No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - PC - 135-2000 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Planning Department City of Burlingame WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME COC q 2000-065824 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 06/06/2000 11 : 46A R1 Fee : NC Page 1 of 5 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Warren Slocum Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Recorded By i IIIIII IIIIIIIIII 111I III VIII I'll 111 Resolution No. 135-2000 999 HOWARD AVENUE; APN: 029-234-020 TITLE OF DOCUMENT I hereby certify this 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. Date: 05.16.00 b�&4w aE' Margarei Monroe, City Planner 1 RESOLUTION NO. 135-2000 2 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DENYING APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 3 SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AT 999 HOWARD AVENUE ZONED C-2-APN: 029-234-020 4 OWNER AND APPLICANT: HOWARD/MYRTLE STORAGE LLC 5 6 RESOLVED by the PLANNING COMMISSION of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: 7 WHEREAS,the applicant seeks to build a self-storage facility at 999 Howard Avenue,which 8 is currently a vacant lot; and 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of 10 Burlingame conducted an Initial Study and determined that possibly significant, adverse 11 environmental impacts might result from the proposed project, but it identified mitigation measures 12 that appeared to reduce those possibly significant impacts to less than significant; and 13 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of 14 Burlingame through an independent consultant prepared a mitigated negative declaration and gave 15 due notice of the preparation of the proposed negative declaration; and 16 WHEREAS, on March 13, 2000,the Planning Commission held a study meeting to consider 17 the proposed project and negative declaration, and provided comments to the consultant and 18 applicant; and 19 WHEREAS, on April 24, 2000,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing 20 on the negative declaration; and 21 WHEREAS, the Commission received and considered all oral and written comments made 22 on the negative declaration to the close of the public hearing on April 24, 2000; and 23 WHEREAS, the Commission received extensive adverse comment and opinion from 24 neighbors and citizens regarding the proposed project and its effects on the community; and 25 WHEREAS, the Commission then made preliminary findings regarding the negative 26 declaration and directed staff to return to the Commission with a form resolution to complete action 27 on the negative declaration on May 8, 2000; and 28 WHEREAS, the following findings are made regarding the negative declaration: 1111 IN 20@02 of 5 11:46A 4 1 1. The negative declaration is insufficient in that it fails to evaluate the possibly significant 2 adverse environmental effects that the proposed project may have as expressed in the community 3 values and standards of the City as expressed in the Burlingame General Plan,in particular: 4 A. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to provide improved connections for 5 portions of the City now isolated by barriers,e.g.,railroads,freeways(page 3 of Community Goals). 6 The physical mass of the proposed building creates a long-lasting,visual and physical barrier between 7 the Burlingame/Howard area and the neighborhoods east of the railroad. The self-storage use will 8 generate truck and automobile traffic and discourage pedestrian traffic. Instead of improving 9 connections,this proposal will inhibit connections between City districts. 10 B. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to improve the functional efficiency, 11 character,and quality of the Central and other districts in order to enhance the local economy and the 12 economic well-being for all residents. The Burlingame/Howard Avenues retail/pedestrian 13 environment is expanding to the area south of the Caltrain station. The proposed use and building 14 mass are both retail-and pedestrian unfriendly and does not provide the necessary pedestrian-oriented 15 or-friendly use to create a link between the business districts and mixed uses. 16 C. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to improve the functional efficiency of 17 the circulation system to enhance the economic well-being of residents. The proposal encourages 18 truck traffic on Myrtle Avenue,which cannot accommodate this additional traffic,and will impede 19 safe vehicular movements in the area. 20 D. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to maintain the pleasant appearance 21 prevailing in most of the City's residential areas and improve the visual quality in areas of less 22 satisfactory appearance to improve the quality of life for residents and visitors. The negative 23 declaration favorably compares existing buildings on California Drive,a major four-lane arterial. The 24 proposed project fronts on Myrtle Avenue,which is a narrow mixed-use street,with residential uses 25 on the east side. The project proposes a much larger scale and much different building than currently 26 exists in the area and is out of character with the needed scale and appearance. 27 E. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to develop identifying features at 28 entrances to the community and at focal points,and to encourage construction of buildings adequate IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 20003 11 46A 0066824 2 I in scale and height to provide identifying elements. This project is not proper in scale and height 2 overall to provide the necessary identifying element at the entrance to the Burlingame/Howard 3 Avenues area. 4 F. An implementing objective of the General Plan is to use trees of appropriate size and 5 character as a design framework to enhance a sense of identity. The proposed project provides 6 setbacks of only one to two feet—the width of the Commission dais-- that will not provide the area 7 necessary for trees and shrubbery of the size or character to provide proportion to the proposed 8 structure or street scale. 9 G. The negative declaration fails to give any consideration to the Special Urban Conservation 10 Area designation of Subarea 14 as identified in the Conservation Element of the Burlingame General 11 Plan and the need to protect this area from inappropriate commercial intrusions that would lead to 12 deterioration of the area, the impact of development of Subarea 15 on that area, and the need for 13 compatibility between commercial development and residential parcels in Subarea 15. 14 2. The proposed project does not provide the variety and variations of street-oriented uses 15 that give the Burlingame/Howard Avenues area the flavor and value so vital the its well-being and 16 attractiveness; and 17 3. The visual analysis of the negative declaration fails to address the concerns expressed 18 above; and 19 4. The analysis and proposed mitigation measures fail to address: 20 A. The shadow effects of the proposed structure that will deny late afternoon sun to eight 21 nearby properties, including at least four single-family residences. 22 B. The regular, routine inspection of individual storage units to ensure that explosives and 23 other hazardous materials are not being stored in this sensitive, mixed-use neighborhood. 24 C. The traffic impacts and conflicts between the late afternoon traffic on both weekdays and 25 weekends to the proposed project with the late afternoon uses at Washington School, such as 26 extended day care, after-school activities, and recreation. 27 5. The proposed structure is not consistent with any nearby structures on the east side of the 28 railroad and its neighborhood; and 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 2Page 0004 11 46A 0066824 I WHEREAS, this key site should provide a node of pedestrian activity that ties the east and 2 west sides of the railroad together that takes advantage of the transit opportunities that are readily 3 at hand, 4 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows: 5 1. The proposed project is not consistent with the Burlingame General Plan. 6 2. The negative declaration fails to identify and discuss the potentially significant adverse 7 environmental impacts of the proposed project as discussed above. 8 3. Potentially significant adverse environmental effects as articulated above would remain 9 in spite of the mitigation measures proposed in the negative declaration. 10 4. The applicant may: 11 a. Authorize the City to prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing 12 the community standards stated above; or 13 b. Revise the proposed project in response to these findings and conclusions and submit that 14 revised project to the City Planner for Initial Study to determine whether a mitigated negative 15 declaration or a focused EIR is appropriate in light of the Commission's determinations stated above. 16 This decision is appealable to the City Council pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code 17 and CEQA. Anyone wishing to challenge the decision on this negative declaration in a court of 18 competent jurisdiction must first file such an appeal to the City Council and following the decision 19 of the Council must file any action challenging the decision on the negative declaration in a court of 20 competent jurisdiction within the time limits set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and 21 the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines as adopted by the State of California(Title 4, Chapter 3 of 22 the California Code of Regulations). 23 This Resolution was adopted by the following vote of the City of Burlingame Planning 24 Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on MAY k 2000: 25 AYES: BOJUES, DEAL, KEIGHR AN, AND VISTICA NOES: NONE 26 ABSENT: DRELLING AND LUZURIAGA ABSTAINING: O S T ERL ING 27 Ye.4L 28 VC fission Secretary 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ri Page 06/06/2000 000 011 46A 066824