Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN - PC - 2001.11.28CITY OF BURLINGAME JOINT CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 28, 2001 City Hall Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Janney called the November 28, 2001, joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O’Mahony, and Planning Commissioners: Auran, Bojués, Keighran, Key, Mink and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling (arrived at 7:25 p.m.) Staff Present: City Manager Jim Nantell, City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was suggested that item 4, regarding the scope and objectives of the proposed Specific Area Plan for the north end of the city be done first since it would take less time and the workload/composition of the Planning Commission discussion will follow. There was consensus about the change to the agenda. V. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN STUDY FOR THE NORTH END OF BURLINGAME CP Monroe reviewed the progress that the Planning Commission has made in defining the study area for the proposed Specific Area Plan and the scope. She noted that the Commission has appointed a subcommittee to work with her to further define the project scope and process for the RFP; she anticipates that the RFP would be circulated in January, 2002. Discussion focused on: cost of the study and availability of money in the current Planning budget to commence work; it was noted that it is timely to do this study, it should have a high priority and it is important to find a good consultant; subcommittee members are thinking about ways to refine the study, it should start with an assessment of the entire are a and move from that to identifying the focus for the more detailed specific area plan; glad that the entire M-1 zoned area is included in the initial study area; Council should be included in the refining process identifying the SAP area after the broad based analysis; clarified that the proposed study area is entirely on the west side of 101; focused study should drop out areas which are functioning all right now; given the impacts of BART and the dynamics created by that transit terminal, should the north end of the Bayfront area also be included; can put that in a subsequent study since the economic pressure is off at the moment and we have some development guidelines in place for the Bayfront area east of 101; don’t want to take on too big an area at one time; there was considerable discussion around the issue of whether there is outside funding available for preparing the planning study and for making improvements once the specific area plan is in place; it was concluded that the future private developers’ role in funding public improvements City of Burlingame Joint City Council and Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 -2- identified in the SAP should be addressed in the plan; an error on the map attachment was noted, the westerly boundary of the area on the map did not follow Marco Polo, this should be corrected; the plan should address the impacts of future electrification of the CalTrain line, especially the physical and visual impacts. There were no further comments on this item. C. Osterling arrived at 7:25 p.m. VI. WORKLOAD AND COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION CM Nantell presented the staff report and suggested a round-table process for addressing this issue and identifying areas of consensus. He pointed out that over the past several months there has been discussion among the Council, Planning Commission, press and public about how to structure the commission to address its work load and whether this should affect the organization of the commission. The staff report identified five perspectives on the issue. He asked that each council member and planning commissioner at the table speak for three minutes on the issues. At the end of each set of comments the others could ask clarifying questions. From this commentary the group would compile a list of concerns and interests, as well as identifying where there was consensus. Council could then use this input in considering a strategy for filling the current vacancies on the Planning Commission, no action decisions would be made tonight. From the discussion there was strong consensus that the Planning Commission should continue to have 7 members and there was no desire presently to restructure the commission. A variety of reasons were identified for this conclusion including: that 7 provides a diversity of perspectives; provides a cushion for a quorum if someone is absent or must recuse themselves so business is not interrupted; provides more members to share subcommittee responsibilities; allows a changing mix of commissioners and points of view on subcommittees; do not want to increase size so more able to miss meetings, but know commissioners are responsible and careful about attendance; with fewer than 7 do not think the subcommittee system would work; have had experience with 9 people on a commission and it only elongates the meetings, 7 is a good size provides diversity with manageable size; diversity is good, present commission has proven they can operate effectively with diverse group, design professionals did a good job of developing guidelines which the lay people on the commission and new comers to the process can easily use; members of the commission need to have a holistic vision for the long term future of the community and the ability to work collaboratively with the public to achieve this vision. A second point of consensus was that there should be a mix of professionals with design savvy and lay people with a good understanding of the community on the Planning Commission. A variety of observations were made to support this: would like a mix of 3 to 4 (either way) of design and non-design oriented people on the commission that balance is was a key element in the Commission’s many important accomplishments in the past few years and developed a design review process which works with few complaints; prefer 3 professionals (could be contractors, architects, designers, engineers), but the lay people look at how proposal fits into the neighborhood; need a variety of professional expertise; would like at least two architects because they have the broadest understanding of development and spacial planning and can often spot design alternatives which can cause projects to comply with code requirements; with recent extension of design review it would be good to have someone with commercial design expertise; the contract design reviewers provide a safety net for a commission which may have fewer City of Burlingame Joint City Council and Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 -3- design/construction professionals in its make-up, such professionals may not always be in the applicant pool; lay commission should rely on the Planning staff and should be able to function without an architect; focus should be on getting the best people on the Planning Commission not meeting a quota of professionals; believe in the value of lay people on appointed boards and commissions so do not want the commission overwhelmed with professionals; support lay people, after a period of time they learn about issues and how to deal with the community; there will be change, system needs to be able to work with whoever is participating, staff has an obligation to help the Commission make the right decision. During the discussion there were four issues identified which the group concluded should be addressed in the future, most likely at the next joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in February. These were: (1) what specific design skills need to be available on the commission; (2) what is the advantage and should be the scope of staff recommendations; (3) managing work load the commission needs the time to do long term planning; and (4) what is the appropriate screening process for projects destined to go to the Planning Commission. There were no further comments. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following people spoke from the floor: Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive; Ken Castle, 1411 Drake Avenue, Jerry Deal 1226 Paloma; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington; Tom Paine, 728 Concord. Have raised issues regarding the Sisters of Mercy property with both the City Council and Planning Commission, was given contact at the campus to call when had a problem, called about a parking and safety problem and the person filed a complaint with the Police Department. Would like a clarification about the Brown Act and its range of control regarding discussion and dialogue between members of the public and the City Council, would the City Attorney look into this? Regarding tonight, have been frustrated that we have not done more broad based planning, developers feel that they can do the master planning for us without asking, residents need to be proactive; clear need to revise the General Plan, should be addressed by at least one item on each agenda; concerned about the lack of an overall plan for the Bayfront, needs to be done before an application is made. Work often with the planning staff, do not have a Planning Department have a reaction department, need a planning staff that can plan development concepts; people forget that design professionals can do a lot of things, do need a contractor and engineer on the commission, Osterling’s landscape skills are also useful; then need a couple of lay people; design professionals are reluctant to apply because of the negative things that have happened resulting in a why-get-involved mood; did have something good going need to change the public perception and recoup so more design professionals will apply. Thank Jerry Deal for spearheading all the design review; recall the original design for the library, it was terrible, evolved to a gem because people became involved, shows good comes from conflict; people are more confident in the commission when there are professionals on it; this was certainly the case with the storage facility proposal on Howard. Would like to see diversity within categories on the Commission, need design community represented. The city needs to take into account the existing neighborhoods and have development complement what is existing, the city should undertake a master plan for recreation and park facilities for both preservation and expansion. There were no other comments from the floor. City of Burlingame Joint City Council and Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2001 -4- VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Janney at 9:00 p.m. JtCCPCmin11.28.01