HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1994.04.16125
CITY OF BURLINGAME
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANMNG COMMISSION STUDY MEETING
Saturday, April 16, 1994
Holiday Inn CrownePlaza Board Room
Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony convened the joint study session of the Burlingame City Council
and Planning Commission on the above date in the Board Room A at the Holiday Inn
Crowne Plaza at 9:00 a.m.
CouNcu. PnssnNT: HARRISoN, Kmtcrr, O'Mngoxv, Plctnno, SPnmLtt
PraNNnIo Coutr,ttsstoNERs: DEnL, ELtls, GentcnN, GRaHaM, JAcoBs, KrtlY, Mnx
914ry PRrsrvr: AncyREs, CoLrulN, KIRxun, MoNRor, PLnr.rNnIc CoNsul-rel.IT Bos
InoNsror
Ornrns PRssnrr: REnRESETflATTvES or BRoeowAy AND BuRtrNcnue Awm-rr (Gronce
ConrY, KAREN KEY)
1. PROPOSED 1990-95 HOUSING ELEMENT
The city planner and planning consultant Bob Ironside gave an overview of the proposed
housing element. The purpose of the meeting today was to review the contents as recom-
mended by planning commission and decide if the element is ready for public hearing before
the city council. Planning consultant Bob Ironside stated he felt the draft element meets all
of the state-required elements. He reviewed the goals, policies, and action programs
proposed for implementation. He discussed in detail goal C which was to encourage special
purpose housing such as housing for the elderly and physically disadvantaged and how its
policies might be implemented. Goal E, to increase affordibility of housing, identified
possible sites for additional housing. These were discussed and it was noted that the
Donnelly site description needed to be clarified. State HCD comments on the element to
date indicate that the majority of the items are acceptable. The one exception is that the state
would like to see new second units allowed in the city's single family zones. Because the
proposed city housing element does not address this state request, it will probably not be
certified by HCD.
Council and commission discussed the problems with allowing additional new second units.
Councilman Harrison questioned where the housing element calls for city funding. Mr.
Ironside indicated there were no big ticket funding items required from the city's general
fund. Most of the funding is of groups the city is currently funding or existing staff time.
Because of the state position on second units, it was felt the city must self certify the
element. It was noted that only 30 percent of the cities in the state have certified elements,
which indicates there are problems with the law. The state is currently discussing revising
the law.
Councilwoman Knight noted that on page 16 and 17 the issue of the homeless is addressed.
She felt we should list CALL Primrose in Burlingame since it is trying to address this
problem. She also stated that she felt parking for residential condos needed to be reviewed.
Councilman Pagliaro stated that in building housing for seniors, we should consider reduced
parking requirements. Councilwoman Knight asked that the senior commission be asked for
1|26
its comments on this issue. Councilman Pagliaro felt we should also address the issue of air
rights. He has discussed with some developers the possibility of using air rights over
existing parking lots for additional housing. Councilman Harrison stated that he liked this
idea and felt it should be expanded to the private sector, i.e., over church parking lots, etc.
Mayor O'Mahony asked when the council felt the element was ready to go to public hearing.
Planning Commissioner Graham felt she would like the council to move on the issue as soon
as possible. Councilman Pagliaro stated he would like to see more information on the
feasibility of providing additional housing such as using air rights over existing parking lots.
Councilwoman Knight agreed with Planning Commissioner Graham that moving promptly
was best since the state is continuing to discuss changing state laws. Councilman Harrison
directed comments to Commissioner Jacobs that it is not the planning commission's nor
individual commissioners' responsibility to set policy but to apply principals of planning;
council sets policy.
After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the council that we should schedule the
housing element for public hearing at the council's first regular meeting in June (June 6).
Mayor O'Mahony called for a hve minute break.
2. REVIEW RESTAURANT LIMITATIONS
Mayor O'Mahony reconvened the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
The city planner reviewed the history of our existing ordinance limiting the number of
restaunnts in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas. The implementation
of the ordinance dates back nine years and was the result of a request from the Chamber that
the council do something so that restaurants would not take over existing retail street
frontage. She noted that during the past nine years, there have been a number of issues and
problems arising from the implementation of the ordinance. She was especially concemed
with the number of food establishments in unreinforced masonry structures on Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway, and many of these would be forced to close during repairs. Many
may need to seek relocation. She also indicated that potential restauranteurs are stating that
property owners with restaurants seem willing to give up this use for a price, which was not
one of the intents of the ordinance.
Mayor O'Mahony stated she favored that the restaurant use go with tenants rather than the
property owners. Councilman Harrison favored eliminating all of the limitations. Planning
Commissioner Kelly agreed with Councilman Harrison. Councilwoman Knight felt that we
needed to retain and protect our control. We should review the problems that are occurring
with take-out permits and our definition of restaurants. Councilman Harrison felt that while
the limits were good for the 1980s, it was now the 1990s. Planning Commissioner Deal felt
that Broadway should be viewed differently than Burlingame Avenue. He stated that while
office uses have many locations to go throughout the city, rcstaurants are not able to go into
office areas. He stated we should continue to limit financial institutions on Broadway
because they can pay amounts that force out other uses.
Mayor O'Mahony was afraid there would be too many restraurants in one area, and there
would be over competition in that area. Planning Commissioner Jacobs stated we should
look at Millbrae which has no regulations on restaurants and has a very poor sales tax base.
127
Councilman Pagliaro stated that many owners want high rents and that may be a reason for
the vacancies. We currently have 23 restaurants on Broadway and 40 on Burlingame
Avenue. He felt we did need to address the issue of unreinforced masonry buildings and
allowing for improvements. Mayor O'Mahony stated her opinion that it would be alright to
increase the number of restaurants by a small number due to URMS.
Traffic Commissioner (and Burlingame Avenue property owner) Ron Karp noted that we
should look at the problem such as the Bit of England. If the use went with the tenant, the
property owner who has made investments for tenant improvements would not be allowed to
use them. Planning Commissioner Graham felt we definitely needed to review the issue and
that we had definitional problems about the size and character of restaurants which could
create enforcement problems. She also favored competition be allowed to set the limits.
Planning Commissioner Ellis felt that while the ordinance was adopted for valid reasons, any
time you set numerical limitations you will cause problems. He was not in favor of the
limits. Planning Commissioner Mink felt we should look at the purpose of the ordinance and
whether it was valid; and if we need to, we should review what we want in the various
commercial areas. Councilman Spinelli agreed that we need to look at the Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway areas, and we needed broad definitions stating what we would like but
we needed to be flexible. Georgette Naylor of the Chamber of Commerce noted she would
like the opportunity for Chamber input on this issue. Pete Campanile of Broadway Business
Improvement District indicated there are other regulations such as the state ADA which cause
problems. George Corey stated that there were problems with our existing regulations. He
nbted you could exchange one table and chair at one location for 30 seats at another location
but would not allow a bakery because it had two tables, because this was-by definition-
equal to a restaurant. The city needs to provide some flexibility in its regulations.
Councilwoman Knight stated that we are allowing take-out permits which do not allow tables
inside, but under a different regulation do allow tables and chairs on the sidewalk. She felt
we needed to review the boundaries for Subarea A and B and merge them for restaurant
regulation. Councilman Spinelli felt we needed to review this issue, that the problems of the
1980s may be different than those of today. Planning Commissioner Graham stated that we
looked at the number of tables and chairs a number of years ago and it was unenforceable to
establish numerical limits. She also felt times have changed from the "mom and pop" store
and that now the question was restaurants or various large retail chain outlets. She felt that
we should drop the restaurant limitations.
After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the council to put this issue to the city
council's May l8 study session.
3 RF,DI ICING RF,GITI,ATTONS. \VHF,RF, ANT)H owF AR ,|
City planner reviewed with council the three basic levels of legal review in the zoning
ordinance: administrative, minor modification, and full public hearing by the planning
commission. Noticing requirements and state law dictate much of the processing time for
full planning commission review. She asked whether council and commission would like to
reduce the review time by revising the number of items that require full commission/council
review.
Councilman Harrison stated that a recent San Mateo study shows that processing time hurts
businesses and fosters an anti-business image. He favored more over-the-counter administra-
128
tive permits. Planning Commissioner Graham felt the Burlingame time frames do cause
Burlingame to have the image of being difficult to build in. She noted that modifications
such as the fence exception have greatly reduced the need for planning commission to review
fences.
Councilman Spinelli gave the example of a property owner near his business that is requiring
months of review for a parking variance for a less intensive use than currently in place.
Councilwoman Knight stated that while she agreed we could streamline, we still needed to
retain control. She felt that satellite dishes in the commercial areas should be streamlined
and questioned whether some type of commercial minor modification process might be
possible. Councilman Pagliaro agreed that he is willing to look at the issue but he also felt it
was the council's responsibility to regulate.
Planning Commissioner Galligan felt there was a large difference between a remodel of a
1908 house and a totally new project. He felt we should look at expanding administrative
review and developing different standards for remodel of older buildings built to different
standards than new projects. Planning Commissioner Mink felt that he reviewed the planning
applications in two categories: parenting versus policy. He thought we could try to simplify
our criteria in the class of parenting such as providing for safe and sanitary habitation rather
than more detailed requirements. Planning Commissioner Deal stated that the commission
has problems understanding the intent of the code in many instances, and we should develop
more information on what is intended as we develop code revisions.
Councilwoman Knight reiterated that we needed to be very careful on relaxing controls since
the public holds us responsible for what it views as mistakes: For example, the three houses
on Cabrillo which were built within code requirements at the time. Mayor O'Mahony asked
that we end the discussion on this item and that staff look at various ways to simplify our
processes.
4. COUNCIL/COMMISSION COMMENTS
Councilman Harrison and Mayor O'Mahony thanked Planning Commissioner Graham for her
years of service on the planning commission, noting that she has resigned and this may be
her last meeting. Planning Commissioner Graham thanked the council for the opportunity to
serve and indicated that at this time in her life, family was more important than monster
houses.
5. FROM THE FLOOR
Ron Karp stated that he was pleased that the council and commission would be looking at
restaurants from a 1990's perspective. He also stated he felt staff should interpret existing
regulations to allow more over-the-counter permits. He used an example of a client who
wanted to use Edan's but it would require a 90-day review process for a use permit.
Pete Campanile, representing the Broadway Business Improvement District, thanked the
council and commission for including Broadway as part of Burlingame.
Councilwoman Knight noted that with Shelley Graham retiring from the planning commis-
sion, council would need to appoint three commissioners. She requested that council
consider extending the time for applications on the third candidate. Councilman Harrison
129
noted that this was not an appropriate subject for discussion at a study meeting and it should
be considered at Monday night's council meeting.
Planning Commissioner Galligan stated he would like council to know that the planning
commission is available to review code changes that would affect the planning process prior
to their implementation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments, Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 11:43 a.m.
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk