Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.06.14MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 14, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Coffey called the June 14, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the May 24, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDAThe order of the agenda was approved. '.OM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1. (KRZYSZTOF KUJAT & JOSEPH FILMUS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: clarify the roof plan for the project, there is a discrepancy between the elevation and the roof plan; consider hipping both roofs on the north side; show setbacks from property line on site plan; noted concern with the length of second floor wall on west side, how will it interface with adjoining residence to west. There were no further questions and, if plans are revised and all the information is provided on time, the item was directed to be placed on the consent calendar of June 28, 1999. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXTEND A FIRST FLOOR WALL AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2228 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND PAUL & SUSANNE VAGADORI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: the second story looks towering, could `ory poles be placed for site inspection; consider lowering the second floor plate line; add dimensions of the C,arage on the site plan; front entrance steps are 13' wide, not in character with neighborhood, review to make entry similar to those on the block; concerned with 3 1/2' overhangs on corner of building when rest of house has l' overhangs, notes 3 1/2' overhang beyond columns at porch, should look like rest of house and neighborhood; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 consider reducing plate height on second floor to standard 8' . There were no further questions and the item was for public hearing on June 28, 1999, if all information is provided on time. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, SUITE H, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (K. TOLU, APPLICANT AND NESET TOLU, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: clarify number and timing of "occasional" deliveries to the site; request a larger site plan to show detail of what is existing and what is proposed; would like applicant to propose a maintenance program, how will garbage be removed from. courtyard seating area, will there be a bus station there or inside, how visible will it be; is courtyard currently being used for seating, there are tables and chairs there now; the applicant noted a maximum of 100 customers, there are 58 chairs, clarify. There were no further questions and, if all the information is provided on time, the item was directed to be placed on the consent calendar of June 28, 1999. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND SIGN EXCEPTION AT 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, SUITE D, ZONED C-2. (FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT AND MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: what is meant by a "high balance" -^ount; noted 3 full time employees and 10-20 customers per day, seems low, could applicant provide a customer .tint at other branches to determine an average; provide a list of other branches nearby; provide estimate of how many customers per day will use the ATM; where will the 3 employees park; will the ATM be linked to others so that customers from other banks can use it; does this bank cater to businesses or private customers; please explain code requirement f6r ATM lighting; what other types of uses fit the definition of bulk merchandise; please provide information on pick up and deliveries of money to the site. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 28, 1999 if all the information is provided in time. B. SIGN EXCEPTION CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners asked: the digital clock is inappropriate, should consider eliminating it; what is height of building at peak versus height of flag poles; why are two flag poles needed, what types of flags will be flown and how are they restricted by code; why are there 2 signs with the same name stacked on parking lot side, First Republic Plaza and First Republic Bank, is the building being renamed; is neon needed with the existing lights on the building and on signs; can the 2 flagpoles be moved back, placed in parking strip; how is sign size measured, when lighted is the panel counted as part of signage; can 33.1 SF of signage above 12' on California Drive be reduced to 30 SF; on parking lot side, can the 56.9 SF of signage be reduced to 50 SF; concerns about change to digital from analog clock on clock tower; will other messages be put on digital clock face such as interest rates, what does sign code say about such other use; 2 signs along parking lot are very similar, no hierarchy, can one be made larger and one smaller; the scale on sheet A A of drawings is wrong, out of proportion, check SF of site area; provide justification for number of sign exceptions and area. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 28, 1999 if all the ormation is provided in time. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AT 1731 ADRIAN ROAD, SUITE 2, ZONED M-1. (LIZAH MCLAUGHLIN, APPLICANT AND STEVEN & LIZAH MCLAUGHLIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project and the commissioners noted that the applicant mentioned group therapy, clarify if this will be family therapy or educational where there are more than 2 people in group. There were no further questions and, if all the information is provided on time, the item was directed to be placed on the consent calendar of June 28, 1999. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR 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 HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2208 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CHI HUNG CHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) airman Deal requested the project at 2208 Davis Drive be called off the consent calendar. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND -STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 927 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2. (THOMAS MCCARVILLE, APPLICANT AND JAY MELLMAN AND MARTHA KOKES, PROPERTY OWNERS) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 25 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1. (STEVE & JACKIE DELORENZI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Vistica asked that it be noted for the record; he will be abstaining from vote on 25 Bloomfield Road, his residence is within the 300 foot noticing area. C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item #7, 927 Capuchin Avenue passed 7-0 and Item #8, 25 Bloomfield Road passed 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining.) Appeal Procedures were advised. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 ,.GULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 2208 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (CHI HUNG CHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 6.14.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested'for consideration. Commissioners had questions related to the facade, as shown, the roof cannot be built; the roof detail shows a gutter, the elevations don't have gutter, need to clarify; wood trim at bottom sill is not shown on elevation, clarify, these elements are integral to appearance of house; would like to continue to the next meeting; plans also show new eave detail on parts of house that are not part of project, very different from what is there now, will entire detail be replaced, need to clarify if an error or if intend to match existing would prefer if match; need feedback from applicant; on front facade there are double hung windows, the back shows aluminum sliders, should the back be more consistent with the front. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Neither the applicant nor the property owner were present to answer questions. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to continue to the June 28, 1999 meeting with the direction suggested. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. _?PLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN 825 SF SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT TO RETAIL/PERSONAL SERVICE USE TO EXPAND A FIRST -FLOOR BEAUTY SALON AT 254 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1., SUBAREA B. (RACHEL GROFFMAN, APPLICANT AND ALLAN MEYERHOFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 6.14.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a change to condition No. 3 relating to hours of operation, original application had stated hours were 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., would like that changed to 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., on Wednesday and Thursday. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Rachel Groffman, 256 Lorton Avenue, applicant, noted that there are currently three tenants in the apartment, when gone there will be no cars from these tenants, there did not seem to be a parking problem from apartments, so should be no problem with the new use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the parking variance, as applicant mentioned there will be no tenants, fewer cars, and there is ample parking in the area; approval, by resolution, with amended condition No. 3; that the hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. everyday as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 4, 1999, Site Plan and Floor Plan, and date stamped May 14, 1999, stair details; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 10, 1999 :mo shall be met; 3) that the beauty salon may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no more than 9 employees and 9 customers on site at any one time; 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 and 4) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as ended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT 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, 6.14.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Twenty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff: Commissioner noted that he received material from the wind surfing association at his home, others also acknowledged receipt of this document; C. Luzuriaga noted that he is participating in the San Mateo County leadership seminar and that Ron Munekawa and Steve Henegar made a presentation on this project to the seminar; asked if the two alternatives -the all office and office/hotel projects -were both before the commission, the CA commented that the notice did not include the hotel alternative so that it was not before the commission for consideration this evening; what can the commission do on the EIR tonight, CA noted have found the document to be sufficient, need to make a formal finding that relied on the information in the EIR in making your decision, the action remaining is largely ministerial not subject to public hearing; asked about the traffic --alyzer and its update, CP responded that study was updated in 1987, not much development in the area for a oade, will update the analyzer again this summer; asked how the environmental action and project action are connected, CA noted they are linked, cannot take an affirmative action on the project until make a statement that have considered the FEIR; have submitted a revised project, is it covered by the FEIR, ESA has reviewed and found that the effects of the revised project are the same or less than the project evaluated in the EIR, if commission denies the project you do not have to act on the EIR. Commissioners then asked about the staff report: what does a high revenue to cost ratio mean, CP noted in SAP looking for higher end development which would bring more tax revenue to the city and thus share expenses with the city better; what roadways does the traffic analyzer deal with, CP responded all the roadways serving the east side of US 101 and the east side on/off ramps at Broadway and at Peninsula, the analyzer does not deal with main line traffic on US 101; is information on the effectiveness of TDM available from Oracle, commission should ask the applicant who discussed this with Oracle; since hotel not noticed how can that alternative be pursued, can direct applicant in that direction and deny without prejudice; will EIR be redone if conditions change in the future, CA if approved the EIR will be vested with the project, there will be no more analysis unless the project changes; if the EIR is not certified what will happen, nothing, the planning commission action can be appealed to city council. There were no more questions of staff. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Carl Danielson, applicant presented the project noting that the developers vision of the project is as a corner stone for a business center which, with other office buildings in the immediate area, would provide enough mass to support regular mass transit service to the intermodal transfer station at the Millbrae train station and secondary services to support the office workers in the area so that they would not have to use their cars once they have arrived on the site; he noted that the project conformed to the C-4 ning district regulations and to the requirements of the Specific Area Plan, except for the height of two of the ouildings which exceed the 65' height limit; they feel that the project site will not support a hotel, it is too far from the airport and customers must pass all the other hotels to get there, the site across the street can only be 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 developed as a hotel and it has a bay frontage site much better suited to hotel use, city hotel operators have inted out the need to have office uses nearby to fill hotel rooms, need to keep land uses diversified. In .,.mewing the project he noted the existing site is an eye sore; proposed building heights are consistent with existing heights of office buildings in the area; wanted parking accessible but not too visible so enclosed parking areas under buildings and provided 10 % landscaping within parking areas open to the sky; concerned about wind on site have provided variety of outdoor environments for pedestrians as well as 1000 SF lobbies within each building for use during inclement weather; development will be Class A using good materials; all perimeter landscaping including BCDC public access will be installed with phase 1, exceed all landscape requirements except for within parking area because vegetation won't grow under the parking deck and buildings; feel have complied with the apparent width requirements because the intent of the regulations was to protect views from the street to the bay, this site has no San Francisco Bay frontage to view from the public right of way; complied with lot coverage by lowering the parking deck and building entrances two feet. Project addresses the impacts in the EIR, agree to all the mitigation measures, noted that the problem at Broadway was the divergence lane on the freeway, not the off ramp, when the auxiliary lane (fifth lane) is added between Millbrae on ramp and Broadway off ramp, the project's impact on US101 will be reduced, project will also incorporate Traffic Demand Management (TDM) to reduce the number of cars coming to the site; the Poplar/Amphlett/US 101 intersection is operating at LOS F now, study for EIR indicated could make improvement which will improve to LOS B without the project, and LOS C with the project, a level less than significant; willing to work with San Mateo and residents to make these improvements; project is committed through the mitigation program to fund its proportional share of cumulative impacts created by the project; to address wind issue, which was not identified as a significant effect, have lowered buildings on the east side of the site to four stories; talked to park rangers who say the wind surfers access the water from the parking lot near the swim '- -ach, their path of travel has affected the swim area further east to the extent that four acres on the west end of swim area are to be opened up for wind surfing by moving the protective piles; only the few beginning wind sailors launch by walking out on the mud at the corner on the west end of the bayfrontage next to the levee; he is convinced from considerable observation that during wind, given apparent drift, the wind surfers launch to the east of the project site and the increase of this area with four additional acres on the east side will cause the revised project to have no effect on the wind surfing activity at Coyote Point Park. What will the project do for Burlingame; it will replace an eyesore with a Class A office development; it will help the hotels by increasing occupancy; it will improve pedestrian access to Sanchez Channel and to the bayfront pathway system; it will participate in realigning the curve in Airport Blvd at Fisherman's Park, improving safety; it will provide built in on -site fire protection; and it will create a business use area with enough mass to support mass transit and secondary service businesses. This is the only site for office left in the Anza Area; they will pay their fair share of the improvements required to support the activity. Commissioners asked the applicant: why is the five story building at 555 Airport shorter, it is the same height as the proposed equivalent buildings, however the structure at 577 Airport is 8 stories at 98 feet which was achieved by using a 12' floor to floor and a 2' parapet which OSHA no longer allows; where did the C B Ellis rendering showed at the study meeting come from; checked with CB Ellis Real Estate, it was generated on someone's computer for a previous project which went no place; what is the effectiveness of TDM in reducing trips, studies show 2 % to 50 % depending upon circumstances; is TDM effective at Oracle, spoke to representatives, have TDM but much of their traffic is generated by seminars and customer meetings where TDM is not effective; Oracle use has different parking impact, their requirement is 3 space per 1000, Oracle )resentative said it should be at least 3.33 spaces per 1000 which is Burlingame's requirement; fortunate for TDM here have direct access to the intermodal station at Millbrae; what amenity are you offering to decrease traffic, provide basic services such as coffee, lunch, magazines, mass transit access, tenants will be required to r City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 have TDM, spoken to neighboring office owners see if can work together to get more mass to attract local vices, cannot support day care services alone but working with others can; hard to determine character of TDM oi- need for day care until have tenants; some good ideas for access but will this become a service mall, staff report suggests a penalty if trip reduction is not met; site plan does not discourage automobile use as buildings on a street would, siting study was based on meeting the largest number of city requirements; what about reducing automobile trips, staff report includes a penalty to the developer if TDM does not reduce trips generated, tried to build in amenities to make it attractive to stay on the site; project is set in a sea of parking, put parking areas under buildings and parking deck out of sight with screening so lower level not look like a total parking lot, put in landscaping to serve as visual screen from above. Chairman Coffey then opened the public hearing to those in support of the project: speaking were: John Blaffles, 533 Airport Boulevard, William Nack, 1153 Chester Drive, Foster City, Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Court, Burlingame and John Thompson, 399 Beach Road, spoke in favor of the project. Met with applicant in agreement with what he is doing; impressed with beautiful design, will contribute to the area; need office space my building has been 100 % full for 8.5 years; Building Trades Council supports the project; developer has committed to employee members, will generate hundreds of jobs; will add money into the local economy because will employ local residents; did not hear developer talk about tax contribution to city, will benefit both city and schools; well thought out a mini -Oracle, will employ city residents; will balance Burlingame Avenue; have lot nearby, big maintenance problem from drive-in, this will be great for the area. Speaking in opposition: Bill Robertson, San Francisco Boardsailors Association (SFBA) President, 1592 Union Street, San Francisco; Paul Dana, 528 N. Idaho, San Mateo, Michael Fowler, Stanford University Medical Center, Peter Thorner, 390 Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland, John Schultz, 2431 Tamalpais Street, Mountain View, Joseph "'Jindell, 1007 Peninsula Avenue, San Mateo, Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, Melanie Taylor, 829 N. .tmboldt, San Mateo, Karina O'Connor, 915 Ashbury Street, San Francisco, George Haye, 1191 Compass Lane, #209, Foster City, Marilyn Mahaffey, 4 Peninsula Avenue, Dave Hedges, Sunnyvale, Judy Dana, 528 N. Idaho, San Mateo, Shirley Licko, 930 Peninsula, San Mateo, John O'Brien, 1025 Peninsula, Jeff Mylo, 500 Airport Boulevard, Eddie Porta, 10675 Martinwood Way, Cupertino, Barbara Russell, 861 North Humboldt, San Mateo, Dan Farmer, 2340 Perch Court, Mountain View, Maybelle Pincheon, 900 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Clem Lang, 906 Hyde Avenue, Cupertino, Gordon Lessick, Palo Alto, Doug Gottschlieb, 595 Mt. View Avenue, Mountain View, Ron Munekawa, City of San Mateo Planning Department, 20th Avenue, San Mateo, Susan Laurin, 772 Walnut Avenue, Steven Henegar, 340 San Antonio, San Mateo, Janet Gehrke, 818 N. Idaho Street, San Mateo, Jeff Obertelli, 102 Victoria, Tom Kaiser 716 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, Jaime Cordera, 1210 Patlen Drive, Erick Roghan, Redwood City, Jane Gleeson, 811 N. Humboldt, San Mateo, and Steve Wilson, 1544 Vancouver, Hen Story, 340 Grand Blvd, San Mateo; Dave Santana, 14 Bayswater. Do not think of open space as an eye sore; if certify the EIR the commission becomes the responsible party, things focus on you; this is a significant impact on wind surfers, deny project and not act on EIR; consultant noted that turbulence impact 1':50', effect from building would be substantial; sail at a point off wind, can not point to left because wind is too dirty, needed to move east into swim area because beginners cannot point up wind as well; concern is traffic, question the estimated 800 trip per day, only a two lane road exits the site into San Mateo, not enough capacity; what will the hours of operation at offices be; will ruin neighborhood already talk about adding a gym in the area; who hired the person who prepared the EIR, was it prepared by the developer; why not fix 'Broadway; some significant error in traffic, miss named streets on diagrams; vanpools are not effective; project would cause property values in neighborhood to decline; wind surfing at Coyote Point is unique resource; if not available other sites in area cannot absorb these wind boarders; consider what will the city gain vs. what it will cost to Northern California 3 the Bay Area; commission received a letter from the Rose Law Firm, do not want the EIR to establish a standard for wind, can incorporate wording to avoid that; have the right to appeal the EIR decision based on the turbulence data not being publicly circulated (insufficient time before hearing on EIR), feel that this was significant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 new information and was unable to get to experts in time; height of buildings given does not include penthouses, at least 10 feet taller than represented here; tried to work with developer to reduce but changed heights did not induce size, should reduce FAR to .57 which is the average FAR of the existing office buildings in the area (555 and 557 Airport are .48 FAR); did not look at rotating buildings to reduce wind impacts; phasing is key, if build structures A, B, and C and no more would have the worst impact on sail boarders, also, if did not build out could not provide additional services which would reduce traffic; the impacts are real, ESA noted that turbulence has a 1:50 effect, protect this natural resource in your back yard; definitely will have a wind impact at site, did in Foster City, can't sail in turbulence, if beginners can't use this area have to go to Chrissy Field, only place left. Comments in opposition continued: current traffic situation poor, south bound 101 is seriously congested; suggest that solution is direct access from east side to 101, think that San Mateo, Burlingame and the C/CAG TAC can find a solution that will not affect the residential areas; increase in tax from project will not help children in school; dispute the fact that 2500 new jobs will not affect the school system; the number of jobs projected exceed the capacity for housing in the housing element, it will take all available space and we will have to up -zone other land to add housing; the analysis in the EIR is incomplete they failed to address the increase in housing demand; traffic on N. Humboldt is terrible, can't get in and out of drive way; think drive-in is eye sore, but all people will not use Broadway and using Humboldt will negatively affect property values, want home protected, find some other way for people to get back and forth; develop freeway access on south side, Coyote recreation area is unique, wind surfing area serves beginners to advanced, provides parking and facilities; heavy landscaping can create a wind shadow; commission has opportunity to make a major quality of life decision, EIR is not adequate because turbulence was not addressed; project is too large cut back to half what is proposed; number of flaws in the EIR roads mislabeled on diagrams, misleading, not agree with traffic projections on N. Humboldt, did not address holding of left turn lanes at Peninsula and Humboldt; have TDM at work cannot participate because am single parent and can't meet day care schedule; cars speed on Peninsula and Humboldt now, dangerous for ..ildren, elderly, crossing the street is very dangerous; have you considered making the Anza freeway exit south bound; has the office vacancy rate been examined; also have current office occupancy densities been addressed; Peninsula Ave. Bridge built in 1947, two lane, can't see adding 2100 ADT without widening it; developer talks about paying to increase roads, all wants to do is bring more traffic into family oriented neighborhood; currently neighborhood affected in San Mateo is working with the city on a neighborhood parking permit program because of the impacts caused by a popular local restaurant; you should ban this project; the island of Aruba ruined its wind surfing by building big hotels like this project on the beach; right now Poplar south bound does not work; compare with Oracle as a beneficial model is a joke, Oracle stops traffic for a mile on 101; is a significant restaurant being included in the project, people in area drive to Burlingame Ave. almost every day for lunch now; settled in bay area because of the wind surfing and quality of life which is so good because of the recreation available; like to see drive-in used as public park; if widen Peninsula to four lanes will drop in front of my house; have lost real value in property from existing property, am a retired teacher, this will affect people who live here now; doesn't the pedestrian access at Sanchez Channel cause apparent width standard to apply to project; asked developer to accommodate wind, has not done it, should deny without prejudice and prepare a development within the SAP limits with a lesser project; concerned about "runoff" (effects) of project, should look at other alternatives to traffic problem which can be done in Burlingame; not fair Burlingame increases its tax roles at her expense; provide access to 101 at Anza in a fly over to south bound 101; developer not say how mitigate traffic with San Mateo, does he have an alternative plan, an alternative which would not invade her neighborhood; board sailors paying for expansion into swim area for people who drift because the existing wind shadow makes it hard to sail; proposed project is out of scale with Burlingame; Coyote Point users have lost view of San Bruno Mountain; traffic problem so bad on 101 that current employer, a soft ware company, is looking to move south of 92; if you int to attract development need to limit amount in future; there is a lot of unused office space now; perhaps 1981 plan needs to be revisited, lot has changed since then; concerned about left hand turn movements at Humboldt and Poplar and Peninsula and Humboldt, stacking areas are not adequate; while Poplar/101/Amphlett is at LOS F and 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 with mitigation can move up to LOS B, the volume of traffic will triple with the project; if provided a mix of uses ,ild reduce traffic at p.m. peak hour; not aware of any place in bay area where TDM has resulted in a major LLip reduction; used to commute to San Carlos, could not use 101 had to shift to El Camino, Oracle with split shifts does not help, has negatively affected the quality of life in San Carlos; husband is in construction, hiring all the time, reducing the size would not affect construction much; need a long term solution for all development on the east side, because any development there will dump traffic in to his neighborhood; decision should be continued until some long term solution is arrived at by Burlingame, San Mateo and CalTrans; used to work in Redwood City, moved business to Fremont, easier to commute across bridge than to Redwood City; people who cannot use Peninsula will use Howard, have asked Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for reduced speed limits and stop signs on Howard; deal with traffic away from San Mateo; about one-third of the week end wind surfers launch from the corner of the area by the wind surf shop, this project would affect their launch; the SFBA is paying to reduce the swim area at Coyote Point Park and increase the wind surf area; high tech workers do not use transit because time is more important than money in commute; if you don't know tenant mix can't predict effectiveness of TDM program; Coyote Point is world class wind sailing, office project would take it off the map; planning commission is responsible for city parks, not to remove, if add these buildings will remove recreation site; to developer this is just money; look at flyover concept to take traffic off Peninsula/Humboldt; will the project support the uniqueness of Burlingame, does it need to be on the shore of the bay; should integrate the office project into the park better; this project should be looked at in the context of future development in the area and traffic needs planned accordingly. There were no further comments from the floor. Applicant responded: west wind information came from San Francisco International Airport, looked at that because office would have the biggest impact on wind from that direction which blows 13 % of the time, rest of the time the wind is at different orientations; the wind percentage was adjusted for the sailing season; TDM does —ork will provide information on what works, will take attitude change. Introduce Bill Ross, attorney, is not true .at project will not benefit schools, state collects developers fees which they reallocate to schools; legislature looking at giving funds back to local schools; housing impacts are a regional issue and are properly addressed on that basis; environmental impact report was prepared by an independent consultant, tonight's decision is a ministerial function. George Haye was recognized from the audience, he noted that the west wind was the worst wind it is a part of the south west and north west winds as well, all wind directions are affected. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: asked if the EIR can be opened for further study at this point. CA Anderson advised that can consider whether it addresses revised project, if propose denial without prejudice, can direct further studies, additional data for project. Commissioners commented that this is difficult discussion, won't make everyone happy, felt project too big, project traffic impacts too severe, feel need to open EIR; not in support of exceeding 65' height limit, traffic impacts at Poplar are severe, should think about closing the on -ramp at Popular, wind impacts are significant and have not been mitigated, not the intent to have the EIR set standards for turbulence, but need to further study rotating buildings, lower height, consider eliminating building B because it is closest to the bay; need to look at height of buildings, all 4 story buildings would reduce height below 65' and reduce floor area by one third. Further Comments: this is a complicated, very large project, worth much consideration, this project looks like it was designed in 1950's, buildings surrounded by parking, in future won't see this pattern, project doesn't have elements that make it work for alternative transportation, not connected to downtown, project could adapt, design firm has done forward thinking design on other projects; many suggestions made, can't make it into park, but n't have to allow developer to do whatever they want; need to resolve, now have 635,000 SF of office space in Anza Area, existing complexes have an average FAR of 0.6, give direction to reduce FAR with 3 buildings closest to Coyote