1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on December 5, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:01 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by City Librarian McCulley.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Sandra Lang thanked Council for everything they do. She advocated that action be taken at the Broadway Caltrain crossing to improve safety.
Carpenters 217 field rep Brian Shields spoke in favor of labor standards.
2 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled items 8f and 8h.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, and 8g; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 21, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the November 21, 2022 City Council Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 21, 2022
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the November 21, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME REPEALING THE BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FEE AND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEE (CEQA DETERMINATION:
ACTION WAS EVALUATED IN THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED)
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2012.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FIRE STATION GENERATORS REPLACEMENT PROJECT BY P.C. INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 84950
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 139-2022.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A $375,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TELESTAR INSTRUMENTS, INC. FOR SUPERVISORY CONTROL
AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM SERVICES AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 140-2022.
3 f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. (ICF)
TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PUBLIC NATURE/RECREATION PARK AND EDUCATION CENTER BUILDING AT 410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,609.32.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he hoped this project would create a great open space for the city. He asked that the EIR consultant include in the review how the revised the sea-wall ties into the adjacent properties. He also asked for more information on whether the mud flat area can be reduced by utilizing the Anza Lagoon.
Councilmember Colson thought that with all the Bayfront development, it would nice to keep a thematic element going amongst all the projects.
Councilmember Beach asked for an update about the grant progress associated with the project.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Sphere Institute representative Greg Boro stated that he wants to maximize the space available for the public.
He commented they are in discussion with OneShorline about the sea-wall and how it ties into the regional plan. He stated that there was discussion about whether the 18-foot levee is enough or if it needs to be re- engineered. He stated that Sphere received grant support of around $2.5 million that will be used to offset planning expenses.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 141-2022; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
g. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR CITY STAFF TO ATTEND THE 2023
CARTEGRAPH NATIONAL CONFERENCE
DPW Murtuza and Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad request Council’s approval of out-of-state travel for City staff to attend the 2023 Cartegraph National Conference.
h. CONSIDERATION OF SENDING A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR REGARDING NET ENERGY METERING 3.0
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that while he supports sending the letter, he is concerned that the City is too small to make a difference in this matter.
Councilmember Colson stated that Peninsula Clean Energy (“PCE”) will be providing formal comments on the topic, but in a narrow scope. She explained that a reason many organizations are not getting involved in this topic is due to social justice and equity. She discussed how the bill creates subsidies for lower-income
4 residents to install solar panels. She added that the City should write a gentle letter due to social justice and equity issues. She explained that Burlingame might be the only City in San Mateo County writing a letter.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that the last sentence in the letter discusses how “CPUC’s proposal’s adverse impacts are not in-line with our climate objectives.” She suggested adding in what the climate objectives are that CPUC’s proposal are not in-line with.
Councilmember Colson discussed how to address Councilmember O’Brien Keighran’s concern. She suggested adding language about how the proposal discourages the installation of solar on existing homes.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson’s suggestion.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg worried about the price increase and cost recuperation of the proposed plans and was in favor of adding a line explaining that.
Councilmember Beach thanked Councilmember Colson for her explanation and added context. She thought the letter should include Councilmember Colson’s language and Vice Mayor Brownrigg’s language.
Mayor Ortiz opens up this this item for public comment.
Mr. Manning spoke in favor of the letter.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Councilmember Colson thought the City had written a balanced letter. She noted that battery storage is a key factor in solving this problem, and that PCE is working on this.
Mayor Ortiz explained that he installed solar a year ago, and that under the new proposal it would be less affordable. He was in favor of a letter with the stated corrections.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg wanted to add a line about the solar mandate on new housing and how it makes housing more expensive and harder to recoup investment.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran spoke in favor of the added language.
City Manager Goldman stated that she would revise the letter and work with Councilmember Colson on final language.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to send a letter with the added language; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2023 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT
Finance Director Yu-Scott began by reviewing the background of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (“TBID”). She explained that the TBID formed in 2001 to revitalize the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau. (The San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau was recently rebranded “The San Francisco Peninsula”.) She stated that, at the time, Burlingame agreed to act as the Lead Agency since the City had the most hotel rooms and greatest interest in seeing the TBID formed.
She noted that board slots were allocated based on the number of hotel rooms in the various cities, with Burlingame allotted the most, four. She stated that since the TBID’s formation, the Council has held the annual reauthorization hearing, and the City has overseen the various cities’ tourism fee assessment payments.
Finance Director Yu-Scott explained that although included within the boundaries of the TBID since 2010, Palo Alto withdrew in January 2021. She stated that the TBID is comprised of 13 cities and unincorporated San Mateo County.
Finance Director Yu-Scott explained that since the last meeting, staff updated the name of the Best Value Inn to Best Value Inn Bayshore.
Finance Director Yu-Scott asked the City Clerk if she received any protests. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the negative.
The San Francisco Peninsula President John Hutar stated that tourism has not yet returned to 2019 levels.
He noted that the rebranding efforts have been well received. He added that airplane arrivals are at 69% of 2019 levels, and hotel occupancy levels exceeded 70% during five months this year.
Councilmember Colson asked if he has seen hotel staffing increase. Mr. Hutar replied that this was a complicated issue. He stated that it has gotten better in the past few months, and there is some optimism that as the tech-sector pulls back, some might migrate to the hotel industry. He stated there has been a lot of talk on employee retention among the industry.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson motion made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 142-2022; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
6 b. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD’S ISSUANCE OF A TYPE 41
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES LICENSE FOR TOTTENHAM WINES & SPIRITS INTERNATIONAL LLC, LOCATED AT 339 PRIMROSE ROAD
CDD Gardiner explained that a request was submitted to the City for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity related to Tottenham Wines & Spirits International LLC’s request for a Type 41 (on-sale beer and wine eating place) alcoholic beverage license for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a new restaurant use at 339 Primrose Road. He noted this type of license does not allow the sale of distilled spirits.
He stated the business is located within the Donnelly Avenue Commercial area. He read the restaurant description provided by the applicant:
“It will be a high-end restaurant specializing in Italian tapas style plates and quality seasonal charcuteries with a wide selection of complimentary wine pairing. The savory plates and seasonal charcuteries will be locally sourced for the freshest produce. The various wine pairing is meant to open the patron’s palate and experience the rich and bold flavors of specially hand selected wines.”
CDD Gardiner stated that the Police Department reviewed the application and supports the findings and the recommendation of the Community Development Department. He noted that some of the Police Department’s considerations should be forwarded to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for its consideration prior to issuance of the license:
1. No noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s).
2. The licensee(s) shall be responsible for maintaining, free of litter, the area in front of and adjacent to the premises over which they have control.
3. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee(s) within seventy-two (72) hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday, the licensee(s) shall remove the graffiti within seventy two (72) hours following the beginning of the next weekday.
4. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences
5. Loitering (loitering is defined as “to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business”) is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee(s).
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve Resolution number 144-2022; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
7 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH ALLIED HOUSING, INC.
TO PROVIDE FUND ASSISTANCE TO A PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 1875 CALIFORNIA DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,432,138
CDD Gardiner stated that affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower- income residents. He explained that the fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing.
CDD Gardiner stated that at the October 17, 2022 meeting, the Council reviewed a funding request from CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development working with Allied Development to provide funding assistance for a proposed 100% affordable housing development at 1875 California Drive. He explained that the development known as Eucalyptus Grove Apartments would consist of 69 units affordable to households making between 20% and 50% of Area Median Income (“AMI”). Additionally, per the project application, the development would include seven studio units, 21 one-bedroom units, 21 two- bedroom units, and 20 three-bedroom units.
CDD Gardiner stated that at the October 17, 2022 meeting, CRP suggested two options that could work for the project:
1. Loan
• Amount: $1,432,138.44
• Terms: 3% simple, residual receipts, 55-year term, subordinate, secured by deed-of-trust, non- recourse. These terms match the loan terms from the County of San Mateo’s proposed loan. • Loan is structured as a residual receipts loan amortizing for 55 years. 3% simple interest is applied every year for 55 years. Residual receipts are paid only out of available cash flow.
2. Fee Waiver
• Amount: $1,432,138.44
• The benefit to the project is significantly lesser with this option. The Development Impact Fees (“DIFs”) of $1.4 million would be included in the eligible basis calculation, which is used to generate Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) equity. • The LIHTC equity generated by paying the DIFs is as follows: Cost (Basis)*1.3 (QCT Basis Boost 130%) *0.04 (credit rate)*0.87 (pricing)*10 (years) $1,432,138.44*1.3*0.04*0.87*10 = $647,899.43
• By waiving the $1,432,138.44 in DIFs, the project would also reduce its LIHTC equity by $647,899.43. The net benefit to the project would be $784,239.01
CDD Gardiner stated that based on the above options, the Council passed a motion to pursue the loan scenario, given its higher benefit to the project.
CDD Gardiner stated that subsequent to the October 17th meeting, staff met with CRP representatives to confirm the terms of the loan. He explained that CRP representatives confirmed that they would propose the same loan terms presented to the City Council.
8 CDD Gardiner stated that on November 17th, the City Council Housing Fund Subcommittee (consisting of Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson) met to review and confirm the loan terms. He explained that the subcommittee members expressed interest in understanding what would happen to the loan and project at the conclusion of the 55-year loan term. He noted that staff followed up with CRP, which indicated that the loan is due when it matures at the end of 55 years. He added that at that time, there could be a negotiation to extend the loan term and extend the project’s affordability.
CDD Gardiner stated that based on this direction, staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution that authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a loan agreement with Allied Housing, Inc. to provide funding assistance towards the proposed project, with terms substantially consistent with the terms presented to the Council.
Councilmember Colson stated that this project is a great example of using commercial linkage fees to leverage NOFA funding.
Councilmember Colson stated that the loan will be paid with the residual proceeds of the cashflow. She asked how long the developer estimates it will take to pay back the loan and what happens if there is a balance at the end of the 55-year agreement. CRP representative Elias Wise stated that he would get back to Council with this information.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to thank the developers, Councilmember Colson, and Councilmember O’Brien Keighran for their work on HCDC. He discussed the narrative that cities aren’t doing enough to create housing and stated that Burlingame stands in stark contrast to this theory. He reviewed the affordable housing that is being built in Burlingame.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 144-2022; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. OVERVIEW OF THE NORTH ROLLINS SPECIFIC PLAN
CDD Gardiner stated that in January 2019, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Burlingame General Plan. He explained that the General Plan includes the following goal:
Goal CC-12: Recreate Rollins Road as two distinct but complementary districts, with the southern two-thirds of the corridor supporting industrial and creative business enterprises and the northern one-third of the corridor reimagined as a live/work complete residential neighborhood – with parks, tree-lined streets, and a pedestrian orientation – that connects to the Millbrae multimodal transit station.
CDD Gardiner stated that the City is creating a new specific plan that will implement this General Plan Policy for the northern portion of the Rollins Road corridor. He acknowledged the participation and
9 guidance from the Community Advisory Committee (“CAC”) consisting of Councilmember O’Brien Keighran and Councilmember Colson on this project.
CDD Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the draft plan last month.
Gates + Associates representative Casey Case began by reviewing the project’s timeline. Ms. Case stated that in June 2020, the consultants began conducting community outreach to understand what the public wanted to see in the North Rollins District. She noted that based on feedback from concept plans, the consultants and staff were able to create a draft specific plan. This plan was then reviewed by committees and the Planning Commission.
Ms. Case discussed the outreach that was undertaken and the feedback that the consultants received from different groups:
Community Advisory Committee (“CAC”)
• Three meetings
• Suggestions
o Enhance underutilized area and maintain industrial feel o Provide flexibility and more trees
o Walkability, access, wayfinding, and public art
o Link to transit
o Celebrate linear corridor
o Open space to gather and connect
o Wider sidewalks
Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”)
• Three meetings
• Suggestions
o Outdoor multi-use spaces
o Connectivity
o Connection to transit
o Keep industrial feel
o Walkability
o Awareness of what’s there
o Wider sidewalks protected with trees
Planning Commission
• Three meetings
• Suggestions
o Promote a mix of uses
o Connected
o Placemaking
o Incremental evolution
o Strong spine along Rollins
o Plants and lighting character
10 o Park-in-lieu
Community Meeting
• Two meetings
• Suggestions
o Maintain industrial feel
o Showcase local businesses
o Art emphasis
o Sustainability
o Flexible open spaces
o Connected open spaces
City Council
• Two meetings
• Suggestions
o Neighborhood elements and transition to context
o Pedestrian access across tracks
o Street section development
Ms. Case explained that they designated the North Rollins Road area into subareas. She explained that the intention behind this was not to control the use within those subareas but rather to talk about the unique elements that may occur within each subarea. She gave the example that Area 3 has frontage on Rollins Road, which would give it more of a commercial emphasis.
Ms. Case stated that based on input from the CAC, TAC, Planning Commission, and community meetings, the team developed a draft plan that includes concepts for urban form, open spaces, streetscapes, and community amenities for the North Rollins Road neighborhood. She reviewed two notable features of the plan:
Open Space Plan
• Green focus on utility easement for recreation and connectivity • Paseo connections between Rollins Road and utility easement linear park • 1/8 mile radius for park cluster locations
• Transition to south Rollins with gateway element
Streetscapes
• Streetscape design guidelines and standards for continuous sidewalks, bike lanes, and planter strips with street trees
• Intended to be “complete streets” that accommodate multiple modes of travel • Function as linear open spaces
Ms. Case reviewed how the draft specific plan is set up:
• Specific Plan Organization
• Objectives/Vision
• Objective Design Standards
11 • Land Use Map
• Key Element: Circulation
• Key Element: Open Space and Landscape Design Guidelines • Key Element: Architecture Design Guidelines
• Key Element: Uses, Community Benefits, and Implementation
Ms. Case reviewed the objectives/vision included in the draft specific plan:
• Implement new policies consistent with the updated General Plan, increasing housing density, transit supportive uses, and infill development
• Maximize access to transit by promoting development near the Millbrae Transit Center • Develop and implement urban design standards that promote a walkable and livable environment • Create a “sense of place” through attractive streetscapes unique to the Plan Area and activate Rollins Road
• Support emerging businesses by establishing flexible zoning regulations that allow creative art and design-oriented uses and green-tech commercial and industrial uses
KTGY representative Cindy Ma began by reviewing what object design standards are:
• Threshold requirements of mandatory obligations
• Elements in the design guidelines that apply to residential developments and mixed-use developments as defined under SB 330
• Do not apply to commercial, industrial, or mixed-use developments that have less than a 66% residential component
• Specifically crafted for the residential uses anticipated to occur within the plan area and provide quantitative standards for massing, materials, and fenestration • Revisions in latest draft address CAC and TAC comments on roof and plane breaks, ground floor retail height, etc.
Ms. Ma reviewed the site and building design guidelines included in the draft specific plan:
• Includes required and optional elements regarding the layout and design of projects within the plan area. (Per CAC and TAC comments, revised to have all “shalls” moved to objective standards section.)
• Encourages high-quality development that creates a unique, consistent identity throughout the plan area. This section sets the desired theme for the district. • Recommends pedestrian-oriented design and supports ground-floor non-residential uses where appropriate, activating the public realm.
• Most guidelines in this section apply only to non-residential uses and mixed-uses projects with over 34% non-residential uses.
• This section does not include objective design standards as it relates to architecture.
Ms. Ma noted that this section also includes sustainability guidelines that are recommendations.
Rincon Consultants representative John Moreland reviewed the land use section of the draft specific plan:
• Land uses the same throughout the entire plan area and are similar to existing zoning. • Uses include mixed-use, residential, commercial, and industrial.
12 • Includes three tiers of development incentives with updates to required community benefits. • Maximum base development intensity:
Land Use Maximum Allowable Base
Intensity
Multi-Family Residential 70 base units per acre
Commercial Uses 1.0 floor area ratio
Industrial Uses 1.0 floor area ratio
Mixed-Uses 1.0 floor area ratio
Ms. Case discussed the circulation section of the draft specific plan. She explained that they wanted to place an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the area. She noted that the plan encourages bulb-outs in order to slow traffic and create safer crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. She added that the section also discusses landscape design guidelines for open space and streetscape. She stated that the document encourages a mix of public gathering spaces.
Mr. Moreland reviewed the development standards that are included in the draft specific plan:
• Includes permitted land uses, land use regulations for specific uses, and development standards (such as setbacks and open space requirements).
• Uses considered within the plan area include those that may engage the public realm, including food manufacturing, breweries, special events, mobile vendors, and street performers. Specific Plan includes additional regulations for these uses.
• Development standards utilize a tiered development system that encourages projects to provide community benefits in exchange for the ability to develop at a higher residential density or floor area ratio.
• Pageantry, which is changeable signage elements, such as kiosks, graphics, banners and lights are permitted.
• Requirements for Art in Public Places program are also included.
Mr. Moreland discussed the proposed community benefit requirements that are included in the specific plan.
He noted that the specific plan increases the number of benefits required. He reviewed the three tiers:
• Tier 1 – no benefits required
• Tier 2 – three benefits minimum
• Tier 3 – four benefits minimum
Mr. Moreland stated that the additional community benefits included in the specific plan are:
• Publicly accessible park paseo enhancements (15’ min.) • Trail improvement
• Community or neighborhood center
• Ground floor retail space (50% of habitable 1st floor sf and 6,000 sf minimum) • Grocery store (10,000 sf minimum)
• Affordable housing
• Additional public art
13 Mr. Moreland reviewed the implementation section of the draft specific plan:
• Describes various aspects of how the specific plan is administered by the City. This chapter also provides various phasing and financing alternatives for improvements within the specific plan area.
• Streetscape improvements may be initiated by the City or improved on a per-project basis by the developer.
• Includes the maximum development analyzed per CEQA.
• Includes a process for the new Art in Public Places program.
CDD Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the draft specific plan at its November 14, 2022 meeting. He noted the items identified by the Commissioners included:
• Determining how a grocery store could be anticipated in the plan area, and suggesting a smaller minimum floor area than 10,000 as specified in the draft plan • Interest in a parks in-lieu fee to fund development of park space within the plan area • Assuring that open spaces provided in larger projects are proportional to the project size, and accessible to the public
• Establishing a consistent streetscape lighting standard • Interest in less prescriptive planting standards, in particular allowing both native and non-native plantings
• Establishing a framework for locating neighborhood services • Providing sufficient crosswalks across Rollins Road to support pedestrians • Planning for population growth, school enrollment, and routes to schools • Providing ample sidewalks as well as areas for trees and planting between the street curbs and building faces
Mr. Moreland discussed the next steps for the draft specific plan. He explained that an environmental review is underway, based on consistency with the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Once the EIR is completed, the draft specific plan will return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. He noted that he expects it to come before the Council in spring 2023 for adoption.
Councilmember Beach thanked everyone for their hard work on this project. She noted that she loved the vision for a sustainable neighborhood. She stated that she was pleased to see childcare facilities as a possible community benefit included in the specific plan. However, she explained that larger childcare facilities are not allowed in this area and asked staff to explain why. CDD Gardiner replied that the North Rollins Road area is near the San Francisco Airport. He explained that safety zones are created around airports and that certain activities are limited in safety zones. He noted that North Rollins Road is in a Safety Zone 3.
Restrictions for a Safety Zone 3 are related to assemblies and sensitive users such as large childcare facilities and schools.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would like to explore creating a hierarchy of community benefits.
CDD Gardiner replied that he had seen other cities create models with weighted benefits. Mr. Moreland concurred with CDD Gardiner.
Councilmember Beach stated that last year the Council discussed whether the bicycle plan for North Rollins Road was aligned with the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. She asked if the current version of the
14 bicycle plan did align with the master plan. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He noted that this was accomplished after conversations with members of the public, staff, and the City of Millbrae. He added that the new plan includes bicycle lanes on both sides of the road.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff discussed the draft specific plan with the Burlingame School District (“BSD”). CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that staff periodically meets with BSD to review projects in the pipeline and concerns that the District has. He noted that one of the main concerns for the District did not relate to enrollment increasing but rather how to transport students from the new neighborhood to school.
Councilmember Beach discussed State legislation that changed parking requirements near transit developments. She asked if the State legislation had been taken into consideration in the draft specific plan or if staff needed to further review parking requirements. CDD Gardiner replied that staff would be reviewing the new legislation to see what changes need to be made in the specific plan.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the presentation and the hard work of everyone involved in this project. He asked when was the last time the City created a neighborhood.
Councilmember Colson responded to Vice Mayor Brownrigg by stating that the newest neighborhood in Burlingame was Ray Park, created in 1952.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that in 1952 when the City created Ray Park, there was a lot of open land. He noted that it is much easier to create a neighborhood on open land than in an area that is currently industrial.
He explained that the City was proposing to use incentives to create the new neighborhood on North Rollins Road. However, he worried that by only using incentives, the City might not get the neighborhood that is designed in the draft specific plan. He added that Councilmember Beach’s suggestion of a community benefits hierarchy might assist, but he didn’t know how to rank the benefits.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg wondered if the City would need to purchase land in order install neighborhood services and give the North Rollins Road area the neighborhood feel that the Council envisioned.
Mr. Moreland stated that generally, most specific plans include a laundry list of minimums. He explained that the City’s vision will be assisted by using both minimums and incentives. He noted that State legislation has limited what can be done with specific plans in terms of parking and density requirements.
Mr. Moreland stated that open space is one item that the City would want to ensure is included in this new area. He added that what he heard from the community is that they would like to see a grocery store in this new neighborhood. He stated that this would be a little more difficult as you can’t force a grocer to come there and operate. He noted that he believes the incentive-based approach and working with landowners will help to assist in getting a grocery store in this neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the consultants considered the idea of connectivity across the rail tracks.
Mr. Moreland replied in the affirmative. He noted that the specific plan identifies a location where this could be done. However, he explained that it would be expensive.
15 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that Mission Bay and Dog Patch have done a good job of turning an industrial area into vibrant communities. He asked if the City has the same key ingredients that San Francisco had when re-developing areas. Mr. Moreland replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Athan Rebelos voiced support for the plan and asked for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge to be installed.
Jennifer Pfaff voiced concern about how the City goes from the specific plan to reality. She discussed the three recent projects that have been approved in the area and thought there wasn’t enough emphasis on open space.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Mayor Ortiz voiced support for the specific plan. He added that he concurred with the concerns that the Vice Mayor voiced earlier.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the first chapter should include the rationale for why this specific plan is being created. He discussed the changing economic circumstances in the city where individuals used to be able to buy starter homes but no longer can. He stated that he wanted to see new opportunities created.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought the staff should explore utilizing a community benefits hierarchy. She discussed leveraging impact fees in different ways to assist with this new neighborhood.
Councilmember Beach discussed the need to further look into childcare facilities. She noted that while this new neighborhood might not have a lot of families moving in, she could see a lot of individuals starting families moving into this area.
Councilmember Colson thanked Councilmember O’Brien Keighran for her work on this project. She discussed Ms. Pfaff’s comments. She asked that staff review the three projects that have been approved and how they are assisting with open spaces.
Councilmember Colson stated that the subcommittee spent a lot of time on the roads, bike paths, and walkability of the new neighborhood. She thought this would help to create a real neighborhood.
Councilmember Colson asked staff if they felt comfortable that they would be able to get the developers to select community benefits in ways that will be meaningful.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran thanked everyone involved in creating this plan. She stated that this isn’t something that will happen overnight and will take careful planning. She added that the one thing she wanted to see in this area is the creation of neighborhood services. She explained that this would give this area a neighborhood feel. She noted that the warehouses could be turned into entertainment establishments.
She discussed the success of other cities like Santa Barbara in turning their industrial areas into neighborhoods and destinations with breweries, wineries, and food trucks.
16 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that the Economic Development Subcommittee would play an important role in developing this area.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that the City needed to make sure that the open space was usable open space. She added that her colleagues would want to consider if the City can acquire a larger parcel and incorporate something similar to the proposed town square in downtown Burlingame.
CDD Gardiner thanked Councilmember Colson and Councilmember O’Brien Keighran for their work on the specific plan. He also discussed the Citizens Advisory Committee who assisted in creating the plan.
CDD Gardiner discussed the open space requirement for larger projects. He noted that it is addressed in two different locations in the draft specific plan. He stated that staff needed to clean up the differences in language in the two sections. He noted that once section states the standard for open space as being 12% of the site area. He explained that this was taken from the Summerhill projects.
CDD Gardiner stated that the plan would come back before Council after staff further reviewed the feedback they received from the public, Planning Commission, and City Council.
Mayor Ortiz thanked everyone for the discussion.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were none.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org
.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk