Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.12.13Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 13, 1999 7.00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the December 13, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighra.n, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION - Michael Coffey Chairman Luzuriaga read the resolution honoring Councilman Coffey for his service on the Commission. C. Coffey thanked the Commission and staff for their support during his term on the Commission. MINUTES The minutes of the November 22, 1999 regular meeting and the December 1, 1999, special meeting regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. CP Monroe pointed out that the project applicant at 1411 Chapin Avenue, item 13, has requested that review of that item be continued from tonight to the Commission meeting of January 24, 2000. Commissioner noted that this agenda appears to be too long to cover in one evening, could commission set the action on the 301 Airport FEIR over to another meeting. CA Anderson noted that because of the placement of the item at the end of the agenda the applicant did not intend to arrive until 9 p.m., this item could be discussed at that time; members of the audience who want to be noticed of a different date could leave their addresses; applicant is interested in keeping the process going. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the commission will discuss this item at 9:00 p.m. and any one who wants to leave their address with the secretary can do so. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS 149 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (ANDREW & TRINA PASCAL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and request and the commissioners asked.: applicant is proposing a flat metal roof on the addition, the roof's appearance could be made more compatible with the existing roof and would look less like an "add on"; need to justify the architectural design, what inside the building is driving the need for the variance, compatibility with the existing house design or what; concerned about the inconsistency of the addition with the rest of the house and the roofing material and slope of the roof. There were no further questions and, providing all the information is submitted the Planning Department in time, the item was set for public hearing on January 10, 2000. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR) NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS. (WORLD WRAPPS, INC., APPLICANT AND SHIRLEY KING TR., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and request, and the commissioners asked: unclear if the size of the menu board changes seasonally or the number of items placed on the board changes; need a better explanation of the awning sign, sheet 3 drawing shows the letters crowded on the awning surface, the picture of the front elevation shows a more proportional presentation, prefer the one on the front elevation even if it is smaller, reducing the area would make the proposal more conforming; would like to know if the applicant looked at any alternatives, like using a "tag line" below the restaurant name, by combining tag line and the major signage could reduce the: overall signage requested; seems to be some dispute about how to measure a blade sign, would staff define how the city measures a blade sign and how it applies here; there was a recent amendment to the conditional use permit on this site, what was it, please include copy of minutes from that action. There were no further questions and, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time, the item was set for public hearing on January 10, 2000. 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A MEZZANINE TO EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICES. (MICHAEL NILMEYER AIA, APPLICANT AND WEM PENINSULA REALTY CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the applicant's requests and the commissioners asked: there have been previous applications on this site would staff include the minutes from these applications in the staff report; were any variances or other special permits granted to this site; concerned about a 45% deficiency in parking, could the applicant reduce the amount of office space added to reduce the parking requirement. There were no further questions from the commissioners and, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time, the item was set for public hearing on January 10, 2000. 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS TO PARKING TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN PARKING RATES. (DAVE CASH, MILE HI VALET SERVICE, APPLICANT AND HMH SFO INC.. PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the applicant's requests and the commissioners asked: what are other hotels and places charging for parking in Burlingame; the reason this property owner was allowed to regulate parking and charge for it was to stop "poacher parking", not to get a return on the investment, why do they want an increase, do not see that the costs have increased that much in 2 years; have we received any complaints about people parking off -site in the area since the fee parking has been in effect. There were no further questions from the commissioners and, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time, the item was set for public hearing on January 10, 2000. ACTION ITEMS LETTER OF NOVEMBER 23, 1999, FROM THE INDEPENDENT AND DISCUSSION OF OCTOBER 23, 1999 LETTER PUBLISHED IN THE INDEPENDENT, INCLUDING CONTACTS WITH APPLICANTS BY CON MISSIONERS. CA Anderson reviewed the staff report noting that this office had received a letter from The Independent requesting the Commission "rescind" the October 23, 1999, letter sent to the newspaper and discuss its contents at a Commission meeting. He summarized briefly the contents of the staff report and asked the commission if they had questions. There were no questions from commission. N City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Chairman Luzuriaga noted that this item was on the action calendar and was subject to public comment. He asked for comments from the floor. Cathy Baylock; 1527 Newlands, spoke noting that to follow due process at a public meeting some one from the floor should speak; she indicated that she knew about this situation and the purpose of the letter; she has been to many meetings and felt that the letter to the newspaper from the commission was a matter of "honor", she was more aware than most of the time the commissioners spend preparing for meetings and then attending them, more than 20 hours a week after their business commitments; feel that you treat the applicants fairly and represent the residents of the city well; this letter was made public and given to the City Council; feel that we should get on with the important business of Burlingame. There were no further comments from the floor and the comment period was closed. The Commissioners made no further comment and the item was closed. 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. Commissioner commented that have no problem with the consent items however both 117 Bancroft and 1124 Dufferin do not show windows large enough for emergency egress from the bedrooms, these double hung windows will have to be enlarged and this will mean that they will change from what is shown. Plans do not need to come back to the Commission, but this should be noted for building plan check. 117 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION. (STEVE & LOUISE NATOLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) 1124 DUFFERIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MIKE SEREDA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) 843 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION. (STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND SCOTT AND DONNA ELLIOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) C. Bojues noting the change to 1124 Dufferin Avenue and 843 Walnut Avenue, 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. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the two revisions. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. REGULAR CALENDAR 1209 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION. (KARIN PAYSON, APPLICANT AND CHRISTIAN & ERICA REILLY. PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Karin Payson, 612 Howard Street, San Francisco, architect described the responses made to the questions raised by the Planning Commission, noted this is a narrow site, 40 feet wide, wanted to keep the addition small and compact, keep it toward the front rather than make it long and narrow; wanted to build addition consistent with the Craftsman style of the house; the family room was mislabeled as bedroom, will be open as required to the kitchen, existing garage configuration is adequate; proposed a 9' ceiling height on the second floor since the overall height would be 25-10" where 30' is allowed; will lower ceiling height if commission desires. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: noted that they are fairly satisfied with the design, if 8'ceiling height will work for applicant, would like to see that change; compatible with the two-story Craftsman style, kept it simple. C. Drieling moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the amended conditions in the staff report, and with the added condition that the ceiling height for the second floor shall be reduced from 9 feet to 8 feet. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. On the motion: noted that the findings for a variance can be made based on the narrow lot, the declining height envelope was originally geared for a 50' wide lot, is not appropriate in this case; noted that the applicant did an exemplary job, wish all were this true to the character of Burlingame. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 21, 1999, sheets A-0.1 through A-1.2 and A-2.2 through A-3.4, and date stamped December 3, 1999, Sheet A-2.1; except that the ceiling height on the second floor shall be reduced in height from 9' to 8', and the plate heights adjusted accordingly; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 25, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 735 - 741 LINDEN AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOCATION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3-CAR GARAGE AND LAUNDRY AREA. (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND SAM BARRETTA, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked if for 3 dwelling units, are 3 parking spaces required. CP Monroe noted that 5 parking spaces are required, based on the number of bedrooms, 801/o of the spaces must be covered, 4 covered spaces required in this case. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, 135 Arroyo Court #4, San Mateo, representing the applicant noted he was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the plate height proposed is 10 feet, application notes that in his experience this is common; have you done any in Burlingame; asked about the laundry facility, will it serve all of the units, it appears that there is a private yard between units at 737 Linden and the laundry room door, would access to the laundry room for them be through the main garage door; what is the reason for the large number of electrical outlets; suggested putting lots of plugs in one place for equipment recharge would be more convenient; why do you propose a 4" waste line; what is the justification for the 9' high garage doors; why is the laundry area so big; what is the reason for the footing for a future dividing wall. The applicant responded that he :had built some garages in Burlingame City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 with a 10 foot plate height, but these were attached rather than detached garages; noted that there will be a pathway and access to the laundry room man door available through the yard; the outlets are needed because the property owner is a contractor has equipment that needs to be plugged in, some need battery chargers; for the 4" waste line, the increased cost to install 4" versus 2" is minimal, a 2" line for laundry room can get clogged; the 9' high garage doors are proposed in order to accommodate a loaded work truck, once the plate height was set at 10% doors were all designed at 9', the laundry area is large so that this area can be used by tenants for tandem parking, did not show it because thought tandem parking was not allowed; regarding the footing for the dividing wall, the owner intends to close off that area in the future and use it for storage. CP Monroe notes that tandem parking is allowed, it just cannot be counted as required parking. CA Anderson noted that the commission should ask for assurance from the applicant that this will not be used as a contractor's storage yard. CP Monroe also noted if the laundry area were converted to a storage area in the future, there are code requirements for the amount of detached storage area allowed on a residential lot, this issue should be addressed in the conditions. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: there are some major concerns with project, okay that applicant wants to provide garage space, but new building proposed is appropriate for more residential use than the site legally allows; there is a review limit of 600 SF for detached garages, this one is double that; applicant notes that 10' plate height is compatible with dwellings, the requirements for accessory structures keep the plate height down to diminish their size so they don't compete with dwellings; propose that applicant omit the demising wall, waste line should be 2" not 4", if 4" allowed, water closet could be put in at a later date, cannot do that with a 2" line; using the fact thatcurrent development is nonconforming (3 units in a duplex zone) is not justification for a larger garage, building needs to be brought. back to scale, based on need to park three cars and providing an 8' x 10' laundry room, 710 SF would be adequate; regarding plate height, want to avoid the use as a contractor's storage yard as well as the look of a commercial building; there are too many electrical outlets proposed. C. Deal moved denial of the variance application for the reasons stated. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. On the motion: Commission is being asked to look at 6 exceptions, would be easier if proposal was appropriate to the needs, basic parking and laundry space; no problem with the variance for being located forward of the rear 30% of the lot because of the unusual lot shape and double street frontage, the location can be justified. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. AREA BOUND BY ROLLINS ROAD, TOYON AVENUE, LINDEN AVENUE AND ROSE COURT EXTENDED WEST, ZONED R-3 AND R 1- APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM SHOPPING AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (7 PARCELS) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (10 PARCELS). (CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPLICANT) (135 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. There were no questions from the commission. Commissioners asked staff: is the 7-Eleven site zoned R-3, yes; where is the R-3 overlay zone on Rollins Road, begins a few blocks to the south of this site and extends to city line; in the overlay zone if exceed more than one residential unit per 2000 SF of site what can you do, request a variance; do not like the multiple family to single family transition, is it possible to zone this area R-2, yes but would need a corresponding general plan land use designation. Letter from Karlene Harvey, 920 Linden, was noted she commented on the need for a traffic and parking study if the land use designation was to be changed. There were no more questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Nate Dunes, 932 Linden spoke, concerned about the general plan amendment, negative declaration assumes no major impact on existing land uses, want to see change of designation from commercial to R-1 and R-3 zones area should revert to commercial zoning and land use; Linden area is impacted with parking from apartments on Rollins, commercial use would increase revenue to the city, require fewer city services and generate less peak hour traffic; could declare some kind of special zoning area and let the community discuss the best solution; the question was raised by the condominium applicant but the effect of the change will be on the Linden residents because of the on -street parking issues; if the city want's a negative declaration it is unfair not to hear what the impacts would be if had less density or commercial uses. Commissioner asked: do you want the 7 parcels zoned R-3 to be rezoned to commercial, C-1, yes it would have less impact than medium density residential, require fewer city services and increase available parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: generally, along Rollins Road is a good location for multi -family housing as opposed to commercial uses, but the result at this spot is that it might be a poor place to live, so maybe the people who did the original general plan were correct in their commercial designation; where is the logical place to make the break between multiple family and commercial, at Rose Court extended seems arbitrary; do not like to put multiple family next to single family, so not sure want to change; need to look at medium -high density residential can get 12 dwellings on a double lot, the people behind want a buffer zone; do have the opportunity of the R-3 overlay which would allow 5 dwellings on a double lot which is a big difference; this area has a big impact on the R-1 because in addition to allowing 35 feet, the lot slopes so building is taller; commercial uses have little activity at night so would be more compatible with residential uses; commercial is a better use since this area is next to one of the busiest intersections in the city, 7-Eleven generates a high level of activity day and night, can't see the R-3 overlay use here; commission needs to take a closer look, take a couple of meetings to discuss; think that doing an EIR is more than is needed for disclosure; commercial use would be less intense than what is there now; if going to consider commercial use do not want to see more of the 7-Eleven type of businesses, could they be regulated out by special permit, CA pointed out C-1 zoning allows 24 hour businesses; how was the requirement of conditional use permit managed on the corner of Adeline and El Camino; CA pointed out that the commercial general plan designation does allow multiple family in commercial. Commission directed the general plan designation issue back to staff to look at alternatives and pros and cons of commercial use; should consider parking on Linden and traffic in the area. The :Linden frontage should continue with a single family residential designation and R-1 zoning, the staff focus should be on the area fronting on Rollins Road between Toyon and Rose Court extended. Staff should bring this item back to the commission after evaluation is completed. 949-965 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-STORY, 11-UNIT CONDOMINIUM WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING. (RONALD A. PERNER, APPLICANT AND W.J. BRITTON & CO., PROPERTY OWNER) (49 NOTICED) - CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1999 A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and. Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty Five conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted the letter received after the packet was prepared from Karlene Harvey, 920 Linden Ave., in opposition to the project noting that nine single family sites will be impacted by the project and expressing concern about the lack of sufficient on -suite parking and subsequent impact on street parking posed by the project because of its size. Commissioners asked what can the commission do without the General Plan amendment; CA responded the commercial designation in the plan allows residential development so it could be treated like a second zoning and the commission could grant a conditional use permit for the residential use. What is the status of the Negative Declaration; the :negative declaration for this project is C City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 independent of the negative declaration for the general plan, this one focuses on the impacts of the project itself, There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ron Perrier, architect, 1849 Bayshore Highway, represented the project. Have submitted a project which complies with the R-3 zoning of the site, and despite the General Plan designation the site is zoned R-3; the aerial photo in the packet shows the surrounding environment of the site and the fact that there is zero set back from the 7-Eleven as well as from adjacent development; he did drive around town and look at the projects suggested by commission; while doing work on the site his civil engineer noted that there was a lot of freeway noise which this proposed project would block for the single family houses behind it; feel that this project might be the key to getting an improvement to the existing properties, he showed pictures of the poor maintenance and run down conditions of the nearby multiple family buildings; residential development can be built to 30 feet and his building is at 35 feet, only 5 feet higher; his project will solve problems, he exceeds the parking requirement, has moved the rear wall back an additional 9 feet to 29 feet at the third floor to give adjacent neighbors the sense of a two story building, addressed all items previous discussed and have included a letter which documents those changes. CA noted that this application was found to be complete in June when the Public Works Department accepted as complete the map, the Planning Commission must act tonight since this is the commission's last meeting before the time tolls on permit processing. There were no questions of the applicant and no other testimony from the floor. Commissioner discussion: need to take action, have some concerns with the project: the image, this is a gateway to the residential part of Rollins Road, not see any other three story building on a parking podium in this immediate area, not a good fit; concerned about the location of the driveways two at property lines, one immediately adjacent to the driveway for 7-Eleven which has a high volume of traffic fear that there would be conflict between users. C. Deal noted that to the south of this site on Rollins Road have an overlay zone which would allow 5 units on this site, this project shows 11, 45 dwellings per acre, which is close to the maximum 51 allowed in the General Plan, so at the upper limit adjoining the R-I zone, applicant has tried to address this impact by increasing the setback, adding landscaping, made an effort but the project is going in the wrong direction, so on the basis of these facts and the items cited by the other commissioners and in the staff report, moved to deny the project and take no action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: important that it is clear that what is proposed is a three and four story box with some space around it, there are driveways open to the sky on both sides of the building, the design could include an enclosed garage fully below grade, a courtyard at the center of the project and greater articulation. on the outside of the structure, more is needed here than just dressing up the building, substantial redesign is necessary. The action on the General Plan could affect the future use of this property. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP C. Deal moved to deny the maps based on the fact that the project did not conform with the General Plan and because the commission denied the project. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the map. The motion passed 6-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 1411 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1- APPLICATION FOR. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS -AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. (JOSEPH KARP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (54 NOTICED)- CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 22,1999, REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 24, 2000 At the applicant's request, this agenda item is continued to the January 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 880 STANTON ROAD, ZONED O-M - APPLICATION FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSION VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE TO ALLOW LESS ON -SITE LANDSCAPING THAN REQUIRED, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO VARY FROM THE FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INCREASE IN OFFICE USE. (RUSS HORA, CORK REALTY INC., APPLICANT AND ALBERTO M. RODRIQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (18 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that the applicant is now proposing 52 parking spaces, previous submittal proposed 62 spaces, and the existing use would have required 38 parking spaces; is there a code requirement for truck parking stall dimensions. CP Monroe noted that there is no standard, we look at it on a case by case basis, size varies based on the size of the truck. There were no further questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Paul Bessieres, 594 Howard Street 4200, San Francisco, architect for JSI Shipping presented a colored site plan for his proposal; plans have been revised based on the Commission's questions; have provided designated truck parking; employees will be there all day, felt that narrower spaces would work, asking for 8'-6" wide stall because it gives more landscaping on the site especially 3' along the front of the site and allows 4' wide entry walkway to the building behind the truck loading area; could provide the same number of spaces with 9' width, but there would be less landscaping and no walkway to the building from the rear parking lot; there will be a tenfold increase in landscaping with this proposal, site is barren now. Commissioner questions: would the applicant be willing to cut back on office space; what are the dimensions on the truck parking spaces; is there an easement for the roll -up door entry on the adjacent property; could the two driveways for the loading dock and the parking lot be consolidated. The applicant responded that the applicant would sell the building if they couldn't have that much office space, that is the amount of space needed; the truck parking spaces are proposed to be 9' wide x 40' long; there is no easement for access to the adjacent roll -up door, but is same owner, intends to use it that way; there would be a conflict between the trucks at the loading dock and the cars entering the site if shared the same driveway. Commissioners noted that if there were one driveway, might be a way to meet code requirement for landscaping; there are opportunities for more landscaping in parking lot and in back; can a truck maneuver into the proposed truck spaces, would like to see specific truck sizes, diagram how can maneuver. Russ Hora, 1535 B Rollins Road, applicant, noted that their biggest truck is 24' long, have two of those, some vans are used, not all big; trucks, do not own any semi -trucks, if semis come to site, they will go to loading dock. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: there is an increase in the use of the building proposed, have to look at the fact that this is an existing building, existing landscaping is deficient, made great strides in furnishing; something that is better than before, would like to see 9' wide parking spaces; as far as truck parking, would like to see how trucks can maneuver back there, if cannot maneuver, trucks will park on street, concerned about driveways, could use just one, but would like to see other driveway kept to keep trucks separate; would like to see more landscaping on site;, have trouble supporting in this state, can be easily improved, standard width of truck parking is 12% one wide driveway should be enough for trucks and cars, the truck dock is 80' back; 8'-6" width is fine, could also shorten length to get: more landscaping and nicer parking arrangement; main concern with truck parking, would like to see wider spaces, otherwise hard to maneuver into and they won't be used; not that worried about trucks, not that concerned about landscaping, this is an industrial area, like the driveway pattern, can support project; current layout works, circulation pattern is there, trucks good at maneuvering, can negotiate; 50 parking spaces required, 52 spaces provided. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 C. Luzuriaga moved, by resolution, to approve the project/application with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 1, 1999, Sheet 1, with a total of 52 off-street parking spaces designated for employees, 9 off-street parking spaces designated for visitors and disabled accessibility, and a total of 5957 SF of landscaping, 3936 SF of which is located in the front 30 feet of the site; 2) that the parking spaces on the east side of the site shall be increased to 9' width with a commensurate reduction in the landscaping from what shown on plans date stamped December 1, 1999, and that the parking spaces adjacent to the building shall be 8'-6" wide in order to accommodate: a 4' wide walkway from the parking area behind the loading dock into the building; 3) that the 5 designated truck parking spaces at the rear of the site shall be increased in width to 12' each, and the 16' aisle next to the truck spaces at the rear of the site shall be eliminated or reduced the width of the backup aisles shall not be altered; 4) that the variance for parking space dimension shall automatically expire if the existing warehouse/office structure is demolished (more than 50% of the exterior walls are removed or changed) and/or the use of the structure is changed including adding more office to the existing structure; 5) that the 10.5% (5957 SF) of the site in landscaping, or less as adjusted by condition 2, as proposed shall be installed with irrigation and maintained, and that failure to maintain the on -site landscaping and the required 5957 SF of landscaped area shall result in review of the variance, and the final inspection shall not be scheduled until the landscaping an irrigation system are installed, 6) that during the demolition and reconstruction of this parking lot and landscape areas, the applicant shall comply with Burlingame's Storm Water Management and Discharge Ordinance, and shall apply Best Management Practices (BMP) pursuant to C.S. 15.14.140.3 to the greatest extent possible to reduce off -site erosion and sedimentation resulting from this project; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. On the motion: agree with motion except for the truck parking, concerned that trucks won't park there since they can't maneuver; could widen the truck spaces to 12' by eliminating the drive aisle in the rear of the site; Chair Luzuriaga amended the ordinance to include a condition to increase the width of the truck spaces to 12% C. Dreiling agrees to the amendment. Commissioners noted that think landscaping is an issue, this is not completely an industrial area, intensifying to more office, would like to see project studied to conform to landscaping requirements by providing landscaping within the parking area and along the side property line. Chair Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion, by resolution. The motion passed on a 4-2 (Cers. Boju6s and Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT AND AREA OF SIGNS. (STEVE PETERSON, AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND BAY PARK PLAZA ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) (24 NOTICED) - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Reference staff report, 12.13.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Steve Peterson, Ad Art Electronic Sign Corporation, applicant, noted that revised drawings have been submitted, the total square footage has been reduced, elevations have been revised to reflect more accurately the letters on the parapet; this proposal is reduced more than 50% from previous proposal; it is as small as it can get and have it be readable; letters are thin stroke, so their impact will be less than the Forbes sign for example; the proposed red and black colors are corporate trade marks. Mark Kent, CFO for Crossworlds, would like to have the sign, have the lettering down to a size which is tasteful, been at this location 3 years, will add 100 people next year, need identification. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Commissioners noted that the applicant has accommodated the commission's concerns. C. Bojues moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. There were no comments on the motion. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the wall signs (Signs A and B) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 3, 1999, site plan, sign elevations, building elevations and cross section (I I" x 17" sheets); 2) that the maximum height of the proposed wall signs (Signs A and B) shall be installed no higher than 97'-0" measured from ground to top of sign; 3) that the copy of the signs shall read "Crossworlds," that the maximum height of the logo shall be T-83/8" (10.6 SF), and that the maximum height of the Ietters shall be no greater than 2'-6"; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 - PUBLIC COMMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 488,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN THREE FIVE -STORY BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE. (DAN LEVIN, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 12.13,99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the commission would take public input tonight and asked CA Anderson what the action would be. CA noted that the action would be on a resolution to certify the Final EIR; the applicant has submitted some suggested changes to the resolution some are matters of style, others are substantive, the commission must decide what is to be in the resolution. The Chairman noted that an action this evening would be on the adequacy of the document prepared and this decision will not impact any decision to be made on the proposed project. Chairman Luzuriaga then opened the meeting to public comment from the floor: Chip McGrath, 2301 Russell Street, Berkeley; Peter Thorner, 390 Alcatraz Avenue, Oakland; Ron Munekawa, City of San Mateo Planning Department,; Steven Henegar, 340 San Antonio St, San Mateo; Bertha Sanchez, 15 No. El ]Dorado Street, San Mateo; Marilyn Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula Ave., Burlingame; William Bratton, Idaho Street, San Mateo; Janet Gerke, N. Idaho Street, San Mateo; Bill Robberson, 1230 Clay Street, San Francisco; Dan Levin, project applicant; John Sanger, Sanger and Olsen representing Glenborough, spoke. Do not feel that the EIR addresses all the significant impacts, does not discuss recreational wind surfing standard as required by CEQ& CEQA states that must address all potential impacts when there is a fair argument that the impact may occur; in recirculated DEIR looked at wind intensity but not variability (turbulence), since it did not rise to the level of significance no new study was done of turbulence and the redesigned project analysis does not address the predominant wind direction; have addressed the "likelihood" of the wind but not clearly addressed the threshold; back where we were in June on wind issue, document still based only on wind velocity, no threshold for turbulence in the definition and turbulence is more important than velocity; do not have a significant standard that works here, asked for language to be included in the resolution that makes it clear that the standard used for this project is not intended to become a standard for other studies, don't know if that language is included in the proposed revisions to the resolution submitted by the applicant; impact of the west northwest wind on the Revised Project should be included in the EIR, do not want to leave it up to the developer's option; we accept Dr. White as an appropriate expert; wind tunnel was the tool selected for measurement, it is the one we have to work with. Comments from the floor continued: sent letter on December 10, 1999, and it is consistent with previous letters submitted in which the main issue is traffic: left turn from the project through San Mateo to 101, the intersections at Peninsula/Humboldt and Humboldt/Poplar need to look at turning movements, EIR offly looked at average delay, specific 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 turning movements may cause more significant problems than EIR shows; made similar comments at study; need to disclose the impacts and mitigations to the neighborhood so the people will know how the changes proposed at Amphlett/Poplar/101 will affect them; Amphlett is