic designation, they can come forward and ask for it, have issue with property rights, city short of money even for a match (Galligan) • Good idea if survey associated with historical society, see as an educational tool but don't want to encumber property rights, maybe the City could fund part, important to have a professional involved, has to have a qualified person make judgment (Vistica) • In past have made proposal to Caltrain to purchase train station to house Historical Society and house historical items, also discussion that historical display could be part of community center (Galligan) • If there is no list today, troubled about some commercial project, would be good information, there are intangible elements that make Burlingame feel different, shops look different than shopping malls, if it is a simple task and City Council would not have to adopt ordinance, should consider doing (Brownrigg) Notes from City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting February 23, 2002 -4- PRIORITIES Following the discussion, Planning Commission and Council ranked the proposed Long Range Planning projects as follows: Rank Item 1 Housing Element Program Implementation Multiple Family Zoning Regulation Update 2 Sign Code Changes for Auto Row and Hotels 3 Fee Study for Planning Fees 4 Bayfront Specific Area Plan Update 5 Second Unit Amnesty Program Revision 6 Historic Inventory