HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 045-2007Recording Requested by:
Doris J. Mortensen, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
When Recorded Mail to:
Doris J. Mortensen, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
CA 94010
2007-105822
08:54am 07/13/07 R1 Fee: NO FEE
Count of pages 41
Recorded in Official Records
County of San Mateo
Warren Slocum
Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder
�II� I II II II III: I IIIII!I� II II III II
20070105822AR*
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 45-2007 TO AFFIRM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING
STANDARD USES, APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND DESIGN
REVIEW OF STRUCTURES
1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME 94010
APN: 026-102-050
Owner: HENRY HORN & SONS INCORPORATED
Im
I hereby certify the attached City of Burlingame Resolution No. 45-2007 to be a full, true
and correct copy of the document it purports to be, the original of which is on file in my
office.
Dated: / %
Doris J. o sen, City Clerk
City of B tingame
Cy
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2,1
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 45-2007
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CERTIFY A
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IlV[PACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARD
FOR ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY USES IN THE CITY,
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR USE
AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANEVIAT. RESCUE FACILITY, AND DESIGN REVIEW
OF STRUCTURES
1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
(APN 026-102-050)
ZONE M-1
PROPERTY OWNER: HENRY HORN & SONS INCORPORATED
APPLICANT: PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
ARCHITECT: GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council for public hearing on June 4, 2007,
on appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report and approving conditional use permits forbuilding height and use as an animal shelter/animal
rescue facility, and design review and making a detemation as to the parking standard for an
animal shelter/animal rescue facility, and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City
law; and
WHEREAS, the Council visited the neighborhood and spoke with neighbors and the
applicants; and
WHEREAS, the following is adopted as the decision of the -City Council of the City of
Burlingame on the above -entitled application:
Project Process
P m
In September 2004, the City Council adopted the North Burhagame/Rollins Road Specific
On April 27, 2005, the Applicant filed an application for use of the property at 1450 Rollins
toad/20 Edwards Court, which is located in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area.
On May 9, 2005, the Burlingame Planning Commission made a determination pursuant to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Burlingame Municipal Code §§ 25.44.030(22) and 25.16.150 that an animal shelter use in the M-1
District would be a use that is similar to another permitted or conditional use in the City, in
particular,. a veterinary hospital and associated animal care facilities; this entitled the applicant, as
well as any other person, to apply for a conditional use permit for such a use in the M-1 District.
That determination was not appealed nor was any application made for a re -determination of that
decision by the Commission.
Between September 2005, and June 2006, the Planning Commission and the City Council
held extensive hearings and study on the zoning provisions needed to implement the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan that was previously adopted. On June 5, 2006, this City
Council adopted the Rollins Road Zoning District and zoning regulations for the area in which the
proposed project would be located. That ordinance explicitly made animal shelters and animal
rescue facilities a conditional use in the area.
Albert Guibara, Rilco-Edwards LLC, and Aerobay Office Park filed a petition for a writ of
mandate against the City contending that animal shelters and animal rescue facilities were
inconsistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. In
April 2007, the San Mateo Superior Court denied the petition filed by the three parties.
After review of the plan submittal, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed design
review study and environmental scoping session on September 26, 2005. At that time, public
comments were taken and the Commission gave direction with regard to issues to be studied in the
environmental review.
Following additional study, the applicant decided that preparation of an environmentalimpact
report seemed warranted, so an initial study was prepared for the project. A notice of preparation of
an EIR was posted on February 16, 2006.
A second environmental scoping session was duly noticed and held by the Planning
Commission on February 27, 2006. At that time, further public comments were taken, and the
Commission gave additional direction with regard to issues to be addressed in the EIR and design
of the project.
A Draft EIR was prepared by consultants retained by the City and made available for public
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
-evzew and comments on September 5, 2006. The Draft EIR contained all of the technical reports
as well as the Initial Study in the form of an electronic disk provided with each copy of the Draft
EIR. In addition, a hard copy of the same material was available on request from the City.
On September 25, 2006, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Draft EIR to receive any public comments on the Draft EIR, and the Commission made comments
regarding the Draft. Written comments were also accepted through the end of the public comment
period on October 20, 2006.
A Response to Comments Document and revisions to the Draft EIR were then prepared by
the consultants retained by the City with review and oversight by the City. The Response to
Comments and Revisions to Draft EIR Document was released on April 18, 2007.
On May 1, 2007, the Planning Commission held a study session at which the Commission
reviewed the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and Revisions to
the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Reports contained in both the DraftEIR
and the Response to Comments Document, with the consultants who had prepared the EIR and City
staff. Public comments were also taken at this study session.
On May 14, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the EIR and .the proposed project and necessary land use approvals. The Commission heard and
considered all written and oral testimony submitted for the hearing. The Commission then voted to
approve and certify the Final EIR for the proposed prof ect, to approve the conditional use permit for
building height of forty-one feet six inches, to approve the conditional use permit for use as an
animal shelter/animal rescue facility with conditions, and to approve the design review of the
proposed structures including fencing and aviary/outdoor habitat.
On May 16, 2007, the Planning Commission's approvals were appealed to the City Council,
which then held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2007. The public hearing was closed on
June 4, 2007, and staff prepared a proposed decision.
At the June 4 public hearing, the City Council received and considered all written and oral
testimony submitted, including but not limited to, letters received up to and at the public hearing.
The City Council has also reviewed a box of un -collated written materials submitted by Albert
2
W
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2i
2E
Guibara at the public hearing. The City has not received any testimony or correspondence stating
that the notice given of the hearings and study sessions on this project were inadequate or did not
comply with State law.
In making this decision, the City Council has reviewed and considered all of the staff reports
and attachments of correspondence, documents, studies, and other materials. The City Council has
also reviewed and considered the transcripts Of the proceedings before the Planning Commission on
May 1 and May 14, 2007.
The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR that was approved and certified
by the Planning Commission, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and the
Revisions to the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Reports contained in both
the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document.
Final Environmental Impact Report
The Initial Study identified five issues for detailed study: aesthetics, odor, land use and
planning, noise, and transportation and circulation.
Aesthetics. The Final EIR finds that with landscaping, the building design of the project will
blend into the surrounding environment. The only issue of potential significant impact was new
sources of lighting, and the EIR establishes mitigation measures that will reduce the intensity and
dispersal of light so that any potential light or glare impact will be reduced to less than significant.
Odor. The Final EIR contains extensive discussions of potential odor impact, and the
discussion before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2007, expands on that discussion even
further. The EIR established mitigation measures for cleaning, maintenance, and waste disposal,
including an odor management plan that reduce any potential odor impacts to less than significant.
Land Use and Planning. The Final EIR finds the proposed proj ect to be in compliance and
consistent with the Burlingame General Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the
M-1 Zoning, and even the design gmdelines of the recently adopted RR Zoning that would govern
future approvals on this property. No significant conflicts or impacts were identified.
Noise. The Final EIR identified a potentially significant impact from dogs barking, so the
rd
I Final EIR establishes three mitigation measures to reduce noise to less than significant levels. The
2 discussion of the noise consultants demonstrates that ambient noise in the area from the Bayshore
3 Freeway is already high; the dog exercise area has been located interior to the buildings. In addition,
4 the conditions of approval attached to this decision require the roof of the animal exercise area to
5 be closed during nighttime hours.
6 Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR finds that the contribution to traffic in the
7 area is insignificant, particularly at peak traffic hours. In order to ensure proper circulation on-site,
8 the Final EIR establishes mitigation measures for loading and unloading and proper parking. The
9 Final EIR studied other similar facilities and found that the proposed parking will provide sufficient
lo parking so that there will be no significant impact on the area In addition, there is abundant on -
11 street parking in the area.
12 As a product of the odor analysis, the Final EIR also dealt with water and water quality
13 issues, and the mitigation measures will ensure that waste products are kept out of the storm drain
14 and creek systems of the City. The filtering systems that will be installed in the project will improve
15 the runoff from this site from what exists now.
16 The Final EIR has been prepared with great care and completeness and provides an excellent
17 discussion of all the issues involved in this proj ect and provides more than adequate information to
18 the City and the public on them. Persons may differ on the conclusions or the analysis. However,
19 no expert testimony or reports have been submitted that differ with the conclusions or analysis, and
2o both the Planning Commission and the City Council find the information and analysis more than
21 sufficient to proceed to a decision on the application.
22 The Final EIR concludes that there are no potentially significant impacts that cannot be
23 mitigated to less than significant by the proposed mitigation measures. In addition, this discussion
24 has led to additional conditions of approval on the project that would reduce those impacts even
25 further.
26 Recirculation. There is no requirement in CEQA that all new information that is received
27 after the Final EIR is released but prior to certification and the decision on the project has to be
2 8 included in the Final EIR. Instead, the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council)
5
51
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
;an determine if the new information is ,significant" and therefore requires revision and
-ecirculation of some kind or to some extent.
First, in determining this issue, the City must decide if the information is new.
Second, the City must decide if the new information that was received after the completion
of the Final EIR is significant. "Significant' means:
1. The new information shows anew, substantial environmentalimpactresultingeither
from the project or from a mitigation measure; or
2. Thenow information shows a substantial increase inthe severityof an environmental
impact. However, recirculation is not required if mitigation that reduces the impact
to insignificance is adopted; or
The new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that is
considerably different from those considered in the EIR that clearly would lessen the
environmental impacts of the project, and the applicant refuses to adopt it.
Recirculation is not required when the new information merely clarifies or amplifies information
already contained in the Final EIR. In addition, disagreement about the conclusions, or between
experts about information, contained in the Final EIR is not a basis for requiring recirculation.
opponents to the proposed proj ect contend that the Final EIR needs to be recirculated for the
following reasons:
1. The opponents have found some tadpoles nearby and believe that there maybe red -legged
frogs in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. The opponents have not provided
any expert analysis of the situation nor have they described how this project would in anyway affect
the habitat that theybelieve might contain the frogs. This is not new information nor is it significant.
From the inception of the City's study of this proj cot, the City identified the nearby red -legged frog
habitat as an issue — Initial Study at pages 23-24:
a. No Impact. The project site is fully developed and suitable habitat for
special -status plant or animal species is present. California rod -legged fro (Ran
draytonii), a federally listed Threatened species, is known to occur in the project area and has
been documented approximately 0.25 mile from the project site within a freshwater drainage
(North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan 2004). The project site is located
approximately 190 feet south of the Mills Creek tidal drainage channel and approximately
440 feet north of the Easton Creek tidal drainage channel. Although these off site channels
1
67
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
are tidally influenced and do not provide optimal habitat, they could support red -legged
frogs. The proposed proj ect does not include any alterations or construction -related activities
within 190 feet of these drainages. Additionally, red -legged frogs would not be expect to
disperse onto the site from these drainages given the lack of suitable haabiat on tandhe P enlces
site and adjacent properties, and due to the presence of buildings, paved
that would inhibit movement of individuals of this species. Given the above, no impacts to
special -status species are expected to occur.
b. No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur on the
project site. The proj act site is located approximately 190 feet from the Mills Creek drainage
channel and 440 feet from the Easton Creek drainage channel; the NB/RR Specific Plan
designates bothofthese drainages as "Natural Areas." The proposed projectwouldnot result
in any alterations to these drainages or associated vegetation. Therefore, no impacts to
riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur.
c. No Impact. There are no jurisdictional ressooe ro osed proj eas as defined ct would not y S action Oresult�in
Clean Water Act on the proj act site. dh�enallyls y,, the pro,I osect area, that is, Mills Creek and
any alterations to the off-site drainage
Easton Creek. Therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur.
d. No Impact. Due to the location of the project site within an urban/industrial area,
the developed condition of the proj act site, and the lack of contiguous or otherwise suitable
wildlife habitat on the project site, the project site is not part of an established wildlife
movement corridor or a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no related impacts would
occur.
A similar discussion was contained in the Draft EIR at pages 7.0-5 to 7.0-10.
The project opponents did not provide any comment on this issue until a letter dated April
29, 2007, some six months after the public comment period on the EIR concluded. The letter was
apparently drafted by citizens without any review by any expert on biological, water, or habitat
matters. The letter contained no new or significant information. In addition, the applicant retained
an expert to respond to the opponents' letter, which confirmed the conclusions of both the Initial
Study and the Draft EIR.
2. The opponents' attorney did not discover the technical reports and initial study that were
provided in every copy of the Draft EIR on compact disk in Adobe .pdf form until after the public
comment period closed. The opponents contend that this deprived the public of an opportunity to
review the technical reports.
The compact disk is obviouslyplaced on the and flap of the Draft EIR and is readily readable
on almost any computer. The contents are referenced throughout the Draft EIR. Hard copies of the
contents were readily available to any person who requested them from the City Planning
Department throughout the Public Comment period. In November 2006, the City also placed the
contents of the compact disk on the City's website together with the EIR materials.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
From s eptember 2006 to June 2007, only one person commented on the availability of the
naterials on the compact disk, and that was the opponents' attorney. The comments from the
articular noise, were addressed in the Response to
ittomey about the technical reports, in p
Comments Document at pages 3.0-24 to 3.0-27 and the issue was fully aired at the public hearings
on the proposed project.
Nothing about the availability of the materials on the compact disk or the materials
themselves or comments about the materials constitutes new significant information or requires
recirculation.
3. As discussed elsewhere, the alternatives to the proposed project were extensively
discussed in the Draft EIR and no new information regarding alternatives was developed that was
significant or new. Instead, the City found an additional Alternative 4 (1350/1360 Rollins Road) in
order to ensure afull discussion of alternatives, and review of the Rollins Road alternative confirmed
the alternatives analysis that was contained in the Draft EIR, particularly given that the proposed
project did not have any potential significant impacts that could not be mitigated to less than
significant.
There appears to be no real basis to the opponents' request that the CEQA process on this
proposed prof ect be delayed by recirculating the Final EIR, nor have the opponents described how
recirculation would result in any new, significant information. No new significant information has
been received that would require recirculation
Alternatives. State law requires an EIR to identify and describe a reasonable range of
altematives so that the decision makers, such as the City Council and the Planning Commission, and
the public can evaluate the comparative merits of a proposed project against alternatives on an
impact -by -impact basis.
An alternatives discussion is required even though the EIR may conclude that all potentially
significant environmental impacts of a proposed project can be reduced to insigaificant levels by
mitigation measures.
First, the CEQA Guidelines require that a "no prof ect" alternative be discussed. In this FEIR,
the."no project' alternative is to leave all of the applicant's activities at their current location at
P
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
Coyote Point. The effect of such a decision on Burlingame is discussed at length in the Draft EIR.
Leaving or enhancing activities at Coyote Point is not before the City Council; that is left to other
agencies.
CEQA then requires identification and discussion of other alternatives measured by a rule
of reason, with an analysis of the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned approach. The analysis
must be specific enough to permit informed decision-making and public participation; it does not
need to consider in detail each and every conceivable variation of the alternatives stated. It also is
not necessary to consider every alternative that might be suggested.
In instances where the EIR determines that all potentially significant environmental impacts
can be avoided or substantiallyreducedbymitigationmeasures, the City is not required to make any
findings on the feasibility of proposed alternatives.
Finally, CEQA does not require the City to select or impose an alternative even though the
alternative may have less of an environmental effect than the proposed project.
In this FEIR, a reduced density alternative is discussed that shows that with a different mix
of animals, some of the noise impacts might be further reduced. The Draft EIR also identified and
discussed two alternatives that were not located in Burlingame, but which had problems of
acquisition. The Draft EIR identified and discussed at length an alternative site on Adrian Road that
acts. This alternative prov,ided auseful analysis of how
would also lend itself to different noise imp
the project might function at a different location off Rollins Road and closer to the Bayshore
Freeway. However, following release of the Draft ElR, the owner ofthatreal property -rote the City
that he did not have a current intent to sell the property.
While the Draft EIR found that there were no significant impacts that could not be mitigated
by the proposed mitigations, the City went ahead and identified and analyzed another property that
was available in Burlingame for a long-term lease that would satisfy most of the project objectives
of the applicant. This site was similar to the site that had been identified on Adrian Road and
completed a good description of options in Burling .9
Because the Draft EIR found no remaining significant impacts, the City was not obligated
to discuss or determine the feasibility of the alternatives that were identified. However, the Cityhas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
lone so in the FEIR and identified the limitations and advantages posed by each of the alternatives.
The possible eviction or extension of a lease between the applicant and the County of San
Mateo, or the future of animal control in this County, has never been an issue for the Planning
Commission or the City Council with regard to this application. The City properly removed that
issue from the feasibility discussion of alternatives in the Final EIR because it was so speculative.
In addition, the applicant submitted an extensive discussion of the efforts that it had made
to locate alternative sites throughout San Mateo County in a memorandum dated May 8, 2007.
The opponents to the project have told the City that it has to analyze a different parcel of
some 42 acres in Half Moon Bay that has become available for purchase. The City finds that
suggesting that an adoption center for the County that depends on volunteers should be located on
the other side of the Santa Cruz Mountains from its clients and volunteers is unreasonable.
Commonsense tells us as well that this alternative does not work for an adoption center.
It is the City's obligation to determine if the alternatives discussion in the Final EIR provides
sufficient. information to measure the comparative impacts of the proposed project against a
reasonable range of alternatives. This EIR has done so. The Final EIR contains alternatives that
have been independently selected and analyzed by the City. This Council and the public know what
leaving the services at Coyote Point would look like for the City and what impacts that might have;
what a smaller project would look like and what impacts that might have; what a project at two
different locations in the City would look like and what impacts they might have; and even what a
project in San Carlos or Half Moon Bay in more general terms might look like, together with the
feasibility of each of those alteratives.
This is a reasonable range of alternatives with sufficiently detailed analysis of impacts,
benefits, and feasibility. The Planning Commission and the City Council are well
about
what alternatives might be available to this proposal. .
Parking Determination
Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.70.042 provides as follows:
Foi uses not listed in the above schedule ofrequired parking, spaces shallbe supplied
10
5'
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2E
2;
2E
on the same basis as provided for the most similar use, or as determined by the city planner.
For such determination such matters as type of use and user, number of employees, number
of visitors and similar factors shall be considered, in any case, where the decision of the city
planner is contested by the applicant, his or her decision may be appealed to the planning
commission. The commission may approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the city
planner.
'The City Planner recommended a parking ratio for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue facility
because such a use was not listed in the parking schedule in Chapter 25.70. This determination will
apply to future animal shelter or animal rescue facilities in the City.
Fehr & Peers, the subconsultant to Impact Sciences in preparing the Final EMI. surveyed
other facilities to determine parking demand. Fehr & Peers recommended a parking standard of
between 1.56 and 1.66. City staff confirmed the data derivedbyFehrand Peers, and confirmed that
none of the facilities seemed to have any parking problems. Parldng requirements for similar uses
in other cities' zoning codes seemed to fall in a similar range.
Withregardto accessory outdoorhabitats such as aviaries, stafffoundthatthe City& County
of San Francisco has aZoniug Code standard of 1 parking spacepm 4,000 square feet (0.25 per one
thousand square feet) for greenhouses. _
The Planning Commission determined that aparking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand
square feet (or 1 parking space per 625 square feet) for an animal shelter or avmal rescue facility
was a good standard to apply to such uses in the City. In addition, the Commission determined that
al shelter or rescue facility, an aviary would require 1
when used in conjunction with such an anim
e of one employee on the project site
parking space, based on the analysis that found that the presenc
would be attributable to the aviary.
In order to make a clear city-wide standard, the City Council adopts the recommended
standard of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand square feet (or 1 space per 625 square feet) for animal
shelters or animal rescue facilities, and further that a requirement of 1 space per 5,000 square feet
be established for outdoor habitat provided in connection with such facilities.
11
3
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2i
2E
Conditional use pernxit for Ixeiglxt
tructure over thirty five (35) feet in height required
The M-1 District provided that any s
review as a conditional use. Former Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.44.030(17). In other words,
if a property owner wanted to go above thirty-five feet, the Planning Commission was to review the
structure as a conditional use under the Zoning Code to determine whether it was appropriately
located and designed.
argue that the City should not be allowed to permit structures in the City
Project opponents
to exceed any height limit without a vanance.
Consistent with State law, conditional use permits are governed by Municipal Code §
25.52.010 as follows:
(a) Conditional use permits maybe issued as provided in this chapter for any of the uses
or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this article upon
conditions. designated by the planning commission.
(b) The purpose of the use permit is to allow the proper integration into the community
of uses which maybe suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district, or only if such
uses are designed or arranged on the site in a particular manner.
(c) The planning commission may impose such requirements and conditions with respect
to location, construction, maintenance, operation, site planning, traffic control and time limits
for the use permit as it deems necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the
public interest. The commission may require tangible guarantees or evidence that such
conditions are being, or will be, complied with.
ecifically provides that uses such as heights over thirty-five
The first sentence of Section 25.44.030 sp
feet are a use: "The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit:" In addition, buildings
ahnve certain heights in many of the City's zoning districts (Sections 25.28.060, 25.40.025(e),
25 42 030(h), 25.45.025(k), 25.47.025(1), 25.48.025(a), 25.49
valuable part of integrating good building design into the
025(f)) are governed by special and
conditional use permit provisions as
community.
The Planning CDniniission unanimously determined that the proposed height of the project
12
1 at forty-one feet six inches was appropriate. This height allows the applicant to adequately screen
2 the mechanical equipment on the roof and to make the design of the structure of the building more
3 pleasing to the eye.
4 Nothing about this additional height will behaimfulorinjurioustopropertyorimprovements
5 in the vicinity, and no evidence was presented that it would be detrimental to the public health,
6 safety, general welfare or convenience. In fact, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
7 contemplates building heights of up to sixty feet, and taller buildings are encouraged; therefore, the
B proposed height is consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and Specific Plan. The building
9 height approved in this decision is limited to the locations found on the approved plans and any
to increase in height or any expansion of the area of the building would require additional design
11 review and approvals under the Zoning Code. Therefore, the conditional use permit forheight meets
12 the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020.
13
14 Conditional Use permit for Animal Shelter or Animal Rescue Facility
15 On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission determined that an animal shelter or animal
16 rescue facility application could be made in the M-lDistrict for a conditional use permitunder then-
17 1 existing Section 25.44.030(22): "Any commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted
18 or conditional use in this or any other district." That final decision has now resulted in this
19 application coming forward for review under the City, s conditional use permit standards of Chapter
2o 25.52.
21 The proposed project has been reviewed under a Final BIR that found no potentially
22 significant impact that could not be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures.
23 The City has drafted additional conditions of approval that address operation, parking, odor, noise,
24 class sizes, and a myriad of other aspects of the project. There is abundant on -street parking in the
25 vicinity.
26 The applicant has submitted extensive documentation and testimony regarding the storm
27 drainage in the vicinity, the proposed handling of waste, the operational details of the use, and even
28 an economic study showing its possible effect on the area Testimony and documentation also shows
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
hat similar facilities are operating in commercial and industrial areas with no discernible adverse
impacts. With regard to parking, the applicant has shown that should additional parking be needed
on-site, a system and space are available to install lifts for additional spaces.
Finally, it appears that the site was previously used for animal research without any
noticeable effects on surrounding properties.
The City Council is convinced that this project as conditioned by this decision will not be
harmf 1 or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, nor will it be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The community has overwhelmingly testified
to the need and usefulness of the proposed prof ect, and the suitability of the location.
This Council expressly found that animal shelters and snimal rescue facilities in this area
were consistent with the North Burhngame/Rollms Road Specific Plan in Tune 2006. That decision
was affirmed by the San Mateo Superior Courtin April 2007. The community has looked long and
hard at this area, and concluded that it should remain in light industrial uses such as this proposed
project, and this project is consistent with and compatible with the goals and objectives of the
Specific and General Plans.
The comprehensive set of conditions of approval has established the standard for this
particular prof ect, as well as future developments in the Edwards Court neighborhood. Finally, the
conditions of approval establish a regular review period to ensure that the operation of the proj cot is
meeting expectations for parking impacts and parldi g issues related to the proj ect are not causing a
nuisance in the neighborhood.
Therefore, the conditional use permit for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue
meets the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020.
DesignReview
The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan establishes design guidelines for projects
in the area. These are spelled out at pages 4.0-11 to 4.0-12 of the Response to Comments and
Revisions to Draft EIR Document. The project meets or exceeds each of the standards set out in the
Plan, including landscaping, build -to lines, and fencing. These guidelineswere more
14
FNIN
2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2E
2'.
z the adoption of the implementing zomug of the RR District.
ct
which was made under the preexisting zoning, this proj e
Although the RR District specifics
.o not apply to this application,
vith those standards.
The applicant provided
a detailed, physical model that demonstrated that the project will
utegrate into the area well. guidelines and
The Planning Commission, wbichhad
drafted Specific Plan andthe designnmet the design
had studied the project in four public meetings, determined that the proposed design me
standards for the area as set out in the Specific Plan.
T,he City Council further finds that the proposed proj ect meets not just the standards but the
fu
intent of the Plan's design guidelines. The City undertook a deliberative process to look long and hard
ghborhood with this
at this aea in 2002 to 2004 and decided to keep this area as a light industrial nei
r
type of use.
(FAR) in the City of Burlingame is generally governed by the definitions
Floor area ratio
Section 25.08.265(a):
"Floor area ratio" or "FAR" means the ratio of the gross square footage of the floor
area of a building or buildings to the lot on which the building or buildings are located. FAR
for any lot includes new structures to be built and those remarmng•
Section 25.08.264-1:
otage" means the total area of all floors of a building or
"Floor area, gross square fo
buildings as measured to the outside surfaces of the exterior walls ofthe structure or structures
and including such areas as halls, stairways, covered porches and balconies, covered
walkways and arcades, elevator shafts, service and mechanical equipment rooms and
basements, cellars, and improved space in attic areas.
And Section 25.08.410 of the Municipal Code: hues of a lot.
"Lot area" means the total horizontal area within the boundary
No deductions from lot area are taken for easements. The sidewalk required in Condition of
Approval No. 32 does not reduce the lot size. in calculating floor area ratio, the City counts the
conditioned and covered areas of structures. Uncovered areas are not, and have not, been counted
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2E
2E
2'
21
d floor area of a structure. The M-1 District did not have any maximum floor area ratio, and
owar
neither does the recently adopted RR District.
The proposed project will encompass 51,270 square feet of covered structure on a lot area of
will include a 5,940 square foot aviary that will "be
51,270 square feet. In addition, the project
enclosed inabarelyvisible high strengthmeshfabric often seen inzoos." DEIR, at page 3.0-21. The
materials of the screen have been provided for review to both the Planning and the City Council.
There will be no roof on the aviary/outdoor habitat; during inclement weather, the aviary/outdoor
habitat would be partially covered. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan sets a
maximum Floor Area Ratio standard of 1.0, which this project would meet.
The FEIR describes the aesthetics of the building and includes the aviary/outdoor habitat in
analyzing the overall bulk and mass of the building's appearance. However, it was not the intent of
unconditioned aviary in the calculation of a
the Specific Plan to include an open, un -roofed, and
maximum FAR Such an interpretation would disallow similar amenities, such as outdoor dining,
area. In addition the Specific Plan
rooftop gardens, and recreation area, in the Specific Plan
encompassed within the Plan policies is related to traffic
specifically recognizes that the FAR that is
impacts and protecting habitat or creeks. It is clear that the aviary/outdoor habitat will not generate
any additional traffic and functions entirely as just an animal enclosure. In addition, Condition of
Approval No. I specificallyprovides that "the aviary and outdoorbabitat shall neverbe coveredwith
a permanent roof or be converted to conditioned space." Therefore, the proposed FAR meets the
standard of the Specific Plan.
The building's design, including mass and bulk, meets the letter and intent of the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
Miscellaneous Issues
The CC&R's for this subdivision are under litigation between the applicant and project
opponents, and the court has apparently not yet determined the validity or applicability of the
CC&R's. Therefore, the private contracts and disputes between the opponents and the applicant
cannot affect the City's decision, and any consideration of those CC&R's and their effect would be
16
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
2E
2'.
2E
;ntirely speculative.
The ongoing negotiations between the applicant and the County of San Mateo have notplayed
a part in this decision. The City has purposefully and intentionally removed any reference to the
possibility of the termination of the agreement for animal control services between the applicant and
the County or termination of the lease of the real property at Coyote Point from the Final EIR in
connection with judging the feasibility of the alternatives available. Any such discussion would only
be speculative at best. The City Planner was both justified and authorized to make that decision, and
her judgment in making that decision is expressly affirmed.
Project opponents have accused the applicant of fraud in the applicant's Environmental
Information Form and have contended that the City must deny the application on that ground alone.
Whether anyone believes what the opponents allege in this connection, the City; through its staff,
consultants, Planning Commission, and City Council, as well as its public process, has subjected
every request and aspect of applicant's application to over two years of testing and analysis.
Therefore, evenif the opponents' allegations are true in any particular, no fraudhas occurredbecause
the City has not taken that original information sheet at face value.
Finally, the City Council formally rej eats the allegations made by proj ect opponents that the
City Council, the Planning Commission, or City staff have been agents of the applicant or have been
improperly influenced by members of the governing board of the applicant.,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows with regard to the
application for use of the real property at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court as an animal
shelter/animal rescue facility.-
1.
acility:1. The Final Elp , consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and Revisions to
the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial study and Technical Studies, adequately discloses and
discusses the potential significant impacts ofthe proposedproj ect, pro vides sufficient, understandable
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant, and reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City.
eted in compliance with the California Environmental
2. The Final ETR has been compl
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
duality Act, and the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered in making this decision.
3. The decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed as follows and with the changes as
described:
a. A parking standard of one parking space for each 625 square feet of gross floor area is
established for animal shelters and animal rescue facilities in the City. Any outdoor habitat area, such
as an aviary, in connection with such a shelter or facility shall require one parking space for each
5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
b. A conditional use permit for a building height of forty-one feet six inches, a conditional
imal shelterlanimal rescue facility, and design review of
use permit for use of the property as an an
the proposed project are approved subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A hcreto.
This resolution shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.
This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing
to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within. 90 days pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
G 1 IV
ayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18m day of
I June, 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: sASEOCx, COSEN, xElGMUN, NAGEL, 01MARONY
NOES: COUNCII.MEMBER: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:NONE
ity Clerk
IN
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING
HEIGHT AND FOR USE AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY,
AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES AT
1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
Construction
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped April 17, 2007, A.1 through A5.2 and CLl, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit; that the hardscape in the memorial garden area shall be paved
with pervious material to support the landscaping and runoff from the site and that the
aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted
to conditioned space (Planning)
2, that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26, 2006, August 22, 2005 and
July 1, 2005, memos, the City Engineer's April 24, 2006, August 24, 2005 and July 7,
2005, memos, the Fire Marshal's April 24, 2006, memo, the City Arborisfs April 26,
2006 and August 31, 2005 memos, the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 and July 6,
2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 24, 2006 and July 5, 2005, memos
shall be met; (Building, Public Works, Fire, Planning)
that any hazardous materials on the site and in the existing building to be demolished
shall be investigated and identified by a licensed engineer who will prepare a plan for
their removal which shall be approved by the Burlingame Fire Department and Building
Division before a building permit is issued; and that any such material shall be removed
in compliance with regulations and the plan before demolition of the building can
commence; (Building, Fire)
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. that the building plans for all new construction and remodel of any existing structure on
this site shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention
in the Burlingame Municipal Code before issuance of a building permit, and all
construction shall be inspected for compliance with these requirements as a part of the
final building inspection; (Public Works, Building)
that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second
half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $5,384.82,
made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department;
(Building, Planning)
that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (Public Works)
that the project shall include an on-site filtration system designed to remove solid
material generated from this use which could reduce the capacity of the City's sewer
collection system serving this site and area, the location and filter system design and
maintenance schedule shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit; the installation of the filter system shall be inspected by the
Building and Public Works as a part of the regular construction inspections on the site;
and following installation during operation of the facility the filter system installation
shall be inspected regularly on a schedule determined by the staff of the Waste Water
Treatment plant; all material cleaned regularly from the filters shall be stored in
containers and disposed of by the same method as the soiled cat litter; failure to provide,
maintain and properly dispose of filtered material and used filters shall cause review of
the conditional use permit for this use on this site. (Public Works, Building)
EXHIBIT A - 2
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application; (Public Works)
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined where possible and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit
is issued; (Building)
10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
L. .
11. that prior to is'suance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be
provided to the City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the
following standards:
(a) The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled
through use of low -brightness fixtures with optical controls;
(b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views,
except for the street address;
(c) No lighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light
fixture; and
(d) On -demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area
lighting and security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches
and/or motion detectors. (Building, Planning)
R IC
2
0
G9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading for site preparation shall be
required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to
issuance of a demolition and building permit by the Building division; that no such
demolition and site work shall occur until after a building permit has been issued; and
that all requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit shall be
complied with during construction; (Building)
13. that the proj ect shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public
right-of-way shall be prohibited; (Public Works)
15. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on Sundays and holidays; (Building)
16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another
architect or design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,
such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
( Planning, Building)
rd
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
highest point of the building (roof ridge, parapet or mechanical screening) and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; (Building)
18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (Planning)
19. that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and
shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive
on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; and that prior to
issuance of a building permit, the Planning Commission shall review the revised
landscape plans as an FYI item; (Planning, Building)
20. that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in
sidewalk areas on Rollins Road, per City guidelines; (Planning, Building)
II 21 that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist
prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits, and all landscaping shall be
installed prior to scheduling final inspection. (Building)
22. that during demolition of the existing stracture(s), site preparation and construction of the
structure(s), the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff, (Public Works)
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property
lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of
cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas
on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access
routes, Staging areas and washout areas; that compliance shall also include the
requirements of the conditions included the mitigation monitoring plan; (Public Works)
24. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; (Public Works)
25. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt
fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and
covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain
temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion
controls have been established; (Public Works)
26. that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete,
petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and
disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater;
(Public Works, Fire)
27. that if the project is constructed during the wet season (October through May), an erosion
control and/or sediment control plan, compliant with the City's NPDES (stormwater
control) requirements, shall be prepared and implemented, to the satisfaction of the Public
2
011
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Works Department, prior to the onset of the wet season, and shall be maintained
throughout the construction period; (Public Works)
28. that all project grading, construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the
provisions of the City's NPDES requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(S WPPP) outlining construction phase and post -construction phase measures to reduce
pollutant discharge from the site shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits; (Public Works)
29. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in
designated areas which runoff is contained and treated; (Public Works)
30. that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the
public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping
methods; (Public Works)
31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,
promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
(Planning, Public Works)
32. that the property owner shall, as a part of project construction, widen the sidewalks, place
a root barrier along the inner edge of the sidewalk, and build the sidewalks to City
sidewalk standards along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages of the property;
that the sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width; and that the required
street trees as shown on the approved plans shall be placed two feet from the inner edge
of the sidewalk with supporting irrigation installed from the project site; (Public Works,
Planning, Building)
E=IT A - 7
2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33. that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction,
such as muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and
other noise -producing equipment.; (Building)
34. that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further
reduce noise related to truck travel; (Public Works)
35. that during construction radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the
construction activity. (Building)
36. that the proj ect shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal, and that the
LEEDS checklist shall be submitted as an FYI item to the Planning Commission before
the building permit is issued; (Planning)
37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building)
Operation
38. that the following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for
Compassion: initial triage; dead animal pick-up and disposal; housing of stray animals;
housing of aggressive animals prior to a mandated hearing; quarantine for rabies and
other possible zoonoitic illnesses; euthanasia of animals without the presence of their
owners and an appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter animals; lost
and found services, 24/7 animal ambulance service, local code enforcement, and, except
in circumstances of individual members of the public misunderstanding, animal
receiving; (Planning)
2
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. that the Center shall have a maximum of 30 staff people on-site at any one time
consisting of both paid professionals and volunteers; the Center shall have a maximum of
two people present on-site after business hours for 24-hour coverage; that any permanent
increase in the number of employees over 30 on site at any one time shall require an
amendment to this permit; shall accommodate a maximum of 200 domestic animals and
218 native animals at one time, and shall never exceed the number of 45 dogs on site at
one time; (Planning)
40. that to reduce barking, all dogs kept at the facility shall be neutered at the Coyote Point or
other site before arrival unless a veterinarian recommends that the neutering procedure
would be unsafe for the animal's health or age, when this is the case the Center shall be
responsible for the neutering of the animal when it is determined to be safe; (Planning)
41. that the Center may not be open for business for adoptions, animal deliveries or
permitted veterinary services except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven
days a week; in addition to business hours classes/educational activities may occur
between 10:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week, with the last class ending no later
than 10:00 p.m.; class and educational events shall be scheduled with a minimum of
fifteen (15) minutes between classes/educational events to insure adequate turnover of
on-site parking; (Planning)
42. that because of on-site parking the maximum class size shall be limited to 20 students; for
animal behavior classes, the class size shall be limited to ten pet owners and a maximum
of 2 instructors at one time; instructors of animal behavior classes shall be in the parking
lot to meet students and shall escort them to their vehicles at the end of the class;
(Planning)
4
0
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43. that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to determine a feasible
directional program to the facility site including on site parking, the facility operator shall
fund the signage and its installation; (Public Works, Planning)
44. that only one bus at a time shall bring visitors or students to the animal rescue and shelter
facility, parking for the bus shall be provided at a pre -arranged location and the green
curb adequate for loading and unloading shall be retained along the Rollins Road street
frontage of the site; (Planning)
45. that a parking study using methodology approved by the City shall be prepared at the end
of one year, three year and five year intervals after the Center opens and, following this
period after the center opens at regular intervals it be determined to be necessary based on
the first three studies; that this study shall evaluate the use of the on-site parking
throughout the week and particularly during peak usage periods (including during class
sessions); the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review, should the study document that on-site parking is inadequate or that those seeking
parking regularly prefer to use the public street, then the facility operator shall prepare,
within 3 months, an alternative parking plan which shall address the reasons for the
parking shortages identified and ways to address them; this plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer and
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and amendment to the conditional use
permit; failure to provide a remedial plan and appropriate, effective solutions for on-site
and off-site parking problems identified in the studies shall result in Planning
Commission review of the conditional use permit for the on-site program; (Planning,
Public Works)
II 46 that the retail sales area in the Center for Compassion shall be designed to serve the needs
of those adopting animals from the site, the sales area shall be limited to 800 SF and shall
EXHIBIT A - 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not be designed to be a destination or wholesale/discount location for pet supplies;
(Planning)
47. that any and all cleaning agents used by the facility which will be washed into the public
sewer or into the surface drainage serving the site shall be approved by the operator of
the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant and by the City's NPDES inspector, prior to
their being used; failure to use approved products and demonstrated problems at the
City's treatment plant or surface drainage channels shall require a public hearing before
the Planning Commission including consideration of amendments to the conditional use
permit for this use; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
48. that all animals arriving at the Center for Compassion, except those accompanied by their
owners to participate in behavior training classes and those brought by their owners for
veterinarian services within 30 days of adoption, shall enter the facility only through the
enclosed, staff parking area; the arrival and departure of animals with their owners
outside of the caged parking area shall be supervised by a trained staff member who shall
supervise the quiet unloading and loading of the animals into their owners vehicles;
(Planning)
49. that no stray animals shall be accepted at the Center for Compassion, that should an
animal be abandoned at the Center the facility shall provide a holding cage in side the
building to secure the animal until the Animal Control Services have been contacted and
arrive to remove the animal; (Planning)
50. that the 62 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the visitors and employees of the
Center and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on
this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; (Planning)
.4■_11C
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51. that no more than fifteen (15) percent of the domestic animals, cats and dogs, housed for
adoption at the San Mateo Center for Compassion each year shall enter the facility from
locations outside of San Mateo County; that the facility operator shall provide to the
Community Development Director an annual report documenting by month the source of
the domestic animals housed on the site; this report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director no later than December 30, of each year; failure to submit such a
report will result in review by the Planning Commission; (Planning)
52. that the facility shall have posted on the site at an accessible location an odor
management plan to address basic and additional measures to minimize odors such as
more frequent pick up, earlier in the day, application of deodorizing agents, etc.; this plan
shall be prepared and reviewed by the City prior to the scheduling of the final inspection;
the site shall be inspected for compliance with the posting of the plan and the procedures
set out in the plan at the same time that the waste water filter facilities are inspected,
failure to comply with the requirements of the plan or valid complaints shall result in a
report to the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and review by the Planning
Commission; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
53. that, in the event of air quality violations based on odor, the property owner shall install
charcoal air filters or any other devise required by the Bay Area Air Quality Control
Board on air exhaust vents and that the air evacuation system for the building shall
provide for a minimum of twelve (12) air exchanges per hour, (Public Works, Building,
Planning)
54. that the rolling roof over the dog exercise area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 12
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55. that the facility operator shall comply with the behavioral selection criteria set out in the
Response to Comments document on pages 3.0-28and 29, attached to the project
approval, these requirement will be enforced by requiring that this operator or any other
operator of this use shall comply with these criteria for selection of animals to be housed
on the Center site; failure to comply with these selection criteria shall cause this permit to
be subj ect to public hearing before the Planning Commission and remediation addressed
to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission for continued use of the site; (Planning)
56. that in the interest of safe pedestrian access to the Center and safe access across Rollins
Road at Edwards Court to the Center, should the traffic warrants based on the City's
standards for traffic signal or lighted pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved, the property
owner shall fund the installation of a lighted pedestrian crosswalk or two legs of the
required traffic signal, whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be necessary;
Public Works)
57. that deliveries of equipment and supplies to the facility shall be limited to trucks with a
maximum length of 22 feet, that such deliveries shall not be made during peak traffic
hours (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or during the on-site peak parking demand
hours of 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily; the peak parking demand hours shall be confirmed in the
first year parking study and the truck delivery limitations adjusted if the peak on-site
parking hours of use is different. (Public Works, Planning)
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
58. that the project's design shall be consistent with the proposed site plan, building
elevations, and landscaping plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of the Draft
EIR. Any alternations to the final approved design shall require approval from the City
prior to implementation and be determined to be consistent with the conclusions of the
environmental impact report; (Planning)
EXH113IT A - 13
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
59. that the landscaping on-site shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees
along Rollins Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24 -inch box size if
any of the trees planted along these roads become severely diseased or do not survive.
The City shall approve any changes to the landscaping plan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of
this EIR; (Planning)
Lighting
60. that to minimize light and glare low profile, low -intensity lighting directed downward
shall be used for the parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of
the building;(Building)
61. that shielded fixtures shall be used on all exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs
at the project site to minimize glare produced by lighting on-site; (Building)
62. that all lighting associated with the project shall comply with by the City's Illumination
Ordinance;(Planning, Building)
63, that all signs shall have indirect illumination with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit
or ground lit to avoid flooding adjacent walls with light; (Planning, Building)
Waste Handling and Treatment
64. that cat feces and urine, including cat litter, shall be bagged daily into heavy duty
industrial plastic bags, sealed tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations (UN) and
Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) approved sealed -tight steel drums, up to
55 -gallons, with removable lids and locking ring located in an enclosed area within the
building or parking structure of the Center. The drums shall be picked up twice a week,
or more frequently as required to control odor, by a qualified contractor and disposed of
at a landfill that accepts cat litter and diatomaceous earth;(Public Works)
EXHIBIT A - 14
1 65. that waste from dogs shall be disposed into the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel
2 and room shall have drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be
3 placed over each drain to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose of feces directly into the
4 sewer line. The grate shall be closed at all times, except during cleaning. The disposal
5 drain shall have an automatic flushing system, with a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be
6 washed frequently and appropriately disinfected daily; (Public Works, Wastewater
7 Treatment Plant)
8
9 66. that dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel
10 drain system into the sanitary sewer,(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
11
12 67. that animal waste from the wildlife housed in small enclosures shall be disposed of into
13 drains that discharge into the sanitary sewer;(Building, Public Works)
14
15 68. that the animal waste from the native wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and
16 duck/diving pools shall be hosed down into sewage drains, which connect to the sanitary
17 sewer. The outdoor wildlife areas shall be hosed with water and appropriately disinfected
18 daily;(Public Works)
19
20 Odor
21 69. that an odor management plan shall be developed by the owner and approved by the City
22 of Burlingame. The odor management plan shall include:
23 a. Outdoor areas shall be cleaned frequently;
24 b. Waste shall be stored properly and collected for disposal frequently;
25 C. Odor neutralizers shall be used;
26 d. A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the odors would drift
27 and trash containers shall be placed in order to minimize drift created by
28 prevailing winds;
EXHIBIT A - 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight; and
f Trash receptacles shall have high surrounding fences and overhang. (Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
Noise
70. that dogs shall be housed in kennels that are designed to minimize the view of other dogs
to eliminate or reduce barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been
specifically matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed veterinarian on-site;
(Planning)
71. that the acoustics of the facility shall be constructed and designed with specific materials
and elements as approved by a noise consultant to attenuate noise, including barking.
This includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior windows shall be
STC 24;
b. Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog kennels;
C. The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a minimum STC 24
isolation rating, with a single layer of 5/8 gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane
of 1/8 -inch glass for the window; and
d. The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior wall of the building
shall be STC 24 for the windows, assuming a single pane of 1/8 -inch
glass.(Planning)
II 72 that prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs shall be screened by professional animal
behaviorists for serious behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food
guarding, etc.). A dog diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not be transferred to the
Center unless that behavior is treated and determined to be resolved by a licensed
veterinarian prior to transfer;(Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 16
El
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parking/Circulation/Traffic
73. that the applicant shall notify vendors using the site that deliveries made by vehicles
greater than 22 feet must use the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would
be allowed to use the parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall work with
vendors to schedule deliveries during non -peak traffic times;(Planning)
74. that the project applicant shall design a marked loading zone on-site;(Planning, Public
Works)
75. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a dust control plan that is
compliant with City requirements. This plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame
Public Works Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan
during construction. The dust control plan shall include the basic, enhanced, and optional
dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), including the measures listed below.
Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites)
(a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
(b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
(c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
(d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
(e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) or more frequently as required by the
City if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
EXHIBIT A - 17
2
Cl
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Enhanced Control Measures (for individual or combined construction sites of larger than
four acres)
(a) Hydro seed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
(b) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
(c) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour (mph).
(d) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
(e) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Measures (based on requirements by the City)
(a) Install wheel washers for all existing, or wash off the tires or tracks of all tracks
and equipment leaving the site.
(b) Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 mph.
(c) Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at
any one time.(Public Works)
Cultural
76. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction
activities, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper
protection measures, as determined by a qualified expert, can be implemented; (Planning)
77. that if previous unknown human remains are encountered during construction, an
appropriate representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall be
informed and consulted, as required by State law; (Planning)
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
78. that any new structures shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the
Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at
the time a building permit is issued; (Building, Public Works)
Construction
79. that a design -level final geotechnical report shall be required for the project. This report
shall include specific recommendations to minimize post construction settlements. The
design -level geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department
of Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City
field inspectors shall inspect construction for implementation of the recommend site
preparation activities;(Building, Public Works)
80. that all storm water discharge shall adhere to State and Federal requirements. All storm
drainage that discharges into public water shall be required to meet water quality
standards outlined in the NPDES permit requirements;(Public Works)
81. that best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be developed for the site and approved by
the City;(Public Works)
182. that hazardous materials or wastes found or generated at the project site shall be
transported and handled in accordance with applicable disposal regulations;(Building,
Fire)
83. that any hazardous waste generated at the project site shall be removed by a licensed
hazardous waste hauler for approved disposal off-site; (Building, Fire)
84. that the BAAQMD shall issue a permit and be notified 10 days in advance of any
proposed demolition or abatement work on-site;(Building)
EXHIBIT A - 19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
85. that the local office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) shall be
notified in writing of any asbestos abatement to be carried out as apart of
demolition;(Building, Fire)
86, that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPP) shall be developed and
approved by the City. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs that will minimize sedimentation
and contamination of storm water runoff generated during construction;(Public Works)
87. that the modifications to the existing buildings on-site, as well as new construction, shall
comply with the requirements in Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention of the
Burlingame Municipal Code;(Public Works)
88. that an acoustical engineer, familiar with aviation noise, shall prepare an acoustical study
in accordance with Title 24. The study shall determine if construction design of the
project site would comply with the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound
Transmission Controls and FAR Part 150, Appendix A, table 1 criteria, in order to
achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB or less for noise episodes associated with aircrafts;
(Building,)
89. that the project shall incorporate appropriate design measures (interior sounds insulation)
to reduce aviation noise if the acoustical study (prepared as part of mitigation measure
Noise 1) determines that the design of the project would not achieve an indoor noise level
of 45 dB;(Planning, Building)
90. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with requirements found in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling
and Disposal, Article 5 Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards. The containers
shall be replaced as needed to ensure compliance with this regulation; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 20
91. that the applicant shall obtain a sanitary sewer discharge permit from the City's Office of
Environmental Compliance. The design of this project's system shall be approved by the
City's Office of Environmental Compliance through the permitting process;(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
92. that no cat litter or diatomaceous earth shall be disposed of into drains that feed into the
sanitary sewer system. Such litter will be disposed of into 55 -gallon steel drums;(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
93. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with the following requirements found in
the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3: Minimum Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and Disposal Article 5; and Solid Waste Storage and Removal
Standards, particularly Section 17315, Garbage Containers.(Public Works, Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 45-2007
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CERTIFY A
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARD
FOR ANIMAL SHELTER/AN VIAL RESCUE FACILITY USES IN THE CITY,
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR USE
AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY, AND DESIGN REVIEW
OFSTRUCTURES
1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
(APN 026-102-050)
ZONE M-1
PROPERTY OWNER: HENRY HORN & SONS INCORPORATED
APPLICANT: PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
ARCHITECT: GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council for public hearing on June 4, 2007,
on appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report and approving conditional usepermits for building height and use as an animal shelter/animal
rescue facility, and design review and making a determination as to the parking standard for an
animal shelter/animal rescue facility, and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City
law; and
WHEREAS, the Council visited the neighborhood and spoke with neighbors and the
applicants; and
WHEREAS, the following is adopted as the decision of the City Council of the City of
Burlingame on the above -entitled application:
Project Process
•M
In September 2004, the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
On April 27, 2005, the Applicant filed an application for use of the property at 1450 Rollins
Road/20 Fdwards Court, which is located in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area.
On May 9, 2005, the Burlingame Planning Commission made a determination pursuant to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Burlingame Municipal Code §§ 25.44.030(22) and 25.16.150 that an animal shelter use in the M-1
District would be a use that is similar to another permitted or conditional use in the City, in
particular,. a veterinary hospital and associated animal care facilities; this entitled the applicant, as
well as any other person, to apply for a conditional use permit for such a use in the M-1 District.
That determination was not appealed nor was any application made for a re -determination of that
decision by the Commission.
Between September 2005, and June 2006, the Planning Commission and the City Council
held extensive hearings and study on the zoning provisions needed to implement the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan that was previously adopted. On June 5, 2006, this City
Council adopted the Rollins Road Zoning District and zoning regulations for the area in which the
proposed project would be located. That ordinance explicitly made animal shelters and animal
rescue facilities a conditional use in the area.
Albert Guibara, Rilco-Edwards LLC, and Aerobay Office Park filed a petition for a writ of
mandate against the City contending that animal shelters and animal rescue facilities were
inconsistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. In
April 2007, the San Mateo Superior Court denied the petition filed by the three parties.
After review of the plan submittal, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed design
review study and environmental scoping session on September 26, 2005. At that time, public
comments were taken and the Commission gave direction with regard to issues to be studied in the
environmental review.
Following additional study, the applicant decided thatpreparation of an environmental impact
report seemed warranted, so an initial study was prepared for the project. A notice of preparation of
an EIR was posted on February 16, 2006.
A second environmental scoping session was duly noticed and held by the Planning
Commission on February 27, 2006. At that time, further public comments were taken, and the
Commission gave additional direction with regard to issues to be addressed in the EIR and design
of the project.
A Draft EIR was prepared by consultants retained by the City and made available for public
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
review and comments on September 5, 2006. The Draft EIR contained all of the technical reports
as well as the Initial Study in the form of an electronic disk provided with each copy of the Draft
EIR. In addition, a hard copy of the same material was available on request from the City.
On September 25, 2006, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Draft EIR to receive any public comments on the Draft EIR, and the Commission made comments
regarding the Draft. Written comments were also accepted through the end of the public comment
period on October 20, 2006.
A Response to Comments Document and revisions to the Draft EIR were then prepared by
the consultants retained by the City with review and oversight by the City. The Response to
Comments and Revisions to Draft EIR Document was released on April 18, 2007.
On May 1, 2007, the Planning Commission held a study session at which the Commission
reviewed the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and Revisions to
the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Reports contained inboththeDraft EIR
and the Response to Comments Document, with the consultants who had prepared the EIR and City
staff. Public comments were also taken at this study session.
On May 14, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the EIR and the proposed project and necessary land use approvals. The Commission heard and
considered all written and oral testimony submitted for the hearing. The Commission then voted to
approve and certify the Final EIR for the proposed project, to approve the conditional use permit for
building height of forty-one feet six inches, to approve the conditional use permit for use as an
animal shelter/animal rescue facility with conditions, and to approve the design review of the
proposed structures including fencing and aviary/outdoor habitat.
On May 16, 2007, the Planning Commission's approvals were appealed to the City Council,
which then held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2007. The public hearing was closed on
June 4, 2007, and staff prepared a proposed decision.
At the June 4 public hearing, the City Council received and considered all written and oral
testimony submitted, including but not limited to, letters received up to and at the public hearing.
The City Council has also reviewed a box of un -collated written materials submitted by Albert
ri
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Guibara at the public hearing. The City has not received any testimony or correspondence stating
that the notice given of the hearings and study sessions on this project were inadequate or did not
comply with State law.
In making this decision, the City Council has reviewed and considered all of the staff reports
and attachments of correspondence, documents, studies, and other materials. The City Council has
also reviewed and considered the transcripts of the proceedings before the Planning Commission on
May 1 and May 14, 2007.
The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR that was approved and certified
by the Planning Commission, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and the
Revisions to the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Reports containedinboth
the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document.
Final Environmental Impact Report
The Initial Study identified five issues for detailed study: aesthetics, odor, land use and
planning, noise, and transportation and circulation.
Aesthetics. The Final EIR finds that with landscaping, the building design of the project will
blend into the surrounding environment. The only issue of potential significant impact was new
sources of lighting, and the EIR establishes mitigation measures that will reduce the intensity and
dispersal of light so that any potential light or glare impact will be reduced to less than significant.
Odor. The Final EIR contains extensive discussions of potential odor impact, and the
discussion before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2007, expands on that discussion even
further. The EIR established mitigation measures for cleaning, maintenance, and waste disposal,
including an odor management plan, that reduce any potential odor impacts to less than significant.
Land Use and Planning. The Final EIR finds the proposed proj ect to be in compliance and
consistent with the Burlingame General Plan, the North Burlingarne/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the
M-1 Zoning, and even the design guidelines of the recently adopted RR Zoning that would govern
future approvals on this property. No significant conflicts or impacts were identified.
Noise. The Final EIR identified a potentially significant impact from dogs barking, so the
12
1
2
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Final EIR establishes three mitigation measures to reduce noise to less than significant levels. The
discussion of the noise consultants demonstrates that ambient noise in the area from the Sayshore
Freeway is already high; the dog exercise area has been located interior to the buildings. In addition,
the conditions of approval attached to this decision require the roof of the animal exercise area to
be closed during nighttime hours -
Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR finds that the contribution to traffic in the
area is insignificant, particularly at peak traffic hours. In order to ensure proper circulation on-site,
the Final EIR establishes mitigation measures for loading and unloading and proper parking. The
Final EIR studied other similar facilities and found that the proposed parking will provide sufficient
parking so that there will be no significant impact on the area In addition, there is abundant on -
street parking in the area.
As a product of the odor analysis, the Final EIR also dealt with water and water quality
issues, and the mitigation measures will ensure that waste products are kept out of the storm drain
and creek systems of the City. The filtering systems that will be installed in the project will improve
the runoff from this site from what exists now.
The Final EIR has been prepared with great care and completeness and provides an excellent
discussion of all the issues involved in this proj ect and provides more than adequate information to
the City and the public on them. Persons may differ on the conclusions or the analysis. However,
no expert testimony or reports have been submitted that differ with the conclusions or analysis, and
both the Planning Commission and the City Council find the information and analysis more than
sufficient to proceed to a decision on the application.
The Final EIR concludes that there are no potentially significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated to less than significant by the proposed mitigation measures. In addition, this discussion
has led to additional conditions of approval on the project that would reduce those impacts even
further.
Recirculation. There is no requirement in CEQA that all new information that is received
after the Final EIR is released but prior to certification and the decision on the project has to be
included in the Final EIR. Instead, the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council)
I
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
can determine if the new information is "significant" and therefore requires revision and
recirculation of some kind or to some extent.
First, in determining this issue, the City must decide if the information is new.
Second, the City must decide if the new information that was received after the completion
of the Final EIR is significant. "Significant" means:
The new information shows anew, substantial environmental impact resulting either
from the project or from a mitigation measure; or
2. The new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact. However, recirculation is not required if mitigation that reduces the impact
to insignificance is adopted; or
The new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that is
considerably different from tho se considered in the EIR that clearly would lessen the
environmental impacts of the project, and the applicant refuses to adopt it.
Recirculation is not required when the new information merely clarifies or amplifies information
already contained in the Final EIR. In addition, disagreement about the conclusions, or between
experts about information, contained in the Final EIR is not a basis for requiring recirculation.
Opponents to the proposed project contend that the Final EIR needs to be recirculated for the
following reasons:
1. The opponents have found some tadpoles nearby and believe that there maybe red -legged
frogs in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. The opponents have not provided
any expert analysis of the situation nor have they described how this project would in any way affect
the habitat that they believe might contain the frogs. This is not new information nor is it significant.
From the inception of the City's study of this project, the City identified the nearby red -legged frog
habitat as an issue — Initial Study at pages 23-24:
a. No Impact. The project site is fully developed and no suitable habitat for
special -status plant or animal species is present. California red -legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii), a federally listed Threatened species, is known to occur in the proj ect area and has
been documented approximately 0.25 mile from the proj ect site within a freshwater drainage
(North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan 2004). The project site is located
approximately 190 feet south of the Mills Creek tidal drainage channel and approximately
440 feet north of the Easton Creek tidal drainage channel. Although these off-site channels
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are tidally influenced and do not provide optimal habitat, they could support red -legged
frogs. The proposed project does not include any alterations or construction -related activities
within 190 feet of these drainages. Additionally, red -legged frogs would not be expect to
disperse onto the site from these drainages given the lack of suitable habitat on the project
site and adjacent properties, and due to the presence of buildings, paved areas, and fences
that would inhibit movement of individuals of this species. Given the above, no impacts to
special -status species are expected to occur.
b. No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur on the
project site. The project site is located approximately 190 feet from the Mills Creek drainage
channel and 440 feet from the Easton Creek drainage channel; the NB/RR Specific Plan
designates both of these drainages as "Natural Areas." The proposed proj ect would not result
in any alterations to these drainages or associated vegetation. Therefore, no impacts to
riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur.
c. No Impact. There are no jurisdictional resources as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act on the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in
any alterations to the off-site drainage channels in the project area, that is, Mills Creek and
Easton Creek. Therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur.
d. No Impact. Due to the location of the project site within an urban/industrial area,
the developed condition of the project site, and the lack of contiguous or otherwise suitable
wildlife habitat on the project site, the project site is not part of an established wildlife
movement corridor or a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no related impacts would
occur.
A similar discussion was contained in the Draft EIR at pages 7.0-8 to 7.0-10.
The project opponents did not provide any comment on this issue until a letter dated April
29, 2007, some six months after the public comment period on the EIR concluded. The letter was
apparently drafted by citizens without any review by any expert on biological, water, or habitat
matters. The letter contained no new or significant information. In addition, the applicant retained
an expert to respond to the opponents' letter, which confirmed the conclusions of both the Initial
Study and the Draft EIR.
2. The opponents' attorney did not discover the technical reports and initial study that were
provided in every copy of the Draft EIR on compact disk in Adobe .pdf form until after the public
comment period closed. The opponents contend that this deprived the public of an opportunity to
review the technical reports.
The compact disk is obviously placed on the end flap of the Draft EIR and is readily readable
on almost any computer. The contents are referenced throughout the Draft EIR. Hard copies of the
contents were readily available to any person who requested them from the City Planning
Department throughout the Public Comment period. In November 2006, the City also placed the
contents of the compact disk on the City's website together with the EIR materials.
1
2
3
4
5
6''
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
From September 2006 to June 2007, only one person commented on the availability of the
materials on the compact disk, and that was the opponents' attorney. The comments from the
attorney about the technical reports, in particular noise, were addressed in the Response to
Comments Document at pages 3.0-24 to 3.0-27 and the issue was fully aired at the public hearings
on the proposed project.
Nothing about the availability of the materials on the compact disk or the materials
themselves or comments about the materials constitutes new significant information or requires
recirculation.
3. As discussed elsewhere, the alternatives to the proposed project were extensively
discussed in the Draft EIR and no new information regarding alternatives was developed that was
significant or new. Instead, the City found an additional Alternative 4 (1350/1360 Rollins Road) in
order to ensure a full discussion of alternatives, and review ofthe Rollins Road alternative confirmed
the alternatives analysis that was contained in the Draft EIR, particularly given that the proposed
project did not have any potential significant impacts that could not be mitigated to less than
significant.
There appears to be no real basis to the opponents' request that the CEQA process on this
proposed proj ect be delayed by recirculating the Final EIR, nor have the opponents described how
recirculation would result in any new, significant information. No new significant information has
been received that would require recirculation.
Alternatives. State law requires an EIR to identify and describe a reasonable range of
alternatives so that the decision makers, such as the City Council and the Planning Commission, and
the public can evaluate the comparative merits of a proposed project against alternatives on an
impact -by -impact basis.
An alternatives discussion is required even though the EIR may conclude that all potentially
significant environmental impacts of a proposed project can be reduced to insignificant levels by
mitigation measures.
First, the CEQA Guidelines require that a "no proj ecC alternativebe discussed. Inthis FE1R,
the "no project". alternative is to leave all of the applicant's activities at their current location at
0
1
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coyote Point. The effect of such a decision on Burlingame is discussed at length in the Draft EIR.
Leaving or enhancing activities at Coyote Point is not before the City Council; that is left to other
agencies.
CEQA then requires identification and discussion of other alternatives measured by a rule
of reason, with an analysis of the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned approach. The analysis
must be specific enough to permit informed decision-making and public participation; it does not
need to consider in detail each and every conceivable variation of the alternatives stated. It also is
not necessary to consider every alternative that might be suggested.
In instances where the EIR determines that all potentially significant environmental impacts
can be avoided or sub stantially reduced by mitigation measures, the City is not required to make any
findings on the feasibility of proposed alternatives.
Finally, CEQA does not require the City to select or impose an alternative even though the
alternative may have less of an environmental effect than the proposed project.
In this FEIR, a reduced density alternative is discussed that shows that with a different mix
of animals, some of the noise impacts might be further reduced. The Draft EIR also identified and
discussed two alternatives that were not located in Burlingame, but which had problems of
acquisition. The Draft EIR identified and discussed at length an alternative site on Adrian Road that
would also lend itself to different noise impacts. This alternative provided a useful analysis of how
the project might function at a different location off Rollins Road and closer to the Bayshore
Freeway. However, following release of the Draft EIR, the owner of that real propertywrote the City
that he did not have a current intent to sell the property.
While the Draft EIR found that there were no significant impacts that could not be mitigated
by the proposed mitigations, the City went ahead and identified and analyzed another property that
was available in Burlingame for a long-term lease that would satisfy most of the project objectives
of the applicant. This site was similar to the site that had been identified on Adrian Road and
completed a good description of options in Burlingame.
Because the Draft EIR found no remaining significant impacts, the City was not obligated
to discuss or determine the feasibility of the alternatives that were identified. However, the Cityhas
0'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
done so in the FEIR and identified the limitations and advantages posed by each of the alternatives.
The possible eviction or extension of a lease between the applicant and the County of San
Mateo, or the future of animal control in this County, has never been an issue for the Planning
Commission or the City Council with regard to this application. The City properly removed that
issue from the feasibility discussion of alternatives in the Final EIR because it was so speculative.
In addition, the applicant submitted an extensive discussion of the efforts that it had made
to locate alternative sites throughout San Mateo County in a memorandum dated May 8, 2007.
The opponents to the project have told the City that it has to analyze a different parcel of
some 42 acres in Half Moon Bay that has become available for purchase. The City finds that
suggesting that an adoption center for the County that depends on volunteers should be located on
the other side of the Santa Cruz Mountains from its clients and volunteers is unreasonable.
Commonsense tells us as well that this alternative does not work for an adoption center.
It is the City's obligation to determine if the alternatives discussion in the Final EIR provides
sufficient. information to measure the comparative impacts of the proposed project against a
reasonable range of alternatives. This EIR has done so. The Final EIR contains alternatives that
have been independently selected and analyzed by the City. This Council and the public know what
leaving the services at Coyote Point would look like for the City and what impacts that might have;
what a smaller project would look like and what impacts that might have; what a project at two
different locations in the City would look like and what impacts they might have; and even what a
project in San Carlos or Half Moon Bay in more general terms might look like, together with the
feasibility of each of those alternatives.
This is a reasonable range of alternatives with sufficiently detailed analysis of impacts,
IIbenefits, and feasibility. The Planning Commission and the City Council are well-informed about
what alternatives might be available to this proposal.
11 Parking Determination
Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.70.042 provides as follows:
For uses not listed in the above schedule ofrequired parking, spaces shall be supplied
10
M
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the same basis as provided for the most similar use, or as determined by the city planner.
For such determination such matters as type of use and user, number of employees, number
of visitors and similar factors shall be considered, in any case, where the decision of the city
planner is contested by the applicant, his or her decision may be appealed to the planning
commission. The commission may approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the city
planner.
The City Planner recommended a parking ratio for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue facility
because such a use was not listed in the parking schedule in Chapter 25.70. This determination will
apply to future animal shelter or animal rescue facilities in the City.
Fehr & Peers, the subcousultant to Impact Sciences in preparing the Final EIR, surveyed
other facilities to determine parking demand. Fehr & Peers recommended a parking standard of
between 1.56 and 1.66. City staff confirmed the data derived by Fehr and Peers, and confirmed that
none of the facilities seemed to have any parking problems. Parking requirements for similar uses
in other cities, zoning codes seemed to fall in a similar range.
With regard to accessory outdoor habitats such as aviaries, staff found that the City & County
of San Francisco has a Zoning Code standard of 1 parking space per 4,000 square feet (0.25 per one
thousand square feet) for greenhouses.
The Planning Commission determined that aparking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand
square feet (or 1 parking space per 625 square feet) for an animal shelter or animal rescue facility
was a good standard to apply to such uses in the City. In addition, the Commission determined that
when used in conjunction with such an animal shelter or rescue facility, an aviary would require 1
parking space, based on the analysis that found that the presence of one employee on the project site
would be attributable to the aviary.
In order to make a clear city-wide standard, the City Council adopts the recommended
standard of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand square feet (or 1 space per 625 square feet) for animal
shelters or animal rescue facilities, and further that a requirement of 1 space per 5,000 square feet
be established for outdoor habitat provided in connection with such facilities.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditional use permit for height
The M-1 District provided that any structure over thirty-five (35) feet in height required
review as a conditional use. Former Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.44.030(17). In other words,
if a property owner wanted to go above thirty-five feet, the Planning Commission was to review the
structure as a conditional use under the Zoning Code to determine whether it was appropriately
located and designed.
Project opponents argue that the City should not be allowed to permit structures in the City
to exceed any height limit without a variance.
Consistent with State law, conditional use permits are governed by Municipal Code §
25.52.010 as follows:
(a) Conditional use permits maybe issued as provided in this chapter for any of the uses
or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terns of this article upon
conditions designated by the planning commission.
(b) The purpose of the use permit is to allow the proper integration into the community
of uses which maybe suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district, or only if such
uses are designed or arranged on the site in a particular manner.
(c) The planning commission may impose such requirements and conditions with respect
to location, construction, maintenance, operation, site planning, traffic control and time limits
for the use permit as it deems necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the
public interest. The commission may require tangible guarantees or evidence that such
conditions are being, or will be, complied with.
The first sentence of Section 25.44.030 specificallyprovides that uses such as heights over thirty-five
feet are a use: "The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit:" In addition, buildings
above certain heights in many of the City's zoning districts (Sections 25.28.060, 25.40.025(e),
25.42.030(h), 25.45.025(k), 25.47.025(1), 25.48.025(a), 25.49.025(f)) are governed by special and
conditional use permit provisions as a valuable part of integrating good building design into the
The Planning Commission unanimously determined that the proposed height of the project
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at forty-one feet six inches was appropriate. This height allows the applicant to adequately screen
the mechanical equipment on the roof and to make the design of the structure of the building more
pleasing to the eye.
Nothing about this additional height will be harmful or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and no evidence was presented that it would be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience. In fact, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
contemplates building heights of up to sixty feet, and taller buildings are encouraged; therefore, the
proposed height is consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and Specific Plan. The building
height approved in this decision is limited to the locations found on the approved plans and any
increase in height or any expansion of the area of the building would require additional design
review and approvals under the Zoning Code. Therefore, the conditional use permit for height meets
the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020.
Conditional Use Permit for Animal Shelter or Animal Rescue Facility
On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission determined that an animal shelter or animal
rescue facility application could be made in the M-1District for a conditional use permit under then -
existing Section 25.44.030(22): "Any commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted
or conditional use in this or any other district." That final decision has now resulted in this
application coming forward for review under the City's conditional use permit standards of Chapter
25.52.
The proposed project has been reviewed under a Final EIR that found no potentially
significant impact that could not be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures.
The City has drafted additional conditions of approval that address operation, parking, odor, noise,
class sizes, and a myriad of other aspects of the project. There is abundant on -street parking in the
vicinity.
The applicant has submitted extensive documentation and testimony regarding the stone
drainage in the vicinity, the proposed handling of waste, the operational details of the use, and even
an economic study showing its possible effect on the area. Testimony and documentation also shows
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that similar facilities are operating in commercial and industrial areas with no discernible adverse
impacts. With regard to parking, the applicant has shown that should additional parking be needed
on-site, a system and space are available to install lifts for additional spaces.
Finally, it appears that the site was previously used for animal research without any
noticeable effects on surrounding properties.
The City Council is convinced that this project as conditioned by this decision will not be
harmful or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, nor will it be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The community has overwhelmingly testified
to the need and usefulness of the proposed project, and the suitability of the location.
This Council expressly found that animal shelters and animal rescue facilities in this area
were consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in June 2006. That decision
was affirmed by the San Mateo Superior Court in April 2007. The community has looked long and
hard at this area, and concluded that it should remain in light industrial uses such as this proposed
project, and this project is consistent with and compatible with the goals and objectives of the
Specific and General Plans.
The comprehensive set of conditions of approval has established the standard for this
particular project, as well as future developments in the Edwards Court neighborhood. Finally, the
conditions of approval establish a regular review period to ensure that the operation of the project is
meeting expectations for parking impacts and parking issues related to the project are not causing a
nuisance in the neighborhood.
Therefore, the conditional use permit for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue
meets the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020.
Design Review
The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan establishes design guidelines for projects
in the area These are spelled out at pages 4.0-11 to 4.0-12 of the Response to Comments and
Revisions to Draft EIR Document. The project meets or exceeds each of the standards set out in the
Plan, including landscaping, build -to lines, and fencing. These guidelines were more fully delineatec
14
1
2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in the adoption of the implementing zoning of the RR District. Although the RR District specifics
do not apply to this application, which was made under the preexisting zoning, this project complies
with those standards.
The applicant provided a detailed, physical model that demonstrated that the project will
integrate into the area well.
The Planning Commission, which had draftedthe Specific Plan andthe design guidelines and
had studied the project in four public meetings, determined that the proposed design met the design
standards for the area as set out in the Specific Plan.
The City Council further finds that the proposed proj ect meets not just the standards but the
intent of the Plan's design guidelines. The Cityundertook a deliberative process to look long andhard
at this area in 2002 to 2004 and decided to keep this area as a light industrial neighborhood with this
type of use.
Floor area ratio (FAR) in the City of Burlingame is generally governed by the definitions
Section 25.08.265(a):
"Floor area ratio" or "FAR' means the ratio of the gross square footage of the floor
area of a building or buildings to the lot on which the building or buildings are located. FAR
for any lot includes new structures to be built and those remaining.
Section 25.08.264-1:
"Floor area, gross square footage" means the total area of all floors of a building or
buildings as measured to the outside surfaces of the exterior walls ofthe structure or structures
and including such areas as halls, stairways, covered porches and balconies, covered
walkways and arcades, elevator shafts, service and mechanical equipment rooms and
basements, cellars, and improved space in attic areas.
And Section 25.08.410 of the Municipal Code:
"Lot area" means the total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot.
No deductions from lot area are taken for easements. The sidewalk required in Condition o:
Approval No. 32 does not reduce the lot size. In calculating floor area ratio, the City counts thf
conditioned and covered areas of structures. Uncovered areas are not, and have not, been counter
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
M
toward floor area of a structure. The M-1 District did not have any maximum floor area ratio, and
neither does the recently adopted RR District.
The proposed project will encompass 51,270 square feet of covered structure on a lot area
51,270 square feet. In addition, the project will include a 5,940 square foot aviary that will "be
enclosed in a barely visible high strength mesh fabric often seen in zoos." DER, atpage 3.0-21. The
materials of the screen have been provided for review to both the Planning and the City Council.
There will be no roof on the aviary/outdoor habitat; during inclement weather, the aviary/outdoor
habitat would be partially covered. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan sets a
maximum Floor Area Ratio standard of 1.0, which this project would meet.
The FEIR describes the aesthetics of the building and includes the aviary/outdoor habitat
analyzing the overall bulk and mass of the building's appearance. However, it was not the intent of
the Specific Plan to include an open, un -roofed, and unconditioned aviary in the calculation of a
maximum FAR. Such an interpretation would disallow similar amenities, such as outdoor dining,
rooftop gardens, and recreation area, in the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Specific Plan
specifically recognizes that the FAR that is encompassed within the Plan policies is related to traffic
impacts and protecting habitat or creeks. It is clear that the aviary/outdoor habitat will not generate
any additional traffic and functions entirely as just an animal enclosure. In addition, Condition of
Approval No. l specifically provides that "the aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with
a permanent roof or be converted to conditioned space." Therefore, the proposed FAR meets the
standard of the Specific Plan.
The building's design, including mass and bulk, meets the letter and intent of the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
li Miscellaneous Issues
The CC&R's for this subdivision are under litigation between the applicant and project
opponents, and the court has apparently not yet determined the validity or applicability of the
CC&R's. Therefore, the private contracts and disputes between the opponents and the applicant
cannot affect the City's decision, and any consideration of those CC&R's and their effect would be
16
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entirely speculative.
The ongoing negotiations between the applicant and the County of San Mateo
a part in this decision. The City has purposefully and intentionally removed any reference to the
possibility of the termination of the agreement for animal control services between the applicant and
the County or termination of the lease of the real property at Coyote Point from the Final EIR in
connection with judging the feasibility of the alternatives available. Any such discussion would only
be speculative at best. The City Planner was both justified and authorized to make that decision, and
her judgment in making that decision is expressly affirmed.
Project opponents have accused the applicant of fraud in the applicant's Environmental
Information Form and have contended that the City must deny the application on that ground alone.
Whether anyone believes what the opponents allege in this connection, the City, through its staff,
consultants, Planning Commission, and City Council, as well as its public process, has subjected
every request and aspect of applicant's application to over two years of testing and analysis.
Therefore, even ifthe opponents' allegations are true in anyparticular, no fraud has occurred because
the City has not taken that original information sheet at face value.
Finally, the City Council formally rej ects the allegations made by project opponents that the
City Council, the Planning Commission, or City staff have been agents of the applicant or have
improperly influenced by members of the governing board of the applicant..
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows with regard to the
application for use of the real property at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court as an
shelter/animal rescue facility:
1. The Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and Revisions to
the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Studies, adequately discloses and
discusses the potential significant impacts oftheproposedproject, provides sufficient, understandable
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant, and reflects the
judgment and analysis of the City.
2. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmenta
17
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Quality Act, and the Final E1R has been reviewed and considered in making this decision.
3. The decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed as follows and with the changes as
described:
a. A parking standard of one parking space for each 625 square feet of gross floor area is
established for animal shelters and animal rescue facilities in the City. Any outdoor habitat area, such
as an aviary, in connection with such a shelter or facility shall require one parking space for each
5,000 square feet of gross floor area.
b. A conditional use permit for a building height of forty-one feet six inches, a conditional
use permit for use of the property as an animal shelter/animal rescue facility, and design review of
the proposed project are approved subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A hereto.
This resolution shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.
This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing
to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
ayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18m day of
June, 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: BAYLOCx, COHEN, xE1CmtAN, NACEL, O'MAaONY
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOME
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: NONE
lu
ity Clerk
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING
HEIGHT AND FOR USE AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY,
AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES AT
1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
Construction
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped April 17, 2007, A.1 through A5.2 and CLI, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an
amendment to this permit; that the hardscape in the memorial garden area shall be paved
with pervious material to support the landscaping and runoff from the site and that the
aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted
to conditioned space (Planning)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26, 2006, August 22, 2005 and
July 1, 2005, memos, the City Engineer's April 24, 2006, August 24, 2005 and July 7,
2005, memos, the Fire Marshal's April 24, 2006, memo, the City Arborist's April 26,
2006 and August 31, 2005 memos, the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 and July 6,
2005, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 24, 2006 and July 5, 2005, memos
shall be met; (Building, Public Works, Fire, Planning)
3. that any hazardous materials on the site and in the existing building to be demolished
shall be investigated and identified by a licensed engineer who will prepare a plan for
their removal which shall be approved by the Burlingame Fire Department and Building
Division before a building permit is issued; and that any such material shall be removed
in compliance with regulations and the plan before demolition of the building can
commence; (Building, Fire)
EXHIBIT A - 1
U
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. that the building plans for all new construction and remodel of any existing structure on
this site shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention
in the Burlingame Municipal Code before issuance of a building permit, and all
construction shall be inspected for compliance with these requirements as a part of the
final building inspection; (Public Works, Building)
5. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second
half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $5,384.82,
made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department;
(Building, Planning)
6. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (Public Works)
7. that the project shall include an on-site filtration system designed to remove solid
material generated from this use which could reduce the capacity of the City's sewer
collection system serving this site and area, the location and filter system design and
maintenance schedule shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit; the installation of the filter system shall be inspected by the
Building and Public Works as a part of the regular construction inspections on the site;
and following installation during operation of the facility the filter system installation
shall be inspected regularly on a schedule determined by the staff of the Waste Water
Treatment plant; all material cleaned regularly from the filters shall be stored in
containers and disposed of by the same method as the soiled cat litter; failure to provide,
maintain and properly dispose of filtered material and used filters shall cause review of
the conditional use permit for this use on this site. (Public Works, Building)
EXHIBIT A - 2
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. that the project is subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application; (Public Works)
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined where possible and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit
is issued; (Building)
10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
(Planning)
11. that prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be
provided to the City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the
following standards:
(a) The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled
through use of low -brightness fixtures with optical controls;
(b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views,
except for the street address;
(c) No lighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light
fixture; and
(d) On -demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area
lighting and security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches
and/or motion detectors. (Building, Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 3
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading for site preparation shall be
required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to
issuance of a demolition and building permit by the Building division; that no such
demolition and site work shall occur until after a building permit has been issued; and
that all requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit shall be
complied with during construction; (Building)
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
(Building)
14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public
right-of-way shall be prohibited; (Public Works)
15. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on Sundays and holidays; (Building)
16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another
architect or design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,
such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
( Planning, Building)
EXHIBIT A - 4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
highest point of the building (roof ridge, parapet or mechanical screening) and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; (Building)
18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (Planning)
19. that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and
shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive
on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; and that prior to
issuance of a building permit, the Planning Commission shall review the revised
landscape plans as an FYI item; (Planning, Building)
20. that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in
sidewalk areas on Rollins Road, per City guidelines; (Planning, Building)
21. that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist
prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits, and all landscaping shall be
installed prior to scheduling final inspection. (Building)
22. that during demolition of the existing structure(s), site preparation and construction of the
structure(s), the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff, (Public Works)
EXHIBIT A - 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property
lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of
cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas
on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access
routes, Staging areas and washout areas; that compliance shall also include the
requirements of the conditions included the mitigation monitoring plan; (Public Works)
24. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; (Public Works)
25. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt
fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and
covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain
temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion
controls have been established; (Public Works)
26. that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete,
petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and
disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater;
(Public Works, Fire)
27. that if the project is constructed during the wet season (October through May), an erosion
control and/or sediment control plan, compliant with the City's NPDES (stormwater
control) requirements, shall be prepared and implemented, to the satisfaction of the Public
EXHIBIT A - 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Works Department, prior to the onset of the wet season, and shall be maintained
throughout the construction period; (Public Works)
28. that all project grading, construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the
provisions of the City's NPDES requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) outlining construction phase and post -construction phase measures to reduce
pollutant discharge from the site shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits; (Public Works)
29. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in
designated areas which runoff is contained and treated; (Public Works)
30. that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the
public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping
methods; (Public Works)
31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,
promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
(Planning, Public Works)
32. that the property owner shall, as a part of project construction, widen the sidewalks, place
a root barrier along the inner edge of the sidewalk, and build the sidewalks to City
sidewalk standards along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages of the property;
that the sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width; and that the required
street trees as shown on the approved plans shall be placed two feet from the inner edge
of the sidewalk with supporting irrigation installed from the project site; (Public Works,
Planning, Building)
Mxfttal
1
2
3
4
5
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33. that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction,
such as muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and
other noise -producing equipment.; (Building)
34. that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further
reduce noise related to truck travel; (Public Works)
35. that during construction radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the
construction activity. (Building)
36. that the project shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal, and that the
LEEDS checklist shall be submitted as an FYI item to the Planning Commission before
the building permit is issued; (Planning)
37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building)
Operation
38. that the following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for
Compassion: initial triage; dead animal pick-up and disposal; housing of stray animals;
housing of aggressive animals prior to a mandated hearing; quarantine for rabies and
other possible zoonoitic illnesses; euthanasia of animals without the presence of their
owners and an appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter animals; lost
and found services, 24/7 animal ambulance service, local code enforcement, and, except
in circumstances of individual members of the public misunderstanding, animal
receiving; (Planning)
100"1:3Y17_�l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. that the Center shall have a maximum of 30 staff people on-site at any one time
consisting of both paid professionals and volunteers; the Center shall have a maximum of
two people present on-site after business hours for 24-hour coverage; that any permanent
increase in the number of employees over 30 on site at any one time shall require an
amendment to this permit; shall accommodate a maximum of 200 domestic animals and
218 native animals at one time, and shall never exceed the number of 45 dogs on site at
one time; (Planning)
40. that to reduce barking, all dogs kept at the facility shall be neutered at the Coyote Point or
other site before arrival unless a veterinarian recommends that the neutering procedure
would be unsafe for the animal's health or age, when this is the case the Center shall be
responsible for the neutering of the animal when it is determined to be safe; (Planning)
41. that the Center may not be open for business for adoptions, animal deliveries or
permitted veterinary services except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven
days a week; in addition to business hours classes/educational activities may occur
between 10:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week, with the last class ending no later
than 10:00 p.m.; class and educational events shall be scheduled with a minimum of
fifteen (15) minutes between classes/educational events to insure adequate turnover of
on-site parking; (Planning)
42. that because of on-site parking the maximum class size shall be limited to 20 students; for
animal behavior classes, the class size shall be limited to ten pet owners and a maximum
of 2 instructors at one time; instructors of animal behavior classes shall be in the parking
lot to meet students and shall escort them to their vehicles at the end of the class;
(Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43. that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to determine a feasible
directional program to the facility site including on site parking, the facility operator shall
fund the signage and its installation; (Public Works, Planning)
44. that only one bus at a time shall bring visitors or students to the animal rescue and shelter
facility, parking for the bus shall be provided at a pre -arranged location and the green
curb adequate for loading and unloading shall be retained along the Rollins Road street
frontage of the site; (Planning)
45. that a parking study using methodology approved by the City shall be prepared at the end
of one year, three year and five year intervals after the Center opens and, following this
period after the center opens at regular intervals it be determined to be necessary based on
the first three studies; that this study shall evaluate the use of the on-site parking
throughout the week and particularly during peak usage periods (including during class
sessions); the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review, should the study document that on-site parking is inadequate or that those seeking
parking regularly prefer to use the public street, then the facility operator shall prepare,
within 3 months, an alternative parking plan which shall address the reasons for the
parking shortages identified and ways to address them; this plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer and
submitted to the Planning Commission for review and amendment to the conditional use
permit; failure to provide a remedial plan and appropriate, effective solutions for on-site
and off-site parking problems identified in the studies shall result in Planning
Commission review of the conditional use permit for the on-site program; (Planning,
Public Works)
46. that the retail sales area in the Center for Compassion shall be designed to serve the needs
of those adopting animals from the site, the sales area shall be limited to 800 SF and shall
EXHIBIT A - 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not be designed to be a destination or wholesale/discount location for pet supplies;
(Planning)
47. that any and all cleaning agents used by the facility which will be washed into the public
sewer or into the surface drainage serving the site shall be approved by the operator of
the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant and by the City's NPDES inspector, prior to
their being used; failure to use approved products and demonstrated problems at the
City's treatment plant or surface drainage channels shall require a public hearing before
the Planning Commission including consideration of amendments to the conditional use
permit for this use; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
48. that all animals arriving at the Center for Compassion, except those accompanied by their
owners to participate in behavior training classes and those brought by their owners for
veterinarian services within 30 days of adoption, shall enter the facility only through the
enclosed, staff parking area; the arrival and departure of animals with their owners
outside of the caged parking area shall be supervised by a trained staff member who shall
supervise the quiet unloading and loading of the animals into their owners vehicles;
(Planning)
49. that no stray animals shall be accepted at the Center for Compassion, that should an
animal be abandoned at the Center the facility shall provide a holding cage in side the
building to secure the animal until the Animal Control Services have been contacted and
arrive to remove the animal; (Planning)
50. that the 62 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the visitors and employees of the
Center and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on
this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51. that no more than fifteen (15) percent of the domestic animals, cats and dogs, housed for
adoption at the San Mateo Center for Compassion each year shall enter the facility from
locations outside of San Mateo County; that the facility operator shall provide to the
Community Development Director an annual report documenting by month the source of
the domestic animals housed on the site; this report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director no later than December 30, of each year; failure to submit such a
report will result in review by the Planning Commission; (Planning)
52. that the facility shall have posted on the site at an accessible location an odor
management plan to address basic and additional measures to minimize odors such as
more frequent pick up, earlier in the day, application of deodorizing agents, etc.; this plan
shall be prepared and reviewed by the City prior to the scheduling of the final inspection;
the site shall be inspected for compliance with the posting of the plan and the procedures
set out in the plan at the same time that the waste water filter facilities are inspected,
failure to comply with the requirements of the plan or valid complaints shall result in a
report to the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and review by the Planning
Commission; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
53. that, in the event of air quality violations based on odor, the property owner shall install
charcoal air filters or any other devise required by the Bay Area Air Quality Control
Board on air exhaust vents and that the air evacuation system for the building shall
provide for a minimum of twelve (12) air exchanges per hour; (Public Works, Building,
Planning)
54. that the rolling roof over the dog exercise area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55. that the facility operator shall comply with the behavioral selection criteria set out in the
Response to Comments document on pages 3.0-28and 29, attached to the project
approval, these requirement will be enforced by requiring that this operator or any other
operator of this use shall comply with these criteria for selection of animals to be housed
on the Center site; failure to comply with these selection criteria shall cause this permit to
be subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission and remediation addressed
to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission for continued use of the site; (Planning)
56. that in the interest of safe pedestrian access to the Center and safe access across Rollins
Road at Edwards Court to the Center, should the traffic warrants based on the City's
standards for traffic signal or lighted pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved, the property
owner shall fund the installation of a lighted pedestrian crosswalk or two legs of the
required traffic signal, whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be necessary;
Public Works)
57. that deliveries of equipment and supplies to the facility shall be limited to trucks with a
maximum length of 22 feet, that such deliveries shall not be made during peak traffic
hours (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or during the on-site peak parking demand
hours of 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily; the peak parking demand hours shall be confirmed in the
first year parking study and the truck delivery limitations adjusted if the peak on-site
parking hours of use is different. (Public Works, Planning)
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
58. that the project's design shall be consistent with the proposed site plan, building
elevations, and landscaping plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of the Draft
EIR. Any alternations to the final approved design shall require approval from the City
prior to implementation and be determined to be consistent with the conclusions of the
environmental impact report; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
59. that the landscaping on-site shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees
along Rollins Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24 -inch box size if
any of the trees planted along these roads become severely diseased or do not survive.
The City shall approve any changes to the landscaping plan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of
this FIR; (Planning)
Lighting
60. that to minimize light and glare low profile, low -intensity lighting directed downward
shall be used for the parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of
the building;(Building)
61. that shielded fixtures shall be used on all exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs
at the project site to minimize glare produced by lighting on-site; (Building)
62. that all lighting associated with the project shall comply with by the City's Illumination
Ordinance;(Planning, Building)
63. that all signs shall have indirect illumination with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit
or ground lit to avoid flooding adjacent walls with light; (Planning, Building)
Waste Handling and Treatment
64. that cat feces and urine, including cat litter, shall be bagged daily into heavy duty
industrial plastic bags, sealed tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations (UN) and
Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) approved sealed -tight steel drums, up to
55 -gallons, with removable lids and locking ring located in an enclosed area within the
building or parking structure of the Center. The drums shall be picked up twice a week,
or more frequently as required to control odor, by a qualified contractor and disposed of
at a landfill that accepts cat litter and diatomaceous earth;(Public Works)
EXHIBIT A - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
65. that waste from dogs shall be disposed into the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel
and room shall have drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be
Me
Cil
.:i
ffroion
placed over each drain to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose of feces directly into the
sewer line. The grate shall be closed at all times, except during cleaning. The disposal
drain shall have an automatic flushing system, with a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be
washed frequently and appropriately disinfected daily, (Public Works, Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
that dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel
drain system into the sanitary sewer;(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
that animal waste from the wildlife housed in small enclosures shall be disposed of into
drains that discharge into the sanitary sewer;(Building, Public Works)
that the animal waste from the native wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and
duck/diving pools shall be hosed down into sewage drains, which connect to the sanitary
sewer. The outdoor wildlife areas shall be hosed with water and appropriately disinfected
daily;(Public Works)
69. that an odor management plan shall be developed by the owner and approved by the City
of Burlingame. The odor management plan shall include:
a. Outdoor areas shall be cleaned frequently;
b. Waste shall be stored properly and collected for disposal frequently;
C. Odor neutralizers shall be used;
d. A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the odors would drift
and trash containers shall be placed in order to minimize drift created by
prevailing winds;
EXHIBIT A - 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight; and
f Trash receptacles shall have high surrounding fences and overhang.(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
Noise
70. that dogs shall be housed in kennels that are designed to minimize the view of other dogs
to eliminate or reduce barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been
specifically matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed veterinarian on-site;
(Planning)
71. that the acoustics of the facility shall be constructed and designed with specific materials
and elements as approved by a noise consultant to attenuate noise, including barking.
This includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior windows shall be
STC 24;
b. Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog kennels;
C. The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a minimum STC 24
isolation rating, with a single layer of 5/8 gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane
of 1/8 -inch glass for the window; and
d. The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior wall of the building
shall be STC 24 for the windows, assuming a single pane of 1/8 -inch
glass. (Planning)
72. that prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs shall be screened by professional animal
behaviorists for serious behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food
guarding, etc.). A dog diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not be transferred to the
Center unless that behavior is treated and determined to be resolved by a licensed
veterinarian prior to transfer;(Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 16
1I2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parking/Circulation/Traffic
73. that the applicant shall notify vendors using the site that deliveries made by vehicles
greater than 22 feet must use the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would
be allowed to use the parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall work with
vendors to schedule deliveries during non -peak traffic times;(Planning)
74. that the project applicant shall design a marked loading zone on-site;(Planning, Public
Works)
75. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a dust control plan that is
compliant with City requirements. This plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame
Public Works Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan
during construction. The dust control plan shall include the basic, enhanced, and optional
dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), including the measures listed below.
Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites)
(a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
(b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
(c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
(d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
(e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) or more frequently as required by the
City if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
EXHIBIT A - 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Enhanced Control Measures (for individual or combined construction sites of larger than
four acres)
(a) Hydro seed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
(b) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
(c) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour (mph).
(d) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
(e) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Measures (based on requirements by the City)
(a) Install wheel washers for all existing, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks
and equipment leaving the site.
(b) Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 mph.
(c) Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at
any one time.(Public Works)
I Cultural
76. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction
activities, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper
protection measures, as determined by a qualified expert, can be implemented; (Planning)
77. that if previous unknown human remains are encountered during construction, an
appropriate representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall be
informed and consulted, as required by State law; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
78. that any new structures shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the
Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at
the time a building permit is issued;(Building, Public Works)
I Construction
79. that a design -level final geotechnical report shall be required for the project. This report
shall include specific recommendations to minimize post construction settlements. The
design -level geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department
of Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City
field inspectors shall inspect construction for implementation of the recommend site
preparation activities;(Building, Public Works)
80. that all storm water discharge shall adhere to State and Federal requirements. All storm
drainage that discharges into public water shall be required to meet water quality
standards outlined in the NPDES permit requirements;(Public Works)
81. that best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be developed for the site and approved by
the City;(Pubhc Works)
82. that hazardous materials or wastes found or generated at the project site shall be
transported and handled in accordance with applicable disposal regulations;(Building,
Fire)
83. that any hazardous waste generated at the project site shall be removed by a licensed
hazardous waste hauler for approved disposal off-site;(Building, Fire)
84. that the BAAQMD shall issue a permit and be notified 10 days in advance of any
proposed demolition or abatement work on-site;(Building)
EXHIBIT A - 19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
85. that the local office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) shall be
notified in writing of any asbestos abatement to be carried out as a part of
demolition;(Building, Fire)
86. that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPP) shall be developed and
approved by the City. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs that will minimize sedimentation
and contamination of storm water runoff generated during construction;(Public Works)
87. that the modifications to the existing buildings on-site, as well as new construction, shall
comply with the requirements in Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention of the
Burlingame Municipal Code;(Public Works)
88. that an acoustical engineer, familiar with aviation noise, shall prepare an acoustical study
in accordance with Title 24. The study shall determine if construction design of the
project site would comply with the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound
Transmission Controls and FAR Part 150, Appendix A, table 1 criteria, in order to
achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB or less for noise episodes associated with aircrafts;
(Building,)
89. that the project shall incorporate appropriate design measures (interior sounds insulation)
to reduce aviation noise if the acoustical study (prepared as part of mitigation measure
Noise 1) determines that the design of the project would not achieve an indoor noise level
of 45 dB;(Planning, Building)
90. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with requirements found in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling
and Disposal, Article 5 Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards. The containers
shall be replaced as needed to ensure compliance with this regulation; (Planning)
EXHIBIT A - 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
91. that the applicant shall obtain a sanitary sewer discharge permit from the City's Office of
Environmental Compliance. The design of this project's system shall be approved by the
City's Office of Environmental Compliance through the permitting process;(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
92. that no cat litter or diatomaceous earth shall be disposed of into drains that feed into the
sanitary sewer system. Such litter will be disposed of into 55 -gallon steel drums;(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
93. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with the following requirements found in
the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3: Minimum Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and Disposal Article 5; and Solid Waste Storage and Removal
Standards, particularly Section 17315, Garbage Containers. (Public Works, Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
EXHIBIT A - 21