Point at 3 stories and the others at 4 stories, would be about 425,000 SF; some mitigation is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 in future, auxiliary lane at Broadway projected in 2008, Peninsula interchange improvements are in the talking `ages only, listened to TDM discussion, wish they worked, need long-term solutions for transportation, cannot -6k developers to wait, can look at EIR more, like to see reduction of heights, turning of buildings to lessen wind effects, possibly a wind tunnel study. Commissioners noted that the main concern is with the FAR, had discussed importance of alleviating height, but revised project did not alleviate FAR, direction was given and a lot of aspects were not dealt with; of the existing office buildings around the project, the ones with similar FAR were built before specific area plan was adopted; average of area is about 0.6 FAR, lots of room to decrease project; in comparing with Oracle it is a larger site but is close in proportion, problems could be similar; concerned with TDM, since there is a vast difference in how it has works, need to do more research on what has worked; need to look at EIR, wind tunnel studies need to be done, increases in height for buildings D & E will increase turbulence, need further study to determine amount. Project is too large, need to scale back, look at parking and traffic, situation is changing rapidly, have to have vision to look ahead to business changes which affect traffic and parking, project is more intense, need to look at phasing and how it affects future decisions; size is key, will impact Burlingame, larger planning issues are the affects on adjacent areas and communities, how buildings are laid out; will impact Coyote Point, roads, infrastructure; need to reduce size to realistic FAR, believe that TDMs can be an aid to dealing with traffic problems, a lot more people are using trains and seeking alternatives; regarding the arrangement of buildings, there needs to be a more positive link between the plaza and Sanchez Channel, lays out as a windswept plaza, not as useable outdoor space; can't think in typical terms to solve these problems, would not mind revisiting EIR, need more thorough wind analysis. Concerned about traffic bumping, where there is an impact on intersections, then traffic goes to the next road over, needs to be addressed in EIR; not satisfied with housing component of EIR, doesn't look at full range of issues, relationship between housing stock and office development, and the ability live where you work; building is in sea of parking, show sea of landscaping to mitigate; concerned with "Oracle mile" impact, will be a factor here no matter what we do with size, need to address the community components of the project, could commit areas of the building to retail, restaurants, day care; concern with Humboldt and Poplar/Amphlett intersection, need to see other mitigation measures, appears to be congested throughout the day; would like to see more amenities to decrease need to leave the site, need better sense of what will be offered; sitting areas are near staircases, need more open space, larger lobbies; commission has given direction, hope developer uses suggestions, need to keep hotel option in mind, does reduce traffic during peak. Commissioners are looking for more information; would like to see reduced size, address wind issues, how much space for restaurants, laundries, day cares; hotel option is strong alternative, easier to accommodate service uses, shifts traffic patterns; need everyone to work together, community concerns are size, traffic, wind; this area is zoned for office, there are code factors to meet; EIR will never be perfect, it deals with a static situation rather than a moving target; project impacts San Mateo residential area, don't work in a vacuum, realize that what we do will impact elsewhere, any development will have some impact, have to concentrate on working together, get Caltrans involved in traffic issues, lots of impacts beyond the control of cities, we will have project someday which will please some, wish could meet everyone's concerns, impossible. Commissioners asked CA if it is appropriate to reopen the EIR. CA Anderson noted that if giving direction to revise project, could use EIR as resource document to revise project, can deny the project without prejudice and not act on the EIR. Deal made a motion to deny the project without prejudice, with the hope that the applicant will listen to uirection and come back to commission. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1999 ''omment on the motion. Commissioners asked if should consider continuance rather than deny without prejudice. _A Anderson noted that a denial without prejudice gives the applicant the option to come back with a similar or reduced project, the environmental document can be redrafted to address specific concerns raised. Commissioners noted that originally there was one main access point to project, now has 4 driveways, would like to see one main entrance to meter the traffic out of the site; make sure enough direction has been given to applicant to keep it from coming back repeatedly; if project resubmitted, would like to see it come back to study session. Chairman Coffey called for a roll call vote. The motion to deny without prejudice was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. No action was taken on the EIR. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions from the June 14, 1999, City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m. MINUTES6.14 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary 11