Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1988.07.25I CALL TO ORDER A regular was called 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 25, 1988 meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, July 25, 1988 at Commissioners Ellis, H. Graham (arrived Jacobs Commissioner Harrison Garcia, Giomi, 7:50 P.M.), S. Graham, Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the July 11, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved. A ENDA - Item #11, tentative parcel map, 1801 Carmelita Avenue, continued to the meeting of August 8, 1.988. Order of the agenda was approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 817 PALOMA AVENUE Requests: what is exceptional about this lot to support the request; is there a possibility the fence could be shortened in length; where is the neighbor's deck located, height of that deck off the ground. Item set for public hearing August 8, 1988. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT - MONTESSORI SCHOOL - 2109 BROADWAY Requests: other uses at Roosevelt School; is this the proposed site for school district storage; number of employees on site; will a second bathroom be available. Item set for public hearing August 8, 1988. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 740 AND 750 WALNUT AVENUE Requests: is the 55' frontage in conformance with the new ordinance; show new curb, gutter and sidewalk on the map; because of the shape of the lots will an average be used to determine setbacks; would like building envelope, how will developer deal with the creek; are there any trees, will they be saved; table of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 1988 frontages and square footage of lots in the block and across the street; show proximity of homes at the rear on the aerial photograph. Item set for public hearing August 8, 1988. 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP - 1070, 1060, 1044 BROADWAY CP advised this map was a requirement of project approval for the used car lot (1044-1060 Broadway), those conditions all dealt with the use, this is a simple mapping action; circulation and landscaping are addressed in the conditions on the project. Item set for public hearing August 8, 1988. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: is there a Hertz desk at the Hyatt :now, are they now renting cars, are cars being kept on the premises, do they have the necessary permits for this; number of parking spaces provided at the Hyatt, number of spaces required; how does valet parking fit into parking requirements; is any signage proposed for the rental agency, what are they planning; a better sketch of the location of the Hertz spaces in relation to the hotel. Item set for public hearing August 8, 1988. ITEMS FOR ACTION 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 10 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R -1. -- Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff advised a sewer lateral test is required because of the bathroom addition; the garage appears to be the original structure. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. The applicants, Stephen and Sharon Johnson, were present. Mr. Johnson commented that when they were considering purchasing this property there were some pluses and some minuses; the large garage with storage/workshop area was a plus, one of the minuses was an apartment building next door; the garage provides a visual and audio buffer for their back yard; demolishing the garage and rebuilding would be a very expensive project. He distributed photographs illustrating his remarks. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found the intent of the parking requirements will be met, applicants can get two cars off the street with covered parking; they need a buffer from a noisy thoroughfare and the apartment building next door, the existing garage will provide that buffer, the variance is necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners, it will not be detrimental to the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 25, 1988 neighbors and will not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, the property will remain R-1 single family. C. S. Graham moved for approval of the parking variance with the following condition: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department. and date stamped June 29, 1988. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis and approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY TO THE RESIDENCE AT 2017 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter. She noted petition in support signed by 16 people in the area and a letter in opposition from Michael J. Sexton, 2013 Easton Drive. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Paul Gumbinger, architect and Steve Karp, property owner, and Karen were present. Mr. Karp commented Burlingame is his home, he has lived here for 15 years, family living requires change and his present home does not have enough room for the family they are planning; there have been many variances granted in the city with situations similar to his, some in his neighborhood; without the variance they would have the expense of reinforcing a new wall rather than extending over the existing wall; he had spoken to Mr. Sexton, his next door neighbor, about the addition, there is a driveway between their two lots, the neighbors front door is at least 20' away from the property line. Paul Gumbinger, architect representing the property owner, addressed the four findings for variance approval: exceptional circumstances can be found in the size and shape of the property itself, at least 1/2 of the lot area is within a 50' lot width, location of the second floor is 50' from the front and would be 20' to the west and 74-1/2, to the rear, 60% of the addition is within a 50' lot width; the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner, there are other two story houses in the neighborhood with similar side setbacks and second floor extensions; he found the code ambiguous when discussing exceptions for additions, not clear whether discussing horizontal or vertical projections; stepping in for the side setback will be difficult for lateral loads on this older structure. Mr. Gumbinger gave a short slide presentation to illustrate his contention there is historical precedent in this neighborhood to grant this variance. Continuing with his discussion of findings, architect noted the petition in favor to support finding (c) that Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 25, 1988 the variance would not be detrimental to other property owners and stated there would be no change in use, therefore the variance would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. In discussion it was noted there were only four people on the same block of Easton signing the petition; architect stated he had asked the property owner to contact those within 300' of the site; Mr. Karp said that on the south side of the street there are only three houses from corner to corner. The following members of the audience spoke. William Scott, 2020 Easton Drive: he was not so much against the second story addition as opposed to a two story aviary, applicant's birds and wild birds in the area are noisy now, he had concern about upsetting the whole neighborhood. Mrs. Fred Hornblower, 2100 Easton. Drive: she asked that her husband's name be removed from the petition in favor, voiced concern about more noisy birds and stated it was difficult to be comfortable sitting in her yard. Mr. Karp said Burlingame has wild birds which live in the tall eucalyptus trees, he has three birds, one inside and two outside in an aviary. CA advised if any animal/bird consistently disturbs the peace he would have to step in and prosecute but he has had no complaints from residents in this neighborhood. Further audience comment. Karen Key, 1412 Drake Avenue: she also spoke of wild birds which are disturbing her neighborhood. A Commissioner commented he had some birds for about a year and they do make a tremendous noise. The Chair noted the property owner could build an aviary without approval of this proposed addition to the house. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi found there are exceptional circumstances in the shape of the lot, the first story already exists, there is a driveway which separates it from the adjacent property a reasonable distance, the addition would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and it would not affect the zoning plan of the city. C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's July 5, 1988 memo shall be met; (2) that the second story addition as built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 28, 1988; and (3) that should the property owner wish to reinstall the dish antenna he shall make application to the Planning Department for a use permit, receive permission and a building permit prior to reinstallation. Motion was seconded by C. Garcia. In comment on the motion architect's findings in support of the variance were noted. Further comment: could support the addition but not with an aviary, birds are louder than a dog; share concern Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 1988 about the aviary but can support the addition since noise abatement proceedings would be the responsibility of the City Attorney. Motion was approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. S.Graham dissenting, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A SCHOOL FOR LEARNING HANDICAPPED STUDENTS AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants letter, study meeting questions. PLR advised she had received information from the applicant that there is also a 30 day summer program. Several telephone calls were received by the Planning Department today from residents concerned about the nature of the handicaps of the students and possible safety issues since these children will be older than other children on the site. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: total parking demand, 23-29 spaces, does not include the vehicles which may be parked on the site should a school district maintenance yard be approved in the future; concern about cars that come and go, school district's guidelines for leasing say parking should be limited to the street; is the only access to staff bathroom through room 4. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. George Hart, applicant, addressed Commission: they have applied for use of the building for 14 students, the average student attendance is nine; concerning older children on the site with younger children, they ran a program in conjunction with a day care center in Redwood City several years ago and it was very successful; there will be no shared bathroom use between students, they have their own bathroom outside of the building for student use; the staff bathroom will be shared if desired by another group, staff bathroom has outside access; the maximum number of cars they would have at the site would be three, one part time employee comes to the site only twice a week. Regarding community concerns, there are no physically handicapped students, they are learning handicapped, most are Special Ed students who attend for awhile and then go back to other schools; they have severe reading disabilities, the goal of the program is to get these students to a point where they can reenter the public schools; most are 12 years old, very rarely would they have an 18 year old; the goal is to get them out of the program within 1-1/2 years. Responding to Commissioner questions, Mr. Hart stated there is a break time but students are supervised; SamTrans on El Camino Real is the closest bus stop, it is about 4-1/2 blocks away; handicapped Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 25, 1988 bathroom facilities are not needed; the boys bathroom in Peninsula Early Learning Center lease is not in use so it was available to Hart Day School. A Commissioner commented on the need for this type of school and thought it a great service. Lynette Muhic, 1129 Clovelly Lane, director of Burlingame Montessori School, spoke in favor of the application. They are currently leasing space at Franklin Elementary School and share that wing with San Mateo County Special Ed; they have been interacting with the Special Ed program and have had no problems; it has been a positive experience for their preschool children. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi commented this is not overuse of the site as when it was a school, think community concerns have been answered, application was noticed to all surrounding homeowners and no neighbors appeared this evening to object; condition #4 specifies review in one year or upon complaint. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the leased area consisting of two classrooms totalling 2,155 SF shall be used as a school as described in George Harts letters of June 21, 1988 including that there shall be a maximum of 14 students and five staff members on the site at any one time; and that the school shall operate on a 180 day academic calendar year with a 30 day summer program; (2) that the boys bathroom facilities in the Peninsula Early Learning Center shall be made available to these tenants; (3) that this use permit shall be amended for any changes in operation, amount of space leased or number of employees; and (4) that this operation shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of the special permit in one year (July, 1989) or upon receipt of any complaints. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. In comment on the motion it was noted guidelines for leasing the school limit number of employees to 40, why this number, what do they intend to do about parking. A Commissioner commented they tried to pick a number, with this school there will be 29 employees, if one lives near a school cars will be parked in front of one's house. The seconder of the motion said he did so because this is a similar use replacing the public school use, he would have a problem with other types of uses going in. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 9:00 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 25, 1988 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING AGENCY AT 314 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUB AREA A Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, background information on other dry cleaning establishments in the city, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: dry cleaners located in Sub Area A; would like to know number of customers expected, number of customers at the previous use on this site. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Gary and Rose Sheohmelian, applicants, advised they expect 20-25 customers per day, they will do alterations, they have a dry cleaning plant in San Mateo where the cleaning work will be done, they do not anticipate any home deliveries. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. H.Graham noted he knew the applicants and had advised them about permit processing by the Planning Commission. Commission discussion: concern about parking in this block, a number of area employees park across California Drive but there is no parking for their customers; have a problem with a service oriented use in Sub Area A, would like to keep Sub Area A for retail because of problems with parking; dry cleaners must get a special permit, not all service oriented uses in Sub Area A are required to get a special permit. C. S.Graham moved to deny the special permit because of real parking problems in that area. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: Sub Area A is not the best location for this business, do not have much of a problem with the use, most businesses would have 25 customers a day, but the main planning objective for this area was that it be retail; this proposal is service/retail, there is no plant on site nor a large number of employees, it does not require a lot of parking, just dropping off and picking up cleaning; most dry cleaners generate a lot of traffic, any business on this site will generate traffic, to add this service in this area is not a good idea; a cobbler or beauty salon could go in this site without a special permit and would need more parking, this business would not generate a long period of parking by a number of people; a service oriented business is one stop, people come in, do their business and leave. Motion to deny the special permit was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and H.Graham dissenting, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 25, 1988 10. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A DRY CLEANING SERVICE AT 1883 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. PLR Garefalos reviewed details of the request, background of this business at this location, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. PLR advised suggested condition #3 was taken from the conditions of a previous amendment in 1987. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Howard Hill, applicant, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit amendment and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that the dry cleaning service and shirt laundry at this site shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays with Sunday hours from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.; (2) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time shall not exceed 11; (3) that wholesaling of laundry services shall be limited to 700 shirts per day done from this site with pickup for delivery at 10:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. daily; and ( 4 ) that this use permit shall be reviewed in one year (July, 1989) and each 18 months thereafter. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: would like to commend applicant for being open on Sunday; am not so concerned about parking and traffic in this area. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, 1801 CARMELITA AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of August 8, 1988. 12. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 24 THROUGH 31, BLOCK 9, UNIT NO. 5, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK; AND PARCEL 54, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5-F (1564-1590 ROLLINS ROAD Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. CE reviewed the request. This proposal is a continuing process necessitated by the sale of Southern Pacific track right-of-way along this spur track and the combination of the Rollins Road frontage; no improvements are approved by this mapping action; CA has indicated approval of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 25, 1988 any development in these combined parcels would need to follow normal zoning requirement and processing procedures. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Dan MacLeod, MacLeod & Associates, was present representing the property owners. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. In discussion on the motion it was determined that the abandonment of the access easement had been included on the map. Motion was approved unanimously on voice vote, C. Harrison absent. Staff will forward this map to Council. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letters, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: this hotel met code parking requirements when it was approved, it meets code now; staff explained Hertz does not have a special permit for a Hertz desk at the Marriott and the reasons for this; security guard at the Embassy Suites is employed by the hotel; spaces used for parking on property across the street from Embassy Suites are not counted in their parking space figures, this is an independent arrangement between that property owner and the hotel. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the Hertz Corporation, addressed Commission. He commented that Hertz in conjunction with the airlines and hotels are attracting travelers to Burlingame locations, package arrangements will bring more visitors to Burlingame. He discussed Hertz' parking arrangements at Marriott with staff. At Embassy Suites they would like to set aside five spaces for rental cars, not necessarily close to the entrance but would like that option; the suggested condition limiting the time a rental car could be stored on the site to 24 hours may be too restrictive, he suggested a 72 hour maximum; they could accept a limit of five rental cars on site for the upcoming year but following review in one year might like to up this figure to eight cars; Hertz feels it cannot live with 150 rentals per month, if they do not have more than five cars on site at one time why the 150 rentals per month requirement, most months they average 110 rentals but with package deals this could go as high as 200 people a month, they could still meet the five cars on site requirement. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 25, 1988 Regarding the CE's suggestion to shuttle customers to another location, this does not meet the need, people want convenience; the nearest available rental location would be to shuttle to San Francisco International Airport or down to Burlingame which doesn't make sense. In conclusion Mr. Hudak stated this application should stand on its own merits, it does provide a good service. Responding to a Commissioner, he stated Hertz was aware their figure for total hotel parking spaces was incorrect. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see spaces marked for car rental use; there isn't a hotel out there that doesn't have a parking problem, is Commission doing the hotel a favor by granting eight on-site spaces to Hertz, would rather see them provide a rental agency a reasonable distance from the hotel and store cars there. With the statement a corporation the size of Hertz should be aware a special permit might be required and should have contacted the city, the Millbrae Avenue Hertz center where there is a major servicing/storage facility could be used to shuttle people, C. S.Graham moved to deny this special permit. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment on the motion: have a concern about parking but have no problem designating spaces at the hotel for car rental use, five spaces wouldn't make that much difference; concern about proliferation of car rental agencies at Burlingame's hotels, see no reason for each hotel to have a car rental desk, people shuttle from the airport, they could shuttle to car rental; concerned about the interior circulation problem with shuttle to car rental, would not want to set aside five needed spaces for a rental agency but, if there is a car shuttle to the hotels, for every rental going out there will be an increase in number of vehicle trips, an increase in interior circulation in the area; perhaps the city should consider increasing the parking space requirement for hotels, people who come to the hotels need cars; agree there would be an interior circulation problem during A.M. and P.M. peak hours but probably there would not be many car rental requests at those hours; it seems Hertz at this location is using a halfhearted approach to renting cars, not providing a real service, feel that if the city doesn't want them they shouldn't be on site, if they really want to rent cars at this location they should have more than just someone sitting behind a desk. Motion to deny was approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Giomi and Jacobs voting no, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 25, 1988 14. SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A 559 ROOM HOTEL BY CARRUF CORPORATION AT 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 CP Monroe reviewed her staff report, 7/25/88, with attachments, discussing details of the project, parking, public access, history of the original application, changes from the 1984 approved project, traffic allocation, environmental review, responsible agencies, BCDC permit, staff comments, study meeting questions and issues, applicant's letter. Twenty conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. The original application expired and this is a reapplication for virtually the same project. CP advised 24 extra parking spaces are adjacent to Fishermen's Park and will be used by the public using the park, these are public spaces so people from the hotel could not be prohibited from using them, but they will be posted "public access parking" and are less conveniently located for hotel guests. Mark Hornberger, architect representing the property owner, was present. He advised they are back with essentially the same project, height has been reduced by slightly over 3' and some small adjustments made in the number of parking spaces, they are providing 45 spaces above code requirement and 24 of these spaces are adjacent to Fishermen's Park and will be used for the public visiting the park. Mr. Hornberger gave a slide presentation of the hotel project including a site plan, Fishermen's Park, parking decks, public access areas, building coverage (project is a 9 story building with 559 rooms in two L shaped wings around a central atrium, ballroom, indoor pool, meeting room space, three restaurants), appearance of the hotel from Airport Boulevard, building has been stepped back to mitigate size and bulk with a glass atrium in the center, this atrium will allow view from Airport Boulevard out toward the bay, front entrance, rooms looking into the central space, large restaurant in the middle of this space. During discussion architect advised what appeared to be catwalks was just framing, the restaurants will be operated by the Radisson group, there will be an entertainment lounge, the bridge across the channel would be removable for channel maintenance. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. The Chair noted this hotel in a very similar design was approved in 1984. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the special permits and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's June 28, 1988, September 5, 1984 and September 26, 1984 memos, the Chief Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 25, 1988 Building Inspector's June 22, 1988 memo and the City Engineer's July 7, 1988 memo shall be met; 2. that the project as developed shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 5, 1988; 3. that no room in the hotel shall be leased by a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 consecutive days and no rooms or portions of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; patrons, visitors or employees may not be charged for the use of on- site parking without review and permission of the city, no more than 10% of the designated parking area may be used for valet parking, and none of the on-site parking may be leased or dedicated to any hotel related use such as car rental without permission of the city; 4. that the project shall receive all necessary permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over this site including, but not limited to, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Mateo County regarding Fishermen's Park, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 5. that any pedestrian or mixed use bridge crossing the mouth or near the mouth of Sanchez Channel shall be a private bridge and be designed so that it can be removed at the developer's expense at the request of the city as needed for dredging or other channel improvements or as needed by adjacent property owners for property maintenance or improvements; 6. that Fishermen's Park shall be improved to the standards required by San Mateo County and BCDC and that the property owner shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance and policing of the developed park and that these responsibilities shall be exercised to the standards established by the County of San Mateo Parks Department and public safety standards of the City of Burlingame; 7. to perpetuate the existing shellfish resource on the east side of the site (by Fishermen's Park) the property owner/developer shall restore the beds, if seawall refurbishing is necessary, or shall protect the beds by measures identified by a recognized shellfish expert and approved by the city prior to the initiation of any work on the site or to receiving a grading permit which would affect runoff into the bay; in addition a habitat protection plan shall be developed, reviewed and approved by the city so that the shellfish habitat and potential habitat on all Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 25, 1988 water frontages shall not be affected by construction activities, landscaping installation or future landscaping irrigation, fertilization or maintenance, or levee maintenance; 8. that during renovation Fishermen's Park shall be closed to public use for the minimum amount of time and that it shall be fenced off from the main project so it can continue to be used during construction of the hotel and its site improvements, if possible renovation of Fishermen's Park should take place during the lowest use season; 9. that the noise levels inside the completed structure shall meet the general criteria of Title 25 as well as modifications to structure and building materials so that the average event will not be heard in a guest sleeping room at a level above 45 dBA; 10. that traffic to and from the site shall be managed by providing a bus stop and encouraging mass transit service, by employing a traffic coordinator at least part time who will encourage employees to ride share and use available mass transit, and the hotel shall provide shuttle service to San Francisco International Airport; 11. that roadway improvements required by the city shall be provided including installing a median strip on Airport Boulevard, paying their proportionate share with the 450 Airport Boulevard project and future project at the drive-in theater site of widening of the roadway/pedestrian bridge across Sanchez Channel; and the developer shall provide new sidewalk and curb and gutter along Airport Boulevard where the roadway is realigned, provide an interim adjustment to the curve on Airport Boulevard as it turns west until the roadway realignment can be completed, in the future participate proportionately in the cost of the realignment of the curve going westerly on Airport Boulevard; and shall provide directional signage from the street and on the hotel site into Fishermen's Park; 12. that an on-site security patrol shall be responsible for enforcement of any operating hours established by the county for Fishermen's Park and shall patrol the hotel, its grounds and Fishermen's Park; 13. that the project developer shall contribute the project's proportional share to the cost of providing an additional water main connection under 101 and to the expansion of the Rollins Road sewage pump station and sewer main and shall build these improvements, shall use low flow water fixtures and drought resistant plants to conserve water in accordance Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 25, 1988 with applicable city regulations; and shall provide on-site pretreatment for sewage from all areas where food is prepared; 14. that final design shall be preceded by a complete soils study including the levee structures, minimum final elevation of the site shall be 91 with the elevations of all entryways into structures at least 101, skin friction piles shall be used for structural support, there shall be no organic material in the required fill, fill shall be well compacted and existing fill on site shall be recompacted; all utilities shall have flexible joints and be made of noncorrosive materials; if required, excavation pit wall shall be 1:1; the outboard face of the levee shall be stabilized and protected and levee design shall consider effects of subsidence over time; 15. that the existing storm water and collection system shall be redesigned to reduce runoff from paved areas, oil separating traps shall be installed and regularly maintained by the developer/operator on a schedule reviewed and approved by the city, measures shall be taken to protect the bay from siltation during construction; 16. that construction shall be limited to the hours established by the city, portable shrouds shall be placed around pile drivers and the construction site shall be enclosed by a solid fence as determined by city staff, during construction demolition areas shall be continuously sprinkled, stockpiled and construction materials shall be covered and streets in the construction area, as determined by the city, shall be swept once a day; 17. that a tentative and final parcel map shall be submitted to combine parcels if required by the City Engineer; 18. that the health club facilities included as a part of this hotel shall be exclusively for the use of hotel guests and their guests, these facilities shall not be made available at any time for public use, with or without a fee; 19. that the property owner shall provide, with the approval of the City of Burlingame and utility companies, transformer and switch locations and easements necessary to serve this site and roadway related needs, together with any line switches necessary for distribution and transmission needs for future undergrounding; and 20. that the applicant shall abide by the following project construction table in order to retain their traffic allocation: Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 25, 1988 BCDC application August 19, 1988 Submit final foundation plans September 1, 1988 Pick up foundation building permit November 1, 1988 Final foundation inspection May 1, 1989 Final framing inspection September 1, 1989 Final occupancy July 1, 1990 Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Responding to Commissioner question staff advised condition #20 relating to project construction table has been revised applicable to the present project and city review requirements. Motion was approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Harrison absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council actions at its July 18, 1988 regular meeting and July 20, 1988 study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary