HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.01.07 PC minutes UNapproved - Special Study SessionCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the May 1, 2007, special meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer Don Chang; Wastewater
Treatment Plant Manager, Bill Toci.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THE REVISED PROJECT FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
CENTER FOR COMPASSION AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT,
ZONED M-1 - review of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Revised Project to build a
41,871 SF Center for Compassion (35,931 SF) with outdoor netted aviary and wild life habitat
(5,960 SF). The project would be an addition to an existing three story shell office/laboratory
structure. The completed building would have a maximum height of 41’6” and 62 parking spaces
would be provided on site.
Chair Brownrigg reviewed the procedure for the study meeting, noting that the purpose of the meeting was
for the Commissioner’s to gain as much information as they can about the impacts and benefits of the
project. He also noted that for efficiency the discussion would be organized by topic.
CP Monroe gave a brief description of the project.
Chair Brownrigg identified the technical experts present: Charles Salter and Associates (noise
consultants) Anthony Nash; Air Permitting Specialists (odor consultants) Ray Kapahi; Fehr and Peers
Associates (traffic consultants) Chris Mitchell; Impact Sciences (environmental consultants) Shabnam
Barati, Audrey Darnell. City staff present represented: Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager, Bill
Toci; Senior Engineer (Sewer Collection system) Don Chang. He noted that at this point comments on
the project should be limited to process issues; after the discussion on the Final EIR the Commission
may want to identify additional issues on the project to be included in the action staff report.
Regarding process Commissioners asked:
• Is the sign permit included in the Commission’s action on the project?
• How will the items in the two letters received at the desk tonight be included?
• What is the relationship between Impact Sciences and Brion and Associates?
• Is this the Final environmental document?
• Can additional information be included in the action Staff Report?
• Was the information on the CD included at the back of the Draft EIR made available to
the public in other form?
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court M
2
Chair Brownrigg then asked the representatives from Impact Sciences to coordinate their technical team
as the commission reviewed the various topics in the Final EIR. Shabnam Barati, principal of Impact
Sciences, noted that they were hired by the City to do a third party review of the proposed
environmental effects of the proposed project, that their guidance came from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, that they gathered their own data, and used standards of
significance from CEQA and from the local agency, they relied on technical studies submitted by the
applicant only after a third party, independent review; they were advocates neither for the applicant or
city. The topical issues addressed were:
Water, water quality, including sewer treatment
• Did the document address the relationship of the site to the creek, is it within 200 feet?
• Is the site located in a flood zone, how was that addressed?
• What type of cleaning agents will be used, will they create an environmental problem, on
the site or at the wastewater treatment plant?
• Compare the total wastewater projected to be generated from this site to the total capacity
and available capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.
• Where will the drains in the parking lot take the surface water? How will that collection
system be designed?
• Where will the drains in the enclosed parking areas take the surface water? How will that
collection system be designed?
• Can a bioswale (area of pervious surface) be created on the perimeter of the site to assist
in containing pollutants in the surface drainage?
• Provide a list of the chemicals to be used on the site, will any of them have a negative
effect on the wastewater treatment process or on the adjacent environment?
• How will the use of detergents be over seen through the life of the project?
Traffic, Parking, Circulation
• Where will buses bringing people to the site be unloaded and loaded? Where will they be
parked if they remain for the duration of the visitors to the site?
• The magnitude of the outreach program is not clearly defined, please provide.
• What is the future of the green zone now painted on the curb on Rollins Road?
• Will 62 on site parking spaces be sufficient at shift changes, particularly if the classrooms
are in use?
• How was the parking ratio required determined?
• Was the aviary and outdoor wildlife habitat area included in the square footage used to
determine the parking number? How is the aviary staffed, how are assignments made?
• Animals are delivered in trucks, where does the staff driving the truck park while using
the truck? Where are the trucks stored when not being used to transport animals? Will
the trucks fit in the enclosed area designed for animal transfer?
• How will drivers looking for parking spaces in the lot circulate to find an open parking
space?
• What efficiency factor is provided in the current on-site parking? Define what is meant
by efficiency?
• Will all animals be transferred within the enclosed fenced area?
• Will stray animals be accepted at this location?
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court M
3
• How does the project address animal drop off for services provided on this site?
• Provide an analysis to document available on street parking, including distance and
number of spaces within given distances?
• When studied parking trends at other facilities how were activities on site, such as
classes, addressed?
• Does the location of the ADA designated parking spaces meet requirements?
• How do visitors get to the door after they park?
• When will the roll-up gates be down?
• There is no elevator access in animal/staff unloading area? Elevators appear to be too
small for the proposed use? How will animals be moved to up stair locations from the
drop-off area?
• Was the fact that the building behind this site is empty considered in the trip generation
for the area?
• What is involved in the retail space? Will it be a destination for pet owners?
• The parking ratio used here is unique, outside of the rule book; has the applicant
considered mitigation which can be added if the on-site parking does not work e.g.
racked parking?
• Very helpful for review and decision making at action hearing to have a three
dimensional model (physical or electronic) for the Commission to see.
• Provide information on the capacity of the classrooms and/or class size, and how the
timing of that use will affect the on-site parking.
Chair Brownrigg called for a break at 8:25 p.m. The Special Study Session reconvened at 8:32 p.m.
Odor
• How do the threshold levels for odor work?
• Would scrubbers be recommended for the exhaust from this site?
• Is it possible to contain all sensitive odors in side the building? Should odors be detected
off the site after construction how could they be addressed?
• What is the relationship between ‘housekeeping’ inside the facility and sensitive odors
outside?
• Odor studies were based on 6 air exchanges an hour, the report note that there will be 10
to 12 air exchanges an hour? What will be the impact of the increased number of air
exchanges on the detectable odors outside the facility?
• How would odor complaints from nearby uses be handled?
Noise
• Study indicates that the barking of a dog in the exercise area with the roof open will be
audible only on the Rollins Road side of the building, is that correct?
• What is the acoustical difference between one dog barking and many dogs barking at the
same time?
• There is a fire station in this area, engines depart with sirens on, which will cause a
number of dogs to bark at once? Was this measured? How will the management of the
facility address this problem during the day and at night?
• Does the height of the parapet affect the dissemination of noise from the dog exercise
area when the roof is open? Would there be a benefit from increasing the height of the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court M
4
parapet? If so, how much taller would the parapet need to be to make a difference?
• What is the acoustical difference in the aviary of many birds collected together, as
opposed to birds dispersed in nature? Were other aviaries measured?
• How does the ambient measurement address brief sounds?
• What does a noise level of 68 decibels compare to?
Other Issues
• Does the loss of the existing building on this site represent loss of a cultural resource?
• Since the current use of the existing building to be removed is a laboratory are there any
hazardous materials which need to be considered in the removal of the building?
• Is the alternative analysis in the Final EIR adequate, based on CEQA requirements?
• Alternatives need to be available, some of the alternatives in the Draft EIR particularly
the Adrian Road site, were not; how is this addressed in the Final EIR?
• Some sites suggested in comments on the Draft EIR were not addressed in the Response
to Comments document, particularly one in Half Moon Bay and the current PHS/SPCA
site at Coyote Point, do these sites need to be included in the Final EIR for it to be
adequate?
• Clarify, in their action what the Planning Commission is charged with determining
regarding the Final EIR
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Brownrigg noted that the public hearing on the Care and Concern Center and the Final EIR will be
held at another meeting. This is an opportunity to comment on what was heard this evening, the
Commission will take no action tonight. He asked for a show of hands of the people in the audience who
wished to speak. Since the number was limited he noted that he would not place a time limit on the
comment, but would remind the speakers that they should be brief this evening and focus on the study of the
project and Final EIR. He then opened the public comment.
Speaking at the public comment were Oscar Braun, Executive Director of Save Our Bay and the California
Water Posse, Kevin Guibara, Rollins Road, Save Our Bay Council member, and Jim Knapp, Citizens for
Accountability. Issues noted were:
• Coyote Point was not included as an alternative site, environmental document is fatally flawed with
out this analysis,
• PHS/SPCA is not being ‘evicted’ from Coyote Point, contract has been extended to June 2011.
• PHS/SPCA has begun the process of purchasing 12 Airport Blvd.
• Noise study does not address continual barking by a large number of dogs?
• How will animal selection mitigations be enforced 10 years out?
• Noise study not address effect of people with dogs on the street coming and going.
• People were unaware of the CD attached to the Draft EIR and the information included on it.
• How was the Initial Study made available to the public?
• Important to know why applicant chose Burlingame.
• All the issues should be addressed in the EIR not within separate reports.
• Needed revisions should require EIR to be recirculated including: effects of the project on Mills
Creek; information on CD in the Draft EIR was not available to public; PHS refused to look at some
alternate sites; response to the Environmental Information Form submitted by applicant are
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court M
5
inadequate and directed Impact Sciences and the City down a different path; and PHS/SPCA was
always in negotiations for the site at Coyote Point and did not tell the City.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
Chair Brownrigg asked the Commission if they had any questions on the project for the staff or applicant to
address at the action hearing. Commissioners noted:
• Clarify the difference between the animal control service as contracted with the County vs.
the other services provided by the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA. This is critical to
understanding the proposed use vs. Coyote Point.
• How do you plan to address the four-hour construction required in the CCandRs?
• Will the metal tubing at the aviary and wildlife habitat be the same color as the mesh
netting?
• Provide information on the details of the metal mesh/grill at the openings to the parking area
on the Rollins Road and other elevations.
• A materials board would be useful.
• The project before the Commission is not a pet hospital, it is different from what was agreed
upon in terms of size, parking and staffing, entire package.
• Why does the parking not need a parking variance?
• Interested in the site at 12 Airport Blvd. is it a viable site for this use, like to see it included.
• Clarify under CEQA what is required for alternatives, both quantity and quality.
• Does it mean anything to this project that PHS/SPCA are in negotiations with Coyote Point.
• Note that the building is intended to be LEED certified, think Silver, provide a check list
which identifies the points aim for to achieve the credits.
• What treatment will be included for back flow preventers for water service?
• Regarding the signage proposed, do not want the parking direction as shown on the Rollins
Road corner.
• On M-1 zoning review chart in the Staff Report the numbers for percent of front setback
landscaping are reversed.
There were no further questions for the project from the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg note that a vote is not required tonight to set this item for the action calendar. He asked the
Commission if there was a consensus that there was enough information on which to make a decision. CP
noted that the action staff report would include information on the questions asked. It was noted that the
EIR is in its final form, and no changes would be made to that document before the action meeting. The
consensus of the commission was that there was enough information to make a decision on the Final EIR
and the project; and that the Final EIR and project should go forward to the Commission’s action calendar.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary