Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.12.01MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 1, 1999 4:00 P.M. Conference Room A CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the December 1, 1999, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 4:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Dreiling, Deal, Keighran, Vistica and Luzuriaga C. Bojues arrived at 4:20 p.m. Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe, City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Marty Abell, Environmental Sciences Associates APPROVAL OF AGENDA: There were no changes to the agenda. DISCUSSION ITEM: CP Monroe introduced Marty Abell from Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA) one of the City's pre -selected environmental consulting firms. She noted that Mr. Abell began his career in preparing environmental impact reports in 1973 the same year that Friends o, f Mammoth won the law suit which extended the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to private development. CP noted that the format for the meeting was one of discussion, and that she, Marty Abell and CA Larry Anderson were all present to respond to commission's questions regarding CEQA and processing CEQA applications. She handed out a brief summary of CEQA prepared by staff to be used as a discussion guide. Key points discussed: the objective of CEQA is to disclose to those making the decision on a project and the public the adverse (significant) effects of a project on the environment. There are two kinds of adverse effects under CEQA: significant and unavoidable, those that there is no way to reduce to an acceptable level; and potentially significant, those that with some physical improvement can be reduced to a level which is acceptable. An environmental document is intended to provide information not advocate a project. It should be objective. To insure that the report is objective the preparation of the environmental document is the responsibility of the city. The city selects the preparer; and the city is responsible for the information, mitigations (ways to reduce the significant effects), and conclusions expressed in the report. But the Burlingame Planning Coinnussion Minutes Special Afeeting, December 1, 1999 environmental document is intended only to identify the significant environmental issues and evaluate them; it provides input for making decisions on the project. Moreover, items identified in the environmental report which are not considered to be significant, but which the commission thinks are important to the community, can be further addressed by the commission at the project review stage of action. In addition the environmental report is not the only informational input on the project. There are areas of study outside the environment which the commission may wish to also have a developer address. These should be identified as the commission moves on to discussion, hearing and evaluation of the particular project proposed for commission's action. This project may be the original project proposed for the EIR evaluation, it may be an alternative identified in the EIR, or it may be some combination of the proposed project and the alternatives. Commission then discussed the environmental review process as set out in CEQA and applied in the city: the steps in the preparation and approval process were briefly reviewed and the commissioners asked about the relationship between action on a CEQA document and action on the project. It was noted that action on the CEQA document must be done before action on the project. In the case of an EIR the action taken is a certification. The commission must find in a certification action: 1) that the document prepared reflects the independent judgement of the city; 2) that the document was prepared in compliance with CEQA (including following all the procedural and noticing steps), and 3) that the document was presented to the Planning Commission which reviewed and considered it before acting on the project. CEQA is clear about the fact that certification of an environmental document does not prejudice action on a requested project. Approval of a project with unavoidable significant effects requires special findings at the time of action on the project, not at the time of action on the FEIR. In addition action on the project may change because of the environmental disclosure. The commission may have become aware of issues that were determined to be environmentally " less than significant" but which the commission feels, from a community -need point of view, should be addressed directly by the project developer. In the project review/action part of the process, these additional issues can be identified and the applicant asked to address them as a part of his development program. Commission discussed CEQA as it fits into the city's planning review process: The time lines set out to prescribe the CEQA preparation and certification process were also discussed in the framework of how the commission participates in identifying the issues around developing a given property which should be included in the environmental document; and how the environmental document fits in to the time line of the city's project review process. The discussion of timing also included a review of the statutes of limitation on the various kinds of environmental documents and how they are handled in San Mateo County. There was a brief discussion of case law as it relates to time limits on the required steps in preparing an environmental document and processing the report after project action. FROM THE FLOOR CP Monroe told the commissioner's that, based on the current length of the next few agendas and the concerns expressed by commissioners about very late night meetings, staff has separated 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting, December 1, 1999 the CEQA action (certification) of the FEIR on the proposed project at 301 Airport Blvd. from the project action. Only the action on the FEIR is set for the December 13, 1999, meeting. She also suggested, that because of the number of interested people and the length of the commission's on -going agendas, the commission might consider a separate, special meeting, for the hearing and action on the project in January or February 2000. The commission might consider holding the special meeting with public hearing on a mid -week evening, so that if the consideration could not be completed at a reasonable hour on one night it could be continued to the next night for completion. With this approach both nights could be noticed initially and interested people could adjust their schedules accordingly. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 6:22 p.m.