Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.04.26MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 26, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Deal called the April 26, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal MINUTES April 12, 1999 APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE WHICH IS FORWARD OF THE REAR 40 % OF THE LOT AT 1412 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (BRIAN GREEN, J.M. SPRINGS CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND MARIE-MAGALI IDZAL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: is a 2 inch sewer line big enough to support a toilet, a shower or a sink; what are the dirriensions of the tree to be preserved; is it possible to move the garage back some without harming the tree; could the applicant revise his letter he seems to have confused feet and inches in the present one; could the Senior Landscape Inspector observe the tree in the field and make a recommendation on the safe placement of the garage i.e., can the garage be moved back to be within the rear 40% of the lot and avoid a variance, if staff does not have the expertise the applicant should get an arborist's report to document the situation and evaluate if, and how much, the garage can be moved back; the architect's name is crossed out on the drawings, does the applicant have the architect's approval to use these drawings, he should provide documentation; staff report indicates at minimum a 2 inch sewer, should be a maximum 2 inch also the size of the water line should be addressed, what size is needed, what other facilities could be served by that size line. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 APPLICATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST -FLOOR ADDITION AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DONNA SLOTE, APPLICANT AND DONNA AND ROBERT SLOTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: discrepancy between staff report and plan on amount of lot coverage, clarify; what type of window will be used in the addition; what will the bay window shown in the drawing look like; feel proposed window will be very large, over bearing, extends over plate line, should be reduced; asking for a survey for the easement line, appears garage next door is also in the easement, assessor's maps show dashed line which implies that there was some lot line change in the past, provide history of creation of easement; the proposed window is out of character with. anything on the house, address; show FAR calculation for project compared to FAR formulas :for attached and detached garages on corner lots. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: how could the garage be widened and lengthened, site is built to the maximum without conforming garage, how much square footage would have to be taken out of the house to allow for code garage in future; has the applicant looked at other alternatives for the garage; the proposed vinyl windows do not match the style of the house, have a tall plate for the new addition which will "bump" out, can it be reduced to blend into the existing house, match existing plate; can the second floor overhang be blended into the structure with a design feature like corbels; floor plan should be revisited and a bedroom eliminated, could do that with the hall on the second floor; the window on the north elevation is a good idea. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ADD AN ATTACHED SINGLE -CAR CARPORT AND A DETACHED STORAGE SHED AT 1827 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT ALFARO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: clarify neighbors comment about storage, what does applicant intend to store in accessory structure; provide a copy of municipal code section addressing limitations on parking trucks on residential sites; were the construction vehicles observed on the site there because of construction or being stored; was there a building permit issued for the storage shed. There were no other questions and the item 0) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 18 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1. (WESSEL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JAMES SHANNON, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: the new window should match the existing windows on the house; applicant should add a "water table" type of detail horizontally on the building below the first floor window sill line to break up the mass; this is a Prairie style house, should research elements for this style house and incorporate them into the addition; agree bay window might look better than structure would with compliance with declining height, but why does area behind the window not comply with declining height; why is the second floor plate as high as it is proposed to be, if it were lower it would help declining height. There were no other questions and the item was set for hearing on May 10, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time for preparation of the staff report. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 744 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT AND KAREN HARRIGAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Chairman Deal requested this project at 744 Plymouth Way be called off the consent calendar to discuss the non -conformity in the garage. C. Keighran asked that it be noted for the record; she will be abstaining from vote. on 1405 Drake due to her husband's business relationship with the applicant. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1405 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. l(CIRINA IPPOLITO, APPLICANT AND TONY & CIRINA IPPOLITO, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 2104 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (LARRY MORSELLO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes and April 26, 1999 APPLICATION FOR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES TO ADD NEW UNCOVERED DECKING SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND TO EXPAND INTO AN EXISTING BASEMENT, AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ANTONIO M. BRANDI, APPLICANT AND JOSE AND MARIA MONTES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12, 1999) C. Key moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item No. 6, 1405 Drake passed 6-0-1 (C. 1Keighran abstaining), and Items No. 8, 2104 Easton and 9, 260 Crescent passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 744 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT AND KAREN HARRIGAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. This item was called off the consent calendar by the commission. Commission asked if the existing 8.5 foot garage could be considered to be existing nonconforming when the number of bedrooms was being expanded; staff responded no. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. James Savoy, architect, 679 Sanchez, San Francisco, noted that the garage was built with a 8.5 foot minimum width at the time the house was built, thought that it was an existing nonconforming condition which the construction will not touch; commission asked about the fire place, felt that it was large and the chimney was disconnected from the house, it is 4.5' wide and extends 14' from the house, could it be revised so that it blends in to the existing architectural character of the house better, a different type of fire place would not require such a tall chimney; architect noted that they had been trying to retain the existing brick chimney, they could reduce the width, they were aware that they had to re - engineer it and have a seismic study so may need to be removed and replaced, could redesign; he also noted that since a variance needs to be noticed for the garage dimension, he would like to be on the next meeting, May 10. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: when this project comes back would like to have it placed on the consent calendar. C. Coffey moved that action on this item be continued to the meeting of May 10, 1999, and that it be returned on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 called for a voice vote on the motion to continue which passed on a 7-0 affirmative vote. Since no action was taken, this item is not appealable. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 636,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN FIVE BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Staff noted that the Environmental Impact Report is a study made independent of the applicant of the environmental effects of a project. While the applicant pays for the report preparation through the Planning Department, the Planning Department selects the consultant and oversees the preparation of the document. Commissioner asked which of the mitigations B-1 included in the staff report attachments was the recommendation, staff noted that the second on.e was the final since the mitigation was revised with the Recirculated DEIR. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing and recognized Marty Abell, Jack Hutchinson and Chuck Bennett of Environmental Sciences Associates, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, to present an overview of the findings of the environmental impact report. Mr. Abell noted that he was the project manager for this report and lived in the City of San ]Mateo. He noted in his presentation that the Final EIR being considered tonight was composed of three documents: the DEIR, the Recirculated DEIR and the Response to Comments Document. The conclusion of the study was that development of the 636,000 SF office complex would result in three significant unavoidable impacts: to increase traffic at freeway on -ramps at the Broadway interchange south bound; contribution to cumulative mobile -source emissions; and to cumulative traffic increases at intersections in the project area (the three intersections which comprise the North Bayshore-101 northbound off -ramp). During circulation of the DEIR, ESA received comments from the City of San Mateo and the wind surfing community that indicated that there might be significant new information required. These issues were studied and a Recirculated DEIR prepared and distributed which focused on just the issues raised by these parties. The conclusion of these additional studies were that the project would have a significant impact on the Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 intersection and would affect the Humboldt/Poplar intersection in the City of San Mateo. Mitigation measures which would reduce these impacts to acceptable levels were identified but because the effects are in another jurisdiction the findings must be considered significant and unavoidable because the City of Burlingame is not directly responsible for their correction. The wind and recreation study concluded that based on the standard of significance arrived at, the project would not have a significant impact on the use of the adjacent recreation area by wind surfers. The technical people who prepared the studies on traffic and wind and recreation were asked to present the conclusions of their effort. Jack Hutchinson, traffic engineer, for ESA summarized the study area noting that the study encompassed detailed analysis of 4 intersections (3 in Burlingame, 1 in San Mateo), 4 freeway segments, and 6 freeway ramps, in addition to site specific access, circulation, pedestrian and 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 bicycle access, traffic safety (analysis of the 90 degree curve), and the temporary short term traffic impacts of project construction. Based on the comments from the City of San Mateo they added analysis of 5 additional intersections in the Peninsula-Humboldt-Amphlett-US 101 area. The conclusions of the traffic analysis of this area in San Mateo were (mitigation B-1) that with mitigation the effects of the project traffic would be less than significant (LOS levels improving from F to B at Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 using signage or a traffic diverter and going from LOS C to D at Humboldt/Poplar). CEQA requires, however, because the impact is in a different jurisdiction that the Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 intersection effect be treated by Burlingame as significant and unavoidable. The same principal applies to the impacts of the project on the North Bound on ramps to US 101 at North Bayshore Highway (on the east side of 101 in the City of San Mateo), this is a cumulative effect and can be addressed and reduced to less than significant by a reconfiguration of the roadway into a signalized "T" intersection and signalization; however the work must be done in the City of San Mateo so the effect is an unavoidable significant effect. The only freeway on ramp which shows a significant unavoidable impact is the south bound on ramp at Broadway in the a.m. peak hour. The proposed mitigation is that the project implement a Transportation Demand Management program on site, but since the amount of the reduction required is so large and the effectiveness of this future program unpredictable, that the impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable. No traffic problems that were not mitigatable were identified at the site access points on Airport Blvd., the bicycle access is appropriate with bicycle lanes added to both sides of Airport Blvd. It was noted that at the cumulative development stage there would be a significant cumulative effect on the accident potential at the right hand turn of Airport Blvd. at the northeast corner of the site. The mitigation for this effect is that the developer will be required to sett aside land for the future realignment of this section of roadway and participate, based on his fair share, to the future reconstruction of the roadway at the corner. Commissioners asked: will the traffic at the second 90 degree turn at Airport/Lang Road be affected, study did not show an impact to mitigate; studies show there would be a total of 800 additional trips at p.m. peak hour in and out of the site, how was this arrived at; based on standard analysis using Institute of Traffic Engineers empirically collected data based on trips per 1000 SF of office area for project; will the existing two lane road to the south accommodate its assignment of this additional volume, yes; traffic study did not address south bound traffic which would use North Bayshore and go south to Third Avenue and people coming on 101 from south use Dore exit because it is easier; trip distribution based on current pattern indicated that only 10% of project traffic would use North Bayshore and 5% inbound, the division of this traffic southbound between Peninsula and North Bayshore south resulted in screening out North Bayshore as receiving insufficient southbound trips to affect the area to the south on the east side of US 101; people use is based on one person to 300 GSF (assumption used in parking) but if businesses put more than that number of people in rented space by using cubical won't that affect traffic assumptions, no since trip generation is based on using a weighted average of actual studies of trips generated from similar sized office developments, parking standards are not a good indicator of trips generated because parking space use includes all day employees, visitors, customers and employees space turnover; how recent are your tables, ITE sixth edition, 1997. Concerned about the impact on the Broadway off -ramp in the a.m. peak, it will go to LOS F; yes, to avoid this impact the southbound traffic destined to the project in the a.m. peak would C City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 have to be reduced by 64 %, TDM program is identified as the mitigation but the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable because we cannot know the effectiveness of the TDM program. Presently traffic backs up on Poplar through Humboldt, what will be the effect of the project traffic on the current problem on Poplar at Humboldt; study shows that if suggested mitigation is installed at Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 traffic would move freely on Poplar and there would be no significant back up on Poplar; did you consider stopping the freeway exiting traffic at Poplar from turning left on to Amphlett southbound, yes discussed with CalTrans who indicated they were extremely reluctant because of concern that traffic might back up onto the freeway, the great majority of the traffic exiting at Poplar goes straight through at a.m. and p.m. peak hours; when were the traffic counts made to determine the exiting levels, late in the year in 1998. There were no further questions on the traffic study. Chuck Bennett, ESA, wind specialist presented the conclusions of the wind and recreation analysis. There are two parts to the wind analysis. The first was the physical change which will occur should the project be built. To determine the effect it was necessary to establish a criterion to be used to determine if the change would be significant. The study looked at 9 years of seasonal weather data taken from the weather station at the airport to establish wind frequency and speed. Based on this focused study on the directions of wind that would be most affected by the project and its orientation to the adjacent waters of Coyote Point Park - west, west northwest and west southwest. The wind study included subjecting a model of the project and of cumulative development in the area to a wind tunnel analysis at a laboratory at UC Davis. The conclusions of this study are analyzed in the Recirculated DEIR (including its technical appendix) and in the Response to Comments document. He described briefly how wind works and what the wind characteristics the wind tunnel summary addressed., noted that established a significance criteria that focused on wind speed changes noting that a negative effect would occur if there was a 10 % wind speed change over much of the area being used for wind surfing (identified as an 1800 foot by 1800 foot area adjacent to the barrier ,along the east side of the project site). He then reviewed the wind changes identified in the: analysis that led to the conclusion that the impact of the project based on the criteria was less than significant. He noted that in the response to comments document the issue of wind turbulence was addressed and zones of affect were identified. There is no standard established by any government agency for significance in the change in wind. After review of the turbulence changes determined that the established criteria in the Recirculated DEIR served the purpose of environmental review reasonably well. It was clarified that if the Planning Commission felt that they wished to add factors to the criteria for determining significance they could, also that the project approval could address adjustments for wind effects even if the item was not found to be a significant impact in the environmental document. There were no more questions from. the Commission. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. He directed that the commission would take the comments on traffic first, then the comments on wind and recreation. The following people spoke on traffic: Bill Gleason, 811 N. Humboldt, Bob Goldhahn, 966 Peninsula; Marjorie Smith, 835 N. Humboldt; Dan Tillis, 833 N. Humboldt; Paul Dana, 528 N. Idaho; Lloyd Mahaffey, 4 Peninsula; Patrick Cunningham, 1365 Bernal; Marilyn Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula; Maybelle Pinson, 900 N. Humboldt; Walter Haefker, 164 Pepper; Dick Lavinstein, 63 Bouvet Road, San Mateo; Dennis Sullivan, 815 N. Humboldt; Ron Munekawa, City of San Mateo Fh City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April26, 1999 Planning Department, 20th Avenue; concerned that the projected traffic figures are low because there will be only one person per car from the project; traffic on Humboldt is very bad when court is in session; back up on Poplar is very bad now and backs up two blocks west of Humboldt; people cross Humboldt to get to shopping center on other side of Woodlake, is very dangerous; golf course is one of