presently a truck route, will these trucks be diverted to other streets; could not find whether a secondary improvement at Humboldt/Poplar was required with the Revised Project; the City of San Mateo has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow evening before the Planning Commission to address the effects of this project. Homeowner, note that the EIR does not offer definitive solutions to project; the project should address the impact of traffic on the neighborhood in more detail and whether the proposed mitigations are realistic; supplemental response to comments shows a change from 800 to 600 cars through the neighborhood each day, imagine the street you live on with 650 more cars on it and how that would affect your life; know how Poplar/Humboldt back up, it will be much worse with auxiliary lanes on 101 so freeway is widened; project is a significant impact on traffic at Cyprus at Humboldt, traffic moving toward Third Avenue backs up into Burlingame several blocks when there is an accident on the freeway; not enough study on cumulative impacts for the entire north central area, there is definitely a significant impact; no mention was made in the EIR of the impact on southeast Burlingame neighborhoods; when freeway backs up traffic uses side streets, they are narrow and have children playing along them; support the residents of San Mateo; my property would be directly affected by this project, Idaho is one block east of Humboldt, if add 500 to 600 cars to Humboldt will come down Idaho too, this neighborhood is 90% single family and it is unacceptable to add traffic in this neighborhood; here to speak for the neighborhood, there are a lot of small children, was recently rezoned to R-1; look at the traffic on Broadway, hope we do not become like that; because of traffic on 101 people who would use the highway in the a.m. use Third Ave. instead. Additional comments: agree that the purpose of an EIR is to identify impacts and you cannot act on a project until you have done that; will attend the Planning Commission meeting in San Mateo to represent the project, will address the left hand turns at Peninsula/Humboldt and the Amphlett/Poplar intersections in detail with the project; but the EIR is adequate for the level of analysis that CEQA requires; first speaker was looking at the "fair argument" test used to determine if an EIR should be prepared, does not apply to the adequacy of an EIR; adequacy of an EIR is based on whether a good faith effort was made to disclose all potential impacts from a project; there is no guidance in CEQA regarding thresholds of significance, these criteria come from many places general plan, policy, industry practices, etc. this first EIR which is exhaustive in study of wind effects, not surprising that significance criteria used is discussed; turbulence and velocity have been studied for this project even when the issue did not rise to a level of significance;. originally did not know wind was a factor, did wind tunnel studies, have studied in the EIR and made a good faith effort adequate to make a decision. Commissioner asked: will the west northwest wind component including turbulence be included in the Revised Project presentation; applicant noted has not been done but am meeting with Dr. White to discuss, cost doubles for each wind direction added, tonight reviewing the EIR not the project, we understand you can deny the project based on an issue which has been identified in the EIR as not significant; CA noted that to act on the project must make findings and just because CEQA says an item is not significant does not mean that it cannot affect a decision made by the Planning Commission; not like to decide without a rational basis, CA noted that there is policy making aspect in addition to fact finding in making a discretionary decision, given that prerogative the commission can set standards for reviewing the project which are different than those used in the EIR. Further comment from the floor: CEQA gives the lead agency the right to determine what is significant, the determination should be based on substantial evidence in the record, believe the evidence supports that wind is significant; legal analysis's office provides guidelines which state substantial is potential change on existing conditions, this change is significant to wind surfers, document discusses the Revised Project as if it is a mitigation to the Original Project; letter submitted just asks for evaluation of the Revised Project for west northwest wind, wind surfers would be satisfied with that. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. It was noted that the city's consultant and staff were available to answer any questions the commission might have regarding what was covered in the FEIR document. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Commissioners comment: C. Deal noted Mrs. Mahaffi called his office on Sunday, he informed her that certification of a FEIR does not mean approval of a project; feel EIR is adequate as a disclosure, has described the impacts, city hired an independent consultant who presented conclusions to the commission, interpreted facts and discussed all that was required by CEQA; feel city has done an adequate job on traffic impacts and wind impacts; want west northwest wind analysis for the project review and applicant has assured us that he will provide it; will attend City of San Mateo Planing Commission meeting to hear; certifying the EIR does not mean the end of looking into facts regarding the project; agree, document done in compliance with the law; would like to defined independent judgement of the city; CA purpose to insure that the developer does not present the city with a document for action, this like most was prepared under the direction of the city staff which determined what was significant, it is not necessary to approve how ITE does traffic studies, there is additional information you may want for the project which is not necessary to have in order to reach a conclusion on the EIR; can accept because the document brought all the issues to light and provided a knowledge base for making a decision; am satisfied; feel informed based on extent of effort from earlier questions, if EIR find issue not significant can still use information as a reason not to go forward with the project; information presented a knowledge base, certification does not equal project approval; most information provided a good knowledge base, still concerned about the traffic turning left in San Mateo at Peninsula/Humboldt and Humbold.t/Poplar, need to look at impact of queuing, need to address fully; EIR is a disclosure, it studies potential impacts to infrastructure, not study specifics such as queuing; CA noted report identified item as being significant or not significant, commission can still say its an adverse effect and add conditions to address; does the resolution address the issue of wind standard raised by the sail boarding association, CA yes; will a future EIR use this same standard, CA no, the standard for future wind evaluation will be based on the site being considered so the standard can evolve with more knowledge. Commission asked the traffic consultant to address the issue of left hand turns into San Mateo: Jack Hutchison, Traffic Engineer Environmental Sciences Associates, noted that the left hand turns at Peninsula are not individually addressed in the EIR, have been included in looking at overall intersection function because this is the best method for comparing project differences, length of queuing and delay are operational issues which are not included in the usual methodology for an EIR but can be a part of project evaluation, two cities can work together to adjust signal timing for example; concerned so took a look today between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm at two intersections Peninsula/Humboldt and Humboldt/Poplar, today there was no problem of queuing, noticed that signal at Peninsula/Humboldt is demand responsive, so that it can adjust automatically the green cycle to the number of cars waiting, project analysis could include an intersection analysis to determine proper green phase to reduce queuing and recommend signal timing adjustments to improve operations here. Commission comments continued: FEIR did what was requested, identified the levels of impact; which resolution should commission address tonight, CA Anderson noted it was up to the commission, tonight's action would be preliminary, and he would bring back a resolution for final action on certification on the consent calendar at the meeting of January 10, 2000; resolution should address CEQA required findings that the document is complete, identifies the significant impacts. There was a list of items relating to the project discussed at the last meeting, these related to the project, it is the choice of the developer whether he addresses these or not; CP responded, yes. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that he thought the study disclosed, to the commission and to the public, all the potential impacts of the project it may not have fully addressed resolutions to all of the issues, but it was looking at the level of an EK he then moved to certify the conceptual resolution for the Final EIR for a 636,000 SF phased office project at 301 Airport Blvd. noting that the resolution would be placed on the consent calendar of the commission meeting on January 10, 2000, for action by the commission. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues . The motion passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Commission then discussed setting the hearing date for action on the project. They directed staff to organize a special meeting just for this project for the fifth Monday in January ( January 31, 2000) to be held in the City Council chambers at 7:00 p.m. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1999 Commissioners identified items that they wished to see included in the analysis of the project: justification of the proposed size (height and mass) and for the area (square footage) of the Revised Project; analysis of queuing and adequacy of left hand turn lanes at Peninsula/Humboldt and Humboldt/Poplar Avenues. Finally commissioners asked when and where was the San Mateo Planning Commission meeting going to be tomorrow night, several members expressed an interest in attending. Ron Munekawa, City of San Mateo Planning Department, noted that the meeting will be at 7:300 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 330 West 20th, in San Mateo, there are other items on the agenda so he expected this item to be discussed about 8:30 p.m. PLANNER REPORTS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1999. DISCUSSION OF BASEMENTS IN CALCULATING FAR Because of the late hour commission decided to postpone the discussion of how to calculate basements in determining FAR to their next agenda. REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO IDENTIFY THE ISSUES WHICH UNDERLY THE NEED FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF SINGLE -STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. City Council asked commission to provide them with a list of reasons for extending design review to new single story houses and some first floor additions. Staff discussed briefly the direction of Council's thought to consider whether some of this review could be achieved by using measurable standards and the new special permit process; council thought that they would need an understanding of the key factors driving the need for extending design review before they could make a determination. Commissioners noted that they would get back to staff individually but also that they had found that fixed standards often drove design and resulted in a poor appearance, this can be seen in "clipped" roof ridges and a regular pattern of second story side setback for the declining height envelope even when such setback was not consistent or desirable for the existing style of architecture which was being added on to. The code was modified to address these circumstances. Commissioners noted to staff that their review would be easier if every residential staff report had a picture on the front of the existing structure on the site. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:54 p.m. minute12.13 Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary 13