Burlingame trims hotel parking requirements

Under the Monday, Sept. 17, decision, hoteliers can apply for a conditional use permit allowing a parking reduction, so long as they can get authorization from the Planning Commission.

Councilman Ricardo Ortiz lauded the proposal as a way to assure the land currently designated for parking is being used in the most optimal fashion.

“I’m looking at the data and it’s just really dramatic the vacancy rate,” he said, according to video of the meeting. “We just have a bunch of land sitting there not being used and it just strikes me that we need to do something.”

To his point, a survey indicates a majority of the 12 hotels east of Highway 101 are not using between half and 75 percent of their parking lots. Hoteliers attribute the dipping use rates to more travelers taking shuttles, Uber or similar ride-hailing applications from the airport to their overnight destination, rather than renting cars.

As a result, the hotel industry is seeking to use their land in a more productive fashion, which officials expressed a willingness to allow.

The enhanced flexibility offered under the decision invited questions from councilmembers seeking to assure the lots are used appropriately by the hotels though. A primary concerned raised was the option for hotels to lease their unused spaces to a park-and-fly or long-term parking service, which would generate income for the hotel but offer no benefit to the community.

“I think as a community we have an interest in seeing that land used to a higher purpose than long-term parking,” said Councilwoman Emily Beach.

While officials stopped short of approving a mandate limiting uses for hotels seeking a parking reduction, councilmembers suggested planning commissioners should consider the proposed alternative when approving the conditional use permit.

“I do have some confidence in our Planning Commission,” said Councilwoman Ann Keighran, regarding the ability to judge whether the conditional use permit should be approved.

Keighran added she would favor inviting hoteliers into a future conversation to get a better sense of their vision for their land, should parking requirements be reduced.

“It will be interesting to see how the industry responds and what, if any kind of proposals, we get,” said Mayor Michael Brownrigg.

Councilmembers also noted the reduction introduces the threat of limiting the amount of parking which will be needed when hotels host large, special events. Brownrigg noted though the industry will likely consider such an outcome, as they do not want to inconvenience patrons by being too ambitious in the amount of spaces they cut.

“At some point, we can just trust the market,” said Brownrigg, deferring to hoteliers regarding the adequate amount of parking needed.

He also noted an opportunity to return at a later date and amend the requirement if officials find the allowable reduction eventually leads to parking problems.

“I personally would resist becoming overly prescriptive and I would be ready to change it if we are having problems,” he said.

Ortiz though suggested it is more likely that when officials return to the matter, they will further reduce the amount of parking required for hotels below the current mandate to offer one space per room.

“I think at some point we need to look at a permanent reduction of the ratio because I think the data speaks for itself,” he said. “We are overparked on the Bayfront. And again, we are just kicking the can down the road. And I’m fine to see what happens and we can have more data but I think we need to look for a permanent solution.”

In other business, officials discussed the most recent design for the proposed new Recreation Center, which officials are planning to build with money generated from a recent sales tax hike.

Brownrigg lauded the newest iteration of the center coming out of the study session prior to the regular meeting, and suggested officials supported the design under development.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105