Burlingame proposes alternatives to Senate Bill 79 state development mandates

“This is obviously an attempt to subvert the law and prevent residential development, as it is highly doubtful that the high school would be redeveloped into residential, and it is inconceivable that Caltrain would redevelop its narrow right of way with residential,” according to a letter from Californians for Housing Ownership and California Housing Defense Fund, sent to the City Council ahead of the June 1 meeting. 

Burlingame’s version of the SB 79 standards would mete out the same theoretical increase in total zoning capacity numbers around two transit areas, the Burlingame Caltrain station and the Millbrae BART and Caltrain station, which touches the northern end of the city. 

The alternative plan would, however, distribute them differently than the legislation’s blanket approach. Under the city’s plan, the area generally within a 200-foot radius of the Burlingame Caltrain station — which largely includes the high school, Washington Park and the Caltrain tracks — would theoretically permit up to 5,825 units. Under SB 79 standards for a similar area in downtown Burlingame, 1,314 units would technically be allowed.

Burlingame’s plan for the area within a one-fourth mile of the downtown station would theoretically allow for less density, and therefore, less units, than the SB 79 regulations without alteration would allow for. 

Burlingame Mayor Michael Brownrigg said the city was adhering to the letter of the law while encouraging density in a way that aligned with their urban planning designs. He added that there were no current plans to build on the high school or Washington Park, which he said were simply included in the plan because of their proximity to the transit station. 

“We neither have plans nor do we know of plans to build on those tracts,” he said. “They are listed in the plan because the legislation requires that you do a radius out from a train station, and they happen to fall inside that radius.” 

The comment letter from Californians for Housing Ownership and the California Housing Defense Fund denotes, however, that SB 79 exempts land like the high school and park from its new transit-oriented development standards, and it’s the city’s alternative plan that puts them into play. 

“The City seems to think that while these lands are exempted from SB 79, they can somehow be included in an alternative plan. This is incorrect,” the letter reads. 

Brownrigg emphasized that the city had robust plans for housing development, particularly in the North Rollins area. Under the alternative plan, the North Rollins area that sits within a one-fourth mile of the Millbrae transit station would allow for higher heights and density than SB 79 would mandate, doubling the number of theoretical units to 4,217. That’s in alignment with the city’s already-existing development plans for the area. 

“We are building much more housing on a per capita basis than just about anybody,” Brownrigg said. 

Some elements of SB 79 unavoidably go against Burlingame’s local land use plans, opening up areas of Burlingame Avenue for residential development when it was previously zoned only for commercial use, for example. 

The City Council approved a first reading of the alternative plan — which offers theoretical zoning capacities, and does not create or approve any new development — at its June 1 meeting. It will come back to the City Council for a second reading on June 15, and if approved by councilmembers, will then go to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.