the busiest in the state, those people use Peninsula to go south also; solution is to have a new off ramp configuration off Peninsula which would divert freeway directed traffic from Humboldt to Amphlett, can be done with all right turns; at 10 a.m. Humboldt backs up to the freeway; feel that the solution is to block Airport Blvd. and keep all the traffic from this project in Burlingame, if not hope San Mateo will block the road at Coyote Point so that there is no southbound access, environmental document should evaluate this alternative; if Amphlett is blocked people will use N. Idaho from Amphlett to Poplar, this is a residential street people already speed down from the North County Courthouse, there are no stop signs on the street; how will a two lane road handle 800 more cars at p.m. peak hour by the Humane Society, over Peninsula and down Humboldt; should consider impacts on College and Idaho streets; traffic will back up on the Peninsula overpass bridge because the left turn lane will only accommodate two cars; if block Amphlett, south bound traffic on Rollins Road. will divert to Peninsula and affect a residential neighborhood north of Peninsula; estimate of 800 vehicle trips at p.m. peak hour is too low, could be as high as 6000 trips and that would have a dramatic impact, project should be scaled way back so that it generated only 600 cars at p.m. peak; concerned about air quality, backed up cars will generate more: pollutants; more people will use Humboldt from Rollins and Peninsula, already have a hard time getting in and out of my driveway; concerned about southbound traffic entering 101 from Poplar, confusing now about who has right-of-way; if the signs at Amphlett/Poplar/US 101 do not work will need to put in traffic diverter and then traffic increase at her house will be 24 hours not just at peak hour; traffic from 101 southbound on to Poplar will still be able to turn left to the DMV, this is significant, impossible turn; can not use bicycle across Peninsula Bridge it should be widened, bridge used by Burlingame residents to get to waterfront; report needs a more detailed analysis of the Airport/Coyote Point intersection; do not need a lot more traffic in the area it will make a difficult situation worse; should consider holding a meeting with the business and residents in the City of San Mateo to explain the project's traffic impacts to the people affected so that they are fully informed; City of San Mateo would like to negotiate all mitigations with the developer before occupancy of phase 2 of the project and would like him to confirm the trip generation estimates at the end of phase 1 so we are sure that the numbers are correct; would like to see a complete study of the Peninsula/Poplar/ 101 interchange done, should be initiated before occupancy of phase 2, and developer should pay his fair share of those improvements; seems that about 43% of the p.m. peak hour trips 341 will go into San Mateo and 230 of these through the Peninsula/Humboldt intersection. The following people commented on the wind and recreation study: Peter Thorner, spokesman for the Wind Boarding Association; Mark Tischler, aeronautical engineer at NASA-AMES; Clement Wang, 906 Hyde Avenue, Cupertino; George Hay, 1191 Compass Lane; Patrick Cunningham, 1365 Bernal. Their comments were: most important is that turbulence as well as wind speed needs to be addressed in the criterion for significance because the effects of the two compound for the sail boarder; feel the Response to Comments document includes significant new data on turbulance that was not subject to public review; concerned that the K City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 traffic study did not address fact that the type of business that would go into such a complex will be composed of employees who come and go all day, so have a different trip generation; contest the significant impact standard, feels it needs to be revisited to include turbulence; based on experience a variation of 25% in turbulence (13.5-23 knots) should be the change considered significant; relocating the swimming area and changing the embarkation area for wind surfers will not solve problem because it is so crowded now people use all the area they can to launch, those launching from the swim area would be pushed east by the wind. and end up on the rocks; asked what would be an acceptable height of building to reduce turbulence, have no accurate way to mathematically determine effect on turbulence; submitted a letter that suggested the project could address impacts on wind and turbulence by making the buildings shorter, turning them sideways so the narrow side is into the wind, put taller buildings further from Coyote Point, a 65' height and half the square footage would improve the situation but can't say by how much; in general the distance affected down wind of a building is ten times its height i.e. 125' feet about 1200 feet of impact, if cut in half will see effect in wind shadow; would development on the state lands parcel affect the wind in the recreation area, don't believe so, deck at Embassy Suites Hotel is a popular launch area, that hotel does not block prevailing winds; important to note that Coyote Point is not replaceable, area provides parking, showers, snack bar these facilities not available elsewhere; Third Avenue is impacted, have to get there before the wind blows in order to use; concerned that the study does not evaluate impact on Dore Avenue exit from 101; the original DEIR discusses the General Plan objective of providing waterfront access while maintaining development opportunities, project is asking to exceed maximum height under plan design guidelines; project is not consistent with the Specific Area Plan; if move launch area down there will be a problem with the tides which cause people wind surfing to miss the beach; why is 800 cars on the road not significant; take a good look at this project and its wind impacts, the future will appreciate your actions even more; if move swim area launch gets closer to the dead spot created by the point itself; lower the height of the buildings it will help a lot; asked is there a reason that in responding to Mr. Lavenstein's letter the mitigations proposed were not identified, discussed diagram of realignment of North Bayshore/101 reconfiguration suggested for cumulative development impacts. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. ESA representatives responded to public comments: used standard traffic engineering methodology to evaluate queuing, back up at intersections caused by traffic from project, this methodology looks at overall operation including all movements of an intersection, based on this the traffic from the project has a less than significant impact on the Peninsula/Humboldt intersection; trip generation estimate concern that the P.M. peak number (800) is too low, used data from ITE, average rate accepted by the profession as being best :for planning purposes, do not know precise tenants now so cannot use antidotal trip generation analysis; workers/visitors coming and going during the day affect daily trips, but the analysis focuses on the worst case the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; proportional use of Peninsula interchange to Poplar by south bound traffic is based on empirical data for current use in the area, the number of trips that go further south is so low and dispersed that it did not warrant further analysis. The cumulative analysis for the wind tunnel study did include a hotel structure on the now under used site across the street, so that data demonstrates the effects of full development of the area on the wind; will give staff color copies of diagrams for you to look over; cannot say on a technical basis that a 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 20-30% change in turbulence is unsailable, but it would depend upon the duration of the effect; historical data used for determining wind for wind tunnel study was collected from the weather station at SFO, it is reasonable for the site, people's own sensitivity of wind at the site may be different, but must use most reliable data; the west wind blew 144 hours at 15 knots based on data used. Carl Danielson, representative of the developer; William Ross, 400 Lambert St, Palo Alto: noted that the people who live in San Mateo have an intersection at Arnphlett/Poplar/US 101 that operates today at LOS F; the proposed mitigations signage/diverter would reduce this to LOS B, if these improvements are made and the office project traffic is added the LOS will go to C, still a very acceptable level; important to note that the environmental impact report is an independent analysis of the project, paid for by the developer, but prepared independently by a contractor under the supervision the city; with regard to the comments by the City of San Mateo, Burlingame cannot make these improvements in San Mateo, but mitigations require the developer to pay his fair share of improvements in San Mateo and to make a definite commitment, so the issue of contribution is addressed; the commission must apply the standard of "reasonable method of analysis" supported by empirical data to determine sufficiency of the wind analysis; independence of the EIR preparation, believe complies with the law, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusions and commission can proceed to certify sufficiency of the document tonight. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: asked the CA how the EIR relates to the project action; the EIR is an independent analysis but based on the project proposed by the applicant, certification of the EIR is not complete until final action is taken on the project and any findings of over riding concern are made; the decision before you is whether this document has sufficient information for you to act on the project and that it complies with CEQA; EIR includes alternatives to the project and adds conditions, in reviewing the project commission does not have to make final certification of the EIR (make findings of over riding concern) can just deny EIR and project together. Commission does not have to accept the consultant's recommendation, can ask for more analysis, may or may not agree that an impact .is significant or less than significant, may add mitigation measures and have them incorporated into the EIR when the commission certifies it with the project. The issue before you is does the EIR document give you enough information to act on the project, if yes then it is sufficient, if not the EIR needs to be amended or you need to ask for additional information. Commission comment: concerned about the size of the project it represents 50% of the current office floor area east of 101 in Burlingame, all on 16 acres; feel that the additional number of cars is significant, fixing the intersections is a band -aid, need to upgrade Anza/101 on ramp to a full interchange; project asks for exception to height and a number of other exceptions to the code, too many tells you project is too dense, too many square feet; the height of the project is a significant effect, and not acceptable, need direction; not inclined to, certify EIR in its current state; need to consider that not going to build all buildings at once and impacts will not all occur at once, infrastructure can be put in place over time to phase with project; the wind surfer comments need to be weighted in terms of one person's rights vs. another, could adjust buildings 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 to address and reduce impact, need to give developer a shot at an alternative design; wind surfers did not have enough time to come up with a response; more concerned about traffic than wind, traffic diverters are not going to fix issues in future; city needs to work with state to find a solution; this is an independently prepared document with recommendations for mitigation, don't know how much more we can ask for; report says we have a problem and this project is not going to help it, if this project does not add traffic a project some place else will, the problem is not the project's or the city's, it is a Peninsula community problem, need to get the powers -that -be to look at the corridor; need to act on this document so that we can move to the point we can make conditions and recommendations on the project and reduce its impacts, favor finding of sufficiency; know problems now, project won't be built in a day, if don't find sufficiency can't work on the project; project is too big for existing infrastructure; need to think about how develop the bayfront shoreline, Coyote Point Park is a valuable natural resource, enhances Burlingame; EIR is a tool to see development happen to preserve bayfront would like to see some alternative that would not impact the wind so much, if say wind impact is significant then applicant would have to provide an alternative to address this effect; feel information on traffic is understated, would like to see another analysis which is based on the actual counts on Peninsula, on the wind issue we need to reach a compromise; concerned about the traffic especially in San Mateo, need some mitigation measures to address the freeway; need mitigation for the Broadway off ramp southbound, and there is a problem at Peninsula; BCDC guidelines address encouraging public access, like to see a compromise for Coyote point, it's a valuable place to visit; need to look at different arrangement of buildings; cannot support EIR as it is. Commission comment continued: ask CA can commission declare wind a significant effect, if find wind a significant effect then EIR must re-evaluate, identify new mitigation measures to reduce impact, since not significant ESA and applicant did not have a chance to address mitigations; two alternatives; if for example information on turbulence indicates a significant impact can further evaluate project and re -review EIR, or if it is not a significant impact may impose conditions on the project itself which address the impact. C. Luzuriaga noted have the ability to modify the project don't need to study it to death prefer the second choice and moved to certify the FEIR as sufficient. Motion was seconded by C. Key. Comment on the motion: to CA in the future can commission reduce the number of buildings, yes; can impose mitigations that reduce wind effect and traffic beyond those in EIR, yes; if accept it will close that part of the process, EIR will still be open because of the significant impacts, will take final action on certification with the project findings over riding concern, adding mitigations or denying it with the project; will mitigating effects of wind of revised project be analyzed, yes by ESA not wind tunnel; if find FEIR sufficient will it say that CEQA requirements are met and can they get a building permit, yes if the project submitted for a building permit meets all the code and mitigation requirements and has no significant effects as identified; concerned that if applicant does not ask for an exception can develop without addressing wind effects, feel we need to hold EIR open; if identify wind as a potential significant impact will need to bring back an alternative to the project to address it; planning commission can decide if the reduction is sufficient, do not need it in the EIR. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 C. Luzuriaga moved to amend the motion to continue this item to the meeting of May 10, 1999, so that the commission could deliberate the significant impacts of wind and traffic and give specific direction. The second C. Key accepted the amendment. Comment on the motion: do we need to give some criteria so that they can move on a revision for wind; prefer to do that all at once at next meeting; would like them to address traffic, wind criteria and look to the wind surfing community for what they feel is acceptable and get the information to the commission; discussed traffic at the Coyote Point as significant impact need to identify mitigations not adequately addressed; can the commission be provided with what information the City has regarding improvements to 101 and regional plans. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend the motion to find sufficiency. The motion passed on a unanimous 7-0 vote. Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue this item to the meeting of May 10, 1999. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-STORY, 7-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AT 535 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3 . (KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA, APPLICANT AND JOAN LUTZ, PROPERTY OWNER) A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Kamran Ehsanipour, architect, and Sandi Nichols, 1105 Marlboro Drive, Hillsborough, attorney, represented the project noting they had studied the neighborhood within 500 feet of the project and found that the proposed three story height and number of dwelling units proposed for the lot size were consistent with what currently exists in the neighborhood; the revised project added architectural detail on all sides of the building, provided more parking than required including 5 guest parking stalls for 7 units, there are now three floors of living space, all parking spaces are covered. Commissioner noted that many of the multiple family buildings in the area are older, not conforming to current zoning requirements so are larger than now allow, compatibility does not meant a repeat of these mistakes; compatibility is with what is there by definition; the project satisfies all current zoning codes especially with 7 units and 20 parking spaces, three floors of living space; problem is neighbor does not want two heritage trees retained, applicant does not want to remove them, to accommodate neighbor have applied to Beautification Commission for the removal of one Black Acacia which is marginal; no adverse environmental impacts were identified which could not be mitigated, and applicant accepts conditions. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Speaking on the project: Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road; Elizabeth Saturis, 1477 Floribunda; surprised back so soon after January, 7-0 denial, do not believe that the project has been substantially revised; may have reduced a unit but did not change the foot print of the building or the appearance; took out one bedroom, reduced the square footage by 500 feet; not concerned about the trees have learned about encroachment laws and can take care of oak; concerned about the density of the occupancy of this building, will occupied by larger families than the other multiple family units in the area; parking will be insufficient; documents provided by the attorney on the number of bedrooms in buildings in the area are not correct; Almer Road is becoming a thorough fare from Hillsborough, with all the infill they need to do a traffic study to see what can be done to make the street safer; her condominium faces the project, will remove an 8 inch tree which is not protected but is tall and beautiful to look at, new structure is so close to oak it may damage tree; could tree at front be moved over instead of removed. Applicant in response: the 8 inch tree is not protected and they will put in two trees to replace it at the front visible to this neighbor, willing to work with this neighbor in selecting the type of tree; data provided on number of bedrooms was based on the projects as approved. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted that she had no problem with the project, in its redesign it met many of the items requested, took out one unit, added guest parking which can also serve as a delivery area, saving the oak tree is paramount to this project, removing the Black Acacia is OK, the square footage calculation originally considered include the private open space areas which was an error, so the building is in fact more than 500 SF smaller than originally thought, the windows have been lined up so feel that it is sufficiently different and will be a good fit on Almer; so move by resolution the negative declaration and condominium permit with the conditions as stated in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Comment on the motion: still see the old project, bulky, square and boxie, need to be convinced; agree, stuffed on the site, to compare to others in area is misleading since they are larger with a more efficient footprint; have same feeling about appearance as did before; height is the same as other buildings on the street, well developed common area more than others have; the size of the units is like the rest of the area, the spot is appropriate; want to reduce the bulk, don't want to compare to older buildings. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The commission voted 2 to 5 (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica, Bojuds, Deal dissenting). C. Vistica moved to deny the application on the basis that the design was excessive in terms of mass and bulk, the revision was not enough. The motion died for lack of a second C. Bojuds moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. On the motion: proposed the motion also include direction: in redesign the applicant should consider that the building is too large for the property, not the number of units but there is no 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 roof structure, it is placed as close as possible to the property line given the location of the oak; the bulk needs to be addressed, the number of bedrooms reduced in terms. of square footage and size, previously removed square footage was added on to other dwellings, not what intended. The maker of the motion agreed to the addition proposed by C. Deal the second. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5 - 2 (Cers Key, Coffey dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP C. Deal then made a motion to recommend that the tentative condominium map be denied without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Bojuds. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The vote passed 7-0. APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 509 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (LI:AH & ALEX WINCK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked why applicant cannot respect setback requirements in a when building new. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. The applicant, Alex Winck, 509 Burlingame Avenue was present to answer questions. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Deal moved denial of the side setback noting there is nothing exceptional about this property that would justify the side setback because almost the entire wall on that side of the house will be removed and replaced, the garage can be moved back to 20 feet and still meet code which would allow an uncovered space in the driveway therefore eliminating a need for that variance, and approval of the front setback portion of the project, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 31, 1999, sheet A-1, and March 10, 1999, sheets A-2 & A-3; except that the front setback shall be 20'-0" to the face of the single - car garage door, and the right side setback shall be 4'-0"; 2) that the requirements of the City Engineer's March 16, 1999 memo shall be met; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion to approve the front setback and deny the side setback variance, passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A. 627 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH STORAGE AREA EXCEEDING 10% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENCE AND FOR WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF A SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH EXCEEDING 28'-0" FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE AT 1324 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (NICHOLAS MORISCO, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND RUSSELL WEBBER, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. Nick Morisco, 1324 Capuchino explained to the commission that have reduced size and storage area, since saw last, kept some location because access works but now have more rear yard. Commissioner comments: is there problem with eaves regarding building and fire codes; depends on the Chief Building Inspector, not design review so can adjust. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Deal moved approval of the project noting like the way project looks, fits house since the size was reduced from 706 to 627 SF only 27 SF over, no neighbor has complained and will work with neighbor to place plantings when relocate garage, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1999, Sheets A-1 and A-2; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's (3/12/99) memo and the Fire Marshal's (4/5/99) memo and City Engineer's (3/5/99) memo shall be met; 3) that there shall be no hardship claim for a lot coverage variance, on any future project, due to the size of this accessory structure; and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: Commission recommended a condition be added that there shall be no hardship claim on any future application regarding the lot coverage because of the size of this accessory structure. The motion maker and the second agreed. The motion to approve as revised for future development on the site was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26. 1999 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS FOR A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1420 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (TIM PROCTOR, APPLICANT AND TIM AND ANNE PROCTOR, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked why no windows in the laundry area; why not two car garage now. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. Tim Procter, 1420 Edgehill, answered the commissions questions, noting there was no window at that location because they prefer cabinets to windows above the work area. The garage wall is attached to the neighbors garage and they would prefer to handle that as a separate issue with a separate permit when they can figure out how to remove their garage without causing major problems with the neighbor at a later time. Commission commented that was pleased to see garage used for parking despite the heavy gates across the driveway. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted like the project, blends with the neighborhood, not standard dimension but use it, moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 30, 1999, sheets Cl, C2, D1, El, E2, and Al-A8 and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the requirements of the City Engineer's February 1, 1999 memo and the Chief Building Official's February 25, 1999 memo shall be met; 4) that any reconstruction of the garage shall meet code requirements; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: concerned with variance for garage size property owner could come back and build another substandard garage, there is enough space and floor area. ratio left on the site now to provide for a to code dimension garage in the future, would like conditions to include condition that; any future garage replacement shall meet code requirements. The second accepted the amendment. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added condition. The motion to approve passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Key and Deal dissenting). 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. (HARVEY HACKER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND JOHN MONFREDINI, PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12, 1999) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented there should be no sublease on the property. One employee after 5:00 p.m. will be a car rental employee, not office, employee. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. Harvey Hacker, 528 Bryant Street, San Francisco, addressed the commission. Applicant feels he has meet all demands and suggestions. Commission commended the landscape plan, however asked that the gate be moved back so landscaping can be seen from the street; could reinstall behind handicapped parking. Mr. Hacker noted gate is to provide security at night. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved approval of the project with an added condition that the gate be moved back so the front landscaping is visible from the street, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the application material and plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 15, 1999, Sheets A-1, with 7,640 SF of office space, none of which shall be subleased to any other business; 2) that the office and car rental may not be open for business except during the hours of 9 AM - 5PM seven days per week (Sunday through Saturday) when a maximum number of 25 employees are allowed on site, and after 5PM, Sunday through Saturday, when one employee is allowed on site; 3) that.there shall be provided 26 parking spaces for the office workers (24 standard, one handicap and one compact); 40 parking spaces to accommodate 25 % of the average monthly car rentals from this site, consisting of 24 standard tandem stalls, 12 compact tandem stalls, 7 standard stalls; and 3 additional guest parking spaces shall be provided on site, and that the gate be relocated to the area behind stall #10 or further back; failure to maintain the rental fleet leased from this site to 160 customers per month shall cause this use permit to be reviewed; 4) that this site shall not be used for long term storage of car rental fleet cars regularly leased at another location; 5) that all car washing and detailing of fleet cars from this location shall be conducted at the SFO car rental facility; that all auto repairs (major and minor) shall be conducted at the respective dealer locations where each of the fleet cars is purchased; and that all oil changing shall be conducted off -site at a professional oil -changing location; 6) that there shall be no use of vehicle carriers to pick-up or deliver rental cars from this location; 7) that the applicant shall establish landscaping and irrigation according to the site plan submitted to this office on March 15, 1999, which demonstrates additional landscaping installed along the eastern side property line, and shall maintain the landscaping on this site pursuant to the plan submitted to the Planning Department on March 15, 1999;; and 8) that any improvements for the use shall 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on the motion: Commission suggested that the fence be moved to stall #10 or beyond. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. It was further suggested a condition be added to review upon complaint. It was clarified that Condition #3 will cause that to happen anyway. Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH A LABORATORY USE, AND OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACE AT 330 BEACH ROAD, ZONED O-M. (GLENN CABREROS, CALLANDER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND GEORGE & CHIEKO KUJIRAOKA, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 4.26.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a condition needs to be added regarding water conservation, no. Could petroleum pillows in drains be added in the parking lot, yes. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Deal open the public hearing. Pete Callander, 311 Seventh Avenue, San Mateo, responded to the commission's questions. There is one catch basin, pillows may/or may not work rest of site surface drains to street. The landscaping in front of the 320 Beach rollup door is in front of an illegal door on the adjacent property, they have no right of access. CA commented prescriptive right is difficult to prove, would have to go to court. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: find this request more of a request for a parking variance than for a landscape variance because they have maximized parking at the expense of landscaping which is the opposite of our efforts in revising the O-M district regulations which was to beautify this industrial/office area; there is no parking on Beach Road now, no parking for the building next door, and no way to control the number of employees in a lab. C..Vistica moved approval of the landscape variance and conditional use permit based on the conditions in the staff report with the addition of a condition that the drains on site be fitted with petroleum filters, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: cannot support to heavy an impact on a congested area, went on a site inspection during the day, the parking was terrible, can't support lab use is an intensifying use. City of Burlingame Planing Commission Minutes April26, 1999 Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-4 (Cers. Key, Luzuriaga, Bojues, and Coffey dissenting). C. Bojues moved to deny the variance because of the loss of landscaping to provide more parking was not consistent with the zoning. Seconded by C. Coffey. Commission comments: the laboratory use is also too intensive a use of this property. Maker and second agreed to add that to motion. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-3 roll call vote. (Cers. Vistica, Keighran and Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions from the April 19, 1999, City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 1:20 a.m. MINUTES4.26 19 Respectfully submitted, Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary