Whether it is the huge house next door or the new Apple store, the Burlingame Planning Commission can have a big impact on your life. As one of the nine (unpaid) members of the Commission and after four years of on-the-job training, I have a few ideas I’d like to suggest.
First, believe it or not, the system is constantly changing, hopefully for the better. Over the last 4 years, we have stopped requiring folks to get a special permit to build a front gate arbor, we have insisted on commercial design review for Burlingame’s industrial sectors (previously it did not matter what the new office building would look like), we have added a requirement that condo builders include affordable units in new construction, and we have changed zoning rules in the north end to encourage more apartment buildings near the BART station. So don’t assume things can’t change they can!
The worst words you can hear as a Commissioner are, “I had no idea the building would look like that,” or worse, “I did not even know they were going to build there!”
So here’s one idea in Berkeley, applicants for remodels or new construction are required to post on their front lawn a 3 foot by 2 foot weather-proofed poster board that shows the design for their new house, as seen from the front street, along with slots to inform the public when the hearings will take place. And it is hung on posts similar to those that hold realtor’s signs, that is, clear and unmistakable. Let’s do this! Let’s make sure whether you are walking the dog or just driving by, you know your neighborhood is going to be changing, without waiting for the blue card from the city in the mail.
Second, all too often “modest” variances are requested, especially to encroach in the side setback. As homes get bigger, these setbacks become more and more important. Yet, if the affected neighbor is absent, Commissioners often assume they are OK with the variance. Perhaps we should insist that the developer/applicant have a written waiver from an absent neighbor before we grant a variance – that would ensure we don’t trample on someone’s property interests without a fair hearing.
Third, how big is too big? Our General Plan has for decades placed an emphasis on creating a diverse housing stock. Yet with each new house built to the maximum size, with each partitioning of a double or triple lot into standard 50x120s, our housing stock homogenizes and crowds. Check out the North end of Burlingame to see how big houses on wee lots look when they go up next to each other. Big houses are not bad houses but we have to consider the accumulated impact, not just each house on its own. So maybe we need to review setbacks so as to create more space between the largest houses (ie, create a larger side and rear setback for new houses that are within 10% of the maximum size); maybe we need to review lot coverage to preserve green space and backyards; maybe we should review our incentive to build detached two car garages, which is another way of saying we penalize houses who want to attach a modest garage and preserve back yard space; maybe, if we think 5 bedroom houses are important, we should let houses get higher or deeper, so that they don’t get wider and fatter. Third floors, anyone?
We Planning Commissioners are your neighbors too. We try our best to hear what the community thinks, whether it is the Safeway remodel or saving a redwood grove on Drake or eliminating arbors from special review! Raise your voices – we’re listening, and we’re prepared to change.
Recent Comments