Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.10.13THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER October 13, 1973 .COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel Engineer Davidson City Manager Schwalm Fire Chief Moorby Mayor Martin Councilman Amstrup Councilman Cusick Councilman Crosby A special meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 9:00 A.M, Chairman Kindig presiding. This meeting was for the express purpose of considering draft EIR-20P for Proposed Addition to the Airport Marina Hotel. ROLL CALL The above members were present. Chairman Kindig introduced Messrs. Jim Ruthroff and Paul Fratessa of Ruthroff and Englekirk; Mr. Frank Liptman of The Amfac Corporation; and Mr. Ed Bauer, architect. DRAFT EIR, ADDITION TO AIRPORT MARINA HOTEL This EIR was considered item by item, with the following changes requested: Elevation Architect stated that the new addition is one story higher than the present building. A restaurant on the eleventh floor is added to the proposed ten -story hotel addition. Page 7 Approximately 8,000 square feet of landscaping is incorrect. Plans reflect 15% landscaping of gross lot area of existing property. By definition the applicant claimed the parking lot is part of landscaping. (City Planner believes asphaltic concrete paving is less than "suitably landscaped" per Sec. 25.41.050) Paragraph 3. They agreed to dedication of access easement and policing and proper maintenance of public access easement. The plans must demonstrate that there will be a bike and pedestrian path and that the easement will be 30' wide. Page 11 They agreed to get source of information on air pollution. Same page, Paragraph 2: "The major elements of the air pollution . are . . . generated primarily from residential sources " They agreed to research this sentence. suggestion was made -that - 2 - major source of pollution would be Highway 101 rather than the residential areas. Page 16 First paragraph, "The highway research board recommends an indoor . . . noise level . ." The word "maximum" should be inserted. Support for statement "The proposed expansion . . .,will not substantially change the existing and planned aesthetic quality of the area. (Suggest deleting "and planned.") 3rd paragraph: height and width specified, but not length. (Mr. Fratessa stated this would be 160'.) There was discussion of varying heights shown. Mr. Bauer stated the EI R would be changed to conform with the figures shown on the actual plans. Sign on building should be mentioned in EIR for consistency in height figures. 3rd paragraph, "The new structure would therefore be hidden by this existing mass." Add 11. . .from Highway 101 or Bayshore." Not hidden from rest of area. 5th paragraph, "The impact to the hills will not, ''however, be significant . . ." Suggested change, "There is a significant visual bulk impact from the hills, Bayshore, Bay Park and the Airport." Page 17 3rd paragraph "The northerly view from the park area includes . . ." Inconsistent with sentence, "However, this view will be minimized Office center to be adjacent is shown as "16 stories." On page 25 it is shown as 1114 stories." Should be same in both places. PP 17 (bottom) and 18, "Calculations conducted . . show the force main to be operating over capacity level." Should be changed to of . . .at capacity level." Page 18 2nd paragraph, drop word "peak" from first sentence. Page 19 4. Solid Wastes: Some area on site should be indicated for storage! of solid waste. Details are to be worked out. Page 20 6. Fire Protection Existing structure should be sprinklered as well as new addition. Last sentence, 11. . .the provision of additional elevators .will improve evacuation opportunities " It is not considered good emergency procedure to add elevators. There should be statement that additional stairwells mm will be added. Page 21 Traffic Paragraph 1. "It is estimated that the existing hotel generates approximately 1,350 trips per day . . " Not acceptable without data. Statement of two peak periods is also questionable and should be supported. Grammar will be improved by changing tense. Peak traffic may occur between 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. 2nd paragraph: "unique character" of hotel with relation to mass transit should be supported. 3rd paragraph: delete "and parking each side." 5th paragraph states Bayshore Highway has average daily traffic of 1,350 autos. Must be changed since it is obviously more than that. Need statement about impact of increased traffic on the City of Millbrae at intersection of Bayshore and Millbrae Avenue. Also impact at Broadway interchange. PP. 22 and 23. Parking figures must be changed to reflect actual and projected needs. Question if even 650 spaces will be adequate for this area. Suggestion that garage foundations be designed to accommodate addition of more floors. Information missing for needed parking of a cyclic nature such as luncheons, conventions, etc. A suggestion was made that there be a group parking :Lot in this area with shuttle buses to various hotels and other facilities. Parking problems in this area are inadequately dealt with :in mitigation section on Page 36. Page 26 Assessments of impact: Must be more specific with regard to public access agreements. Page 27 Paragraph 3a. Last sentence not related to first two sentences. Page 29 Last paragraph. "It is anticipated that this (construction) activity will occur primarily during the daylight hours . . ." Suggest "exclusively" instead of "primarily." Page 32 Parks and Recreation: ". .the contribution of approximately $6,700 to the support of city park and recreation activities ." It should be noted that this is only an estimated portion of tax revenue to Burlingame - not a gift. Paragraph g. Suggested this paragraph be struck in its entirety since it is non -applicable due to a change in California law. Page 33 "Minor traffic impacts . . . ." Not acceptable. Traffic Impact: No attention given to substantial costs of installing additional traffic signals;left turning lanes; and cost of additional police protection. No mention of offsite impacts on public because of hotel_construction equipment, service vehicles and other vehicle trips to the hotel. PP 33 and 34 Section K: Paragraph is verbose, vague, and inconclusive. General statement made that EIR's should be factual reports without emotion -ridden words suOh as "uncontrolled high rise development." Page 34 - Paragraph b. "The new Burlingame transit service . ." Delete this paragraph. Refers to possibilities, not realities. Page 36 "Traffic" Change "any" to "all" in the following sentence: "The implementation of the proposal to create a free left turn lane in Bayshore Highway would mitigate any conflicts created by left turn movements . . ." Page 38 Paragraph 2. Light industrial use. Suggestion that this paragraph be deleted since it is not a reasonable alternative. PP 40 and 41 Numerical Weighting Matrix. Developer agreed to place it in appendix rather than body of document. Appendix B, Page 5 - San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission Report - Martin says this was misquoted. Appendix C, Page 4. 2nd paragraph. Average worth per acre is a distorted base since this includes all types of property in the city. Also, figures are based on last year's tax assessment. Suggested that C-4 property be used as base. Page 6 Burlingame Hotel, Burlingame Motel, and Country House Hotel are not meaningful in this table. Not comparable to other hotels. Appendix C - PP 21,22,23, Section 6. Schools and Section 7. Summation, Findings and Conclusions on. Should have further research and rewriting. - 5 - After further discussion the principals agreed to revise EIR-20P and return it to staff prior to the study meeting of November 12. A public hearing can be scheduled on both EIR and variance application at the meeting on November 26. Subsequently, application for a special permit must go to Council because the structure is more than 35 feet in height. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Sine Secretary