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