HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1996.04.20412
CITY OF BURLINGAME
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING
Saturday, April 20, 1996
Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Burlingame
Mayor Bud Harrison convened the joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission
on the above date at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Burlingame, at 8:56 a.m.
CouNclI- pRESENT: He,RRlsoN, JANNEy, KNIGHT, O'MeuoNy, SpInpLLt
CouulssloN pRESENT: CorFEy, DEAL, ELLIS, GeLLtc,q,N, Kpy, MINr, WpLLroRo
Srerp PRpsput: ARcvRps, KtRt<up, MoNRop
OrHpRs TIU AuneN
Mayor Harrison gave a brief introduction noting that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
policy issues that have arisen during the past year between the planning commission and
council. The city planner reviewed the three agenda items to be discussed: zoning
implementation, M-l district regulations review, and amnesty program for existing accessory
units, part of the housing element implementation program.
1. ZoNrNc Iupr-punNrerox-Polrcvlssuss
A. ATMs es FneNcw- INsuruuoNs
The first item discussed was automatic teller machines (ATMs). The planning commission
discussed this issue and their recommendation is that as long as the ATMs are inside an
existing use, a permit would not be required; but if they are on the outside of the building or
in an unregulated lobby, a conditional use permit should be required. Councilwoman Knight
noted that because of the relationship between Safeway and Wells Fargo, ATMs were
becoming staffed mini-banks inside of grocery stores. Mayor Harrison thought, in general, we
have too many regulations and the planning commission recorlmendation seemed acceptable.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony felt that if staff were present at the ATM, it created a different
situation from a "money machine. " Commissioner Mink felt that the future was to provide
limited banking functions within existing uses. Commissioner Ellis felt the issues were really
traffic and parking, and was the ATM a destination or something done as a part of a trip to the
primary use. Commissioner Galligan agreed with Vice Mayor O'Mahony that if the machine
is staffed, we have a different situation.
The direction to staff was that if ATMs were simply "money machines" inside or outside
existing uses, they did not need to be identified and reviewed as a financial institution and
there was not a problem; but if the ATMs or installations are staffed by a person or persons,
they should be viewed as another use on the site and reviewed as financial institutions and a
conditional use permit should be required where the code deems it necessary.
B. Terg-our PsRMrrs eNn Fooo EsrenLIsHIvIpNrs
Currently take-out uses require a conditional use permit in C-l, C-2 subarea A and B zones
I
473
City planner reviewed the history of take-out regulation. Commissioner Key pointed out some
of these uses sell prepared food so function like a fast food restaurant even if they have no
seating, and we need to rethink our existing regulation. Councilwoman Knight felt that
Noah's and Starbucks have become a destination take-out. Need to look at these as a land use
issue with traffic impacts. Commissioner Galligan also noted that some food establishments
like La Salsa do not have any public restrooms; we should have minimum public accessible
toilet requirements for both food establishments and take-out since they serve the public.
Councilman Spinelli felt we needed to be sensitive to the function of these uses in order to
continue to maintain our balance between retail and restaurant uses on Burlingame Avenue.
Commissioner Ellis felt any restaurant could have take-out so possibly we need to limit take-
out to just food establishment/restaurant facilities. Commissioner Coffey felt there is a
difference between "take-out" and "take-home" and that tables on the sidewalk, such as
Starbucks, creates a particular impact. Commissioner Wellford felt we needed to review the
definition of food establishment/restaurant. He thought we should add a restroom
requirement. He noted we are having problems with businesses such as World Wraps, which
is really a fast food establishment because such uses employ more people and do a high-
volume, high-turnover food business. Commissioner Mink noted that the teenagers in the area
consider Burlingame Avenue the "Burlingame food mall. " This type of food serves an
important function if you need a cheap date. Councilwoman Knight thought we should include
take-out with our food establishment/restaurant limitations. She felt this was an urgency
matter. Vice Mayor O'Mahony agreed with Councilwoman Knight about the urgency and that
possibly take-out should not be allowed to have outdoor seating; we need to be more selective.
Commissioner Deal noted that establishments such as Subway on Broadway are having impacts
in residential areas where people take out food and use nearby residential lawns as picnic
areas. Commissioner Ellis noted that the number of a given use does not always reflect the
impact since some can be very popular. Councilman Spinelli felt we needed to review all of
the take-out and restaurants when the location changed so that the right did not become a
saleable item. Commissioner Galligan felt we are creating "monster restaurants" and that
restaurant use needed to be limited. Councilwoman Knight thought we should consider
expanding our limiting of food establishments from subarea A to B. After additional
discussion, it was concluded that we should exclude Howard Avenue from any numerical
limitation on food establishments in order to encourage development in that area.
The city planner summarized the discussion noting that staff would prepare for planning
commission review a regulation that would address as food establishment both take-out and
restaurant uses and not allow the use to be transferrable from location to location. Staff would
do a base study of the existing locations and evaluate extension of the limitation of number to
the Chapin, Donnelly, Lorton portion of subarea B, with less regulation on Howard Avenue to
encourage future restaurant development there. She suggested that the approach be tied with a
5-year sunset provision to establish a time for reevaluation of the appropriate number and
limitations. After additional discussion, council felt this should be an urgency matter and staff
should look at implementing a moratorium on both new take-out permits and food
establishment relocation and expansion as soon as possible.
C. FAR CelculerroN BespusNrs eNo Arucst.E
The first issue was how basements should be included in FAR calculations for new
47 I
construction. After discussion no action was directed. Staff noted there was some ambiguity
in the wording of the current code regarding when attics would be included in FAR
calculations. It was the consensus of the group that if a remodel which would qualify as new
construction did not affect the envelope at an existing attic area, it should not be counted in
FAR. However, if a house was considered "new construction" then all habitable attics should
be included in the FAR calculation unless the work being done was for major maintenance
such as seismic repair. Staff noted changes to code would be suggested for
commission/council review.
2. Pnopospo Cueucps ro M-l (r.rcsr tNnusrruel) DrsrRrcr
The city planner reviewed the concept of performance zoning that was integral to the proposed
M-l district revisions. Planning commission has reviewed the draft prepared by the committee
after 18 months of review. The question was "where did council want to go now." Mayor
Harrison was comfortable with the proposed draft and thought it should be directed to a
council agenda for introduction. Councilman Spinelli questioned how the zoning might change
if BART were to go to Millbrae Avenue. The city planner noted that the proposed code
changes protects the light industrial area and that this may need to be re-reviewed if BART
becomes a reality. Vice Mayor O'Mahony wondered how the property owners were noticed
about the discussions so far. Commissioner Coffey felt it was difficult to get a feeling from
the property owners, but we need to figure out a way to notify tenants. Councilwoman Knight
felt that mixing of the office and industrial uses causes traffic problems such as those that the
Traffic Safety Parking Commission have been reviewing concerning trucks blocking sight lines
from driveways. Commissioner Coffey felt that given the airport orientation of the area
prohibiting auto rental in the M-1 district was a problem; auto rental should be a conditional
use with the same performance criteria as used in the O-M district. It was noted that the O-M
and M-l districts had very different locations relative to access to the airport so uses/criteria in
one did not necessarily mean that they were appropriate in the other. After additional
discussion between the commission and council, it was noted that the majority of the
commission favored the prohibition of auto rental. Councilwoman Janney thought she might
be a little more flexible. It was noted by a commissioner that uses included might vary
depending on how long it would be before the regulations were reviewed again.
Commissioner Key felt that a 5-year review of the M-l zoning would be appropriate. Council
and commission concurred. The direction to staff was that the proposed revisions to the M-l
zone as recommended by the planning commission be forwarded to council for introduction.
3. ArvrNpsrv PnocneM roR ExlsrNc Accsssony LIvlNIc UNrrs
The city planner discussed the housing action program in the Housing Element and reviewed
the purpose of the arnnesty program. The program would not be allowing new second units.
The focus is on existing units and how to legitimize them and make them safe. Staff provided
a review of three different approaches and asked council and planning commission direction.
Councilwoman Knight liked some of the provisions of the Los Altos ordinance: upgrading
existing units, maximum occupancy of two people, encourage occupancy by a relative, not
limit size since already in place. Vice Mayor O'Mahony liked some of the Daly City
ordinance including the two year period to bring units into compliance. She felt we should
limit the number of occupants to two people and was not pleased with all of the Los Altos
47s
requirements especially deed limitations and supervision of rents. We should encourage this
program but make sure we are creating safe housing. The idea of higher fees for legitimizing
these units after an arnnesty period seemed appropriate. Commissioner Galligan thought we
needed to address the issue of number of persons by not limiting it to adults thus providing for
children and that a 1960 construction date would be a good place to start. After that date,
possibly a use peflnit would be required up to 1980. This way a converted garage that left no
covered parking on a site could be reviewed. He felt that if size became too large, we need to
review. It was noted that the housing code would apply, not the UBC and this is not as strict.
He felt it very important that we have both a carrot and a stick to encourage compliance,
possibly a flat fee now and a 10-times fee later. He thought it was important to have an owner
live on site. Commissioner Wellford thought that the UBC ought to apply. The city planner
explained that the housing code would achieve safe and sanitary standards and conditions while
allowing units that don't meet the letter of such things as required ceiling heights, or glazing
limits to remain without extensive reconstruction. Consensus seemed to be that if parking had
not been provided for 30 or more years, the issue was probably moot with the neighbors.
Concern was expressed that availability of parking and the number of people living in a second
unit should be related. Legitimizing the use would allow its replacement after a fire or
disaster.
After some additional discussion it was agreed staff should develop a draft amnesty program
and return it to the planning commission for additional specific discussion.
FRou rse FlooR
Mayor Harrison asked for public comments or additional comments from the commission and
council; there were none.
couNctl covrtvtpurs
There were none.
AuouRNupNr
The meeting adjourned at 1l:07 am.
v
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk