The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 1997.10.14MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 14, 1997 STUDY SESSION 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Study Session of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioners Coffey and Wellford DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENT ISSUES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION. C. Galligan presented the recommendation of the subcommittee appointed by the chair to review the issue of regulation for food establishments in Subarea A. He noted that the subcommittee reviewed the issue and arrived at a two pronged approach: immediate action to eliminate the transfer of food establishment rights in order to hold the current status quo; and a longer term study to develop a new approach to regulation which would group and limit food establishments based on type of impact and level of contribution to retail activity. He noted that they were concerned about present low key food establishments with limited seating like ice cream stores and bakeries changing their impacts by becoming full fledged destination restaurants in the future by virtue of their food establishment right. The committee suggested that it may take as long as six months to a year to develop the more comprehensive approach. They felt that the two establishments which were overlooked in the previous food establishment count should be allowed to continue and be addressed under the new rules. In discussion on the proposal commissioners noted: with this proposal what happens if a food establishment changes to another retail use after the "freezing" of location occurs, the number of food establishments in Subarea A would be reduced by one. Want to eliminate the sale of food establishment rights and feel that prohibiting transfer would be a good stop gap measure until more comprehensive regulation is in place, not many will terminate in that time; feel we need to stop transfer; 6 months is sometimes not long enough when leasing a space so agree with change to definition of "out of business": think we have a good number of food establishments now, with good balance; do we want to consider a second tier of food establishments in order to legitimize the two non -conforming businesses, no; the mix of types of food businesses is OK now, but will not be good if all become full scale destination restaurants; this is a quick solution but will not address the problem: the problem is the slop on the street, some that walks and some that stays there because of the kind -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 of establishments enticed to come to downtown; think if food establishment empty six months it should be considered gone forever, consistent with non -conforming uses elsewhere in the code; need to look seriously at the impacts of types of food establishments on the environment of the Avenue; agree but it will take time to develop and adopt performance criteria; limiting sale of food establishment rights simply transfers the power from one pocket to the other of the property owner, he still controls lease and use; need to remember that the transfer of food establishment rights is condoned by the code, not a shady twist of the regulation; code can address people but how does it address trash; should consider in revision of code using the number of seats as a regulatory tool, not interested in micromanaging number of establishments, just want to affect impacts; if rules are too discouraging will affect sales tax; if we stop expansion of existing food establishments as well as stopping transfer of rights it will put heat on the Commission and Council to be more creative arriving at a broader solution. It was noted that the Council could not agree to the two phased approach suggested; Planning Commission could stop expansion under the present regulations by denying requests for expansion because of impacts. The Commission opened the meeting to comment from the floor. Robert McMonigle, 1308 Burlingame Avenue, spoke noting he is the owner of the Cakery Bakery which replaced Ingeborg's Bakery and is a 81 year institution on the Avenue. He is the one responsible for this item being before the Planning Commission. He recently purchased this business, at a much :higher rent than Ingeborg had. He needs to modernize it to be competitive and that means having 4 tables and chairs on the site. An alternative to achieve his receiving a food establishment designation was suggested; he would like to see that implemented. Or commission could recommend some other way to give him a food establishment designation; he does not care how it is done, by bandaid or other, he just wants what he wants, tables and chairs, and he will continue to pursue that end. Commissioners noted that they would consider his point of view but that there were other issues, such as 'with tables and chairs his customers would be on site longer and impact parking more, he was not the only one who would like to have food establishment status. There were no other comments and the public comment was closed. The Commission directed staff to bring to a public hearing, at the next meeting if noticing is possible, a proposal which would: (1) stop the transfer of food establishment rights; (2) stop the expansion of existing food establishments including the number of tables and chairs; and (3) propose a two step process, first holding the existing number and size of food establishments, and second refining the regulation based on types of food service businesses. It was noted that all property owners in the area, as well as the newspaper, would need to be noticed 10 days before the hearing. CA Anderson noted that the government code indicates that when the City Council refers a. matter to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation the Council can request response in about 45 days. The Commission then has to make a recommendation back within that time frame if not the Council can take any action they feel appropriate. The Study Session was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. and the regular meeting of the Commission called to order at 7:05 p.m. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER October 14, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink and Key Absent: Commissioner Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes were approved as mailed. AGENDA - CP Monroe noted that one action item (#3, 601 Burlingame Avenue) had been continued to the meeting of October 27, 1997, and two action items (#7, 1633 Marco Polo and #11, 1112 Burlingame Avenue had been continued to this meeting from the meeting of September 22, 1997. Further, CP noted Item #11, 1800 Bayshore Highway and Item #10, 1333 Bayshore Highway had been reversed from the September 22, 1997 study agenda. Commission agreed to reverse them hearing 1800 Bayshore Highway first as #10, then 1333 Bayshore Highway, as they were heard at study. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 233 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1, (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND JOHN D. AND DEBORAH M. PIVIROTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: The angle of the gable is not shown consistently on the plans, is this an error; why did staff call the loft area on the second floor a bedroom, can the Commission determine that this is not a bedroom; in one place in the staff report the garage is noted to be 18.5 feet deep, in another 16.5 feet deep, which is right; does the sink in the garage affect the depth of the garage; has applicant considered moving the parking to the other side of the lot, either attached or detached, and eliminating the protrusion of the dining room into the side setback; what is the distance from the side property line to the chimney and to the face of the proposed living room wall; what is the distance from the side property line on the left side to the structure itself. The item was set for public hearing at the meeting of October 27, 1997. -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION AT 601 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (ALEXANDER BOGDIS, APPLICANT AND AGELIKI A. BOGDIS, PROPERTY OWNER). (58 NOTICED) CONTINUED TO PLANNING COMMISSION :MEETING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997 This item was continued to the meeting of October 27, 1997, at the request: of the applicant who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1630 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R- I, (RON SHIMAMOTO, APPLICANT AND PING HSIAO, PROPERTY OWNER). (45 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. CP Monroe noted that there was a letter in opposition received today from a neighbor at 1662 Escalante at the Commissioner's desks. Is the encroachment into the garage for only the sink, yes; the floor levels are confusing can the applicant address. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Ron Shimimoto, the architect spoke, he noted that there was a 14 to 15 inch difference between the garage floor and the finished floor of the house that, with the depth of a normal sink, should be sufficient to install the plumbing and drain with the 6 inch deep by 2.5' by 3.5' encroachment into the parking space 4 feet off the floor. Lena Castellotti, 1638 Escalante, and Richard Martinez, 1643 Escalante, both neighbors spoke. They noted: 32 years ago bought a view home, now will loose view in three rooms, two bedrooms and a family room, used to see the trees, lights, street and hills, no longer, a Commissioner noted some bay view would also be lost from this house. The neighbor across the street commented that he would loose a lot of view by this addition particularly in his living room, also from some of his second story rooms, the proposed project is directly across the street. The architect responded that this addition is a very conservative addition within all the city dimensional requirements; the addition is far back on the building, all of the immediate houses in the neighborhood are two story, this is the only one which is one story; the lady next door's house is on a rise which places her 6 to 7 feet higher; behind the house is a large palm tree 15 to 20 feet in diameter which has been there a long time and affects her view; she will loose some second story view toward the front side of the house but it will not affect the back side of the house. Commissioner asked about the impact on the neighbor across the street, can the roof be lowered; applicant noted that he would not like to install a roof flatter than 4/12 because it will not drain properly; he felt that the view being blocked was a diagonal view, the client only wants the two story house that the other neighbors already have, it is difficult to satisfy all neighbors within 360 degrees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted lowering the roof would still have a major impact on the view from the house across the street, they could no longer see the planes landing or the bay. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 C. Deal noted that has visited the property several times and felt that the view would be blocked from 1643 and 1638; the family room at the rear of 1638 would lose its view across the property to the hillside; this ordinance was added several years ago with a simple basis for findings, view blockage, it does not discuss the angle of that view or the number of two story houses already in the area; substantial views are blocked by this addition. He moved to deny the Hillside Area Construction Permit on the basis that the addition blocks the long distance views from the front of the interior at 1643 Escalante out over the bay and airport, and from the family room at 1,638 Escalante views of the hillside behind are blocked, the view from two bedrooms to the east is also affected. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT LEVEL AT 16 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1, (BASK YOUNG AHN, AIA, APPLICANT AND JUNG HO LEE, PROPERTY OWNER). (41 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Baek Young Ahn, architect, 1485 Bayshore Blvd., San Francisco, spoke for the applicant, noting that the previously proposed project was larger and included a second story addition with a high ceiling in the living room, the clients heard from the neighbors and withdrew that request and redesigned this project which stays within the present envelope; main issues raised now by neighbors are not view issues but construction related, they have addressed these in the letters which they submitted. George Heckert, 15 Kenmar Way; Doris Osterling, 20 Kenmar, and Peter Park, 19 Kenmar spoke in opposition. They commented that this will be the largest home on the block when completed and the third remodeling of the structure in two years, the neighbors have been through a lot of construction impact, do not want this phase of building to occur six days a week dawn to sunset, they need a construction plan the neighbors can agree to; he does not want construction equipment and contractors blocking his driveway or parking in front of his house; there was a neighborhood meeting where they disagreed, he did not want Saturday construction even 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.. CA Anderson pointed out that the application was for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and the Commission's action was limited to impact on views. The neighbors continued that the access easement from Kenmar to the private homes below is in private ownership and the paving in the upper part of the access easement is in poor condition and will not support use by heavy construction equipment; not opposed to the proposal just to effect on easement; object to 7 day a week construction even if it means that the time of the construction will be extended by 20 percent; his lot is 15 feet below the project and the proposed expansion of the balcony will allow this property owner to look into his living room and bedrooms below, invade his privacy; the applicant installed a basketball court on the lower part of his property with the promise that it could be shared by the neighborhood, now they want to store and stage construction equipment there. -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 In response the architect commented: they spoke to the contractor about shutting down on Saturdays and he said that the job would not be efficient enough, the city code allows construction 7 days a week, they are willing to cut back to 6 days, the neighbors are asking too much with 5 days; he was unaware of concern of neighbor below, has visited the site often when look from existing deck the height of the property line fences block the view into the neighbors bedroom; when basketball court was installed thought it might be used for extra guest parking, so equipment use is consistent. There were no further comments from the audience and the hearing was closed. Commissioners noted: that the city attorney instructed the commission that they can only review the project based on its impact on views; heard a number of different concerns, the proposed remodel is sensitive to the surrounding properties views and will not affect them in a substantial way; felt differently about construction impact after visited site and saw gate into the paved area at the back of the site, might consider a condition addressing condition of access easement. C. Galligan moved in light of the testimony before the Commission which did not include any comments about view obstruction the Planning Commission grant the Hillside Area Construction Permit with conditions 1 through 5, and an amendment to condition 6 that construction work be limited to Monday through Friday, no construction on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays, because the neighbors in this area have experienced enough disruption over the past two years and relief seems reasonable given the size of this project and the property. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comments on the motion: support the motion in part, quite clear no impact on views, the city regulates hours of construction elsewhere so alright for Planning Commission to amend, but not comfortable with condition which involves city in easement maintenance problems caused by construction equipment, this is a matter between private parties, have worked hard in past to avoid city involvement in these types of issues. C Galligan, maker of the motion agreed to remove condition 3 addressing the easement, C Deal, the seconder of the motion, agreed. Favor the adopting the construction plan proposed by the developer as a condition so that the neighbors will have some means of enforcement later on if it is needed; this is a narrow easement and trucks maneuvering will block traffic and inconvenience neighbors, want to see some teeth if they abuse. CA Anderson indicated that approval of the construction plan was like approving the plans of the house, it can be made a condition of approval and enforced by the Building Official. C. Galligan moved to amend the motion to include a condition that the construction plan prepared by the applicant and included in the staff report dated September 15, 1997, shall be required to be implemented for the duration of the project construction. C. Deal, seconder of the original motion agreed to the amendment. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion to approve an Hillside Area Construction Permit for 16 Kenmar Way with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 2, 1997 sheets Al, A2 and A3; 2) that only the side and rear yards shall be used to store construction materials, debris, portable restrooms, construction equipment and vehicles during construction and there shall be no construction work on Saturday or Sunday; 3) that the construction plan dated September 15, 1997, prepared by the applicant and included in the staff report shall be required to be implemented for the duration of the project construction; 4) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 17, 1997 memo shall be met; and 02 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion as amended was approved on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 1464 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (MARYAM REFAHI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). (62 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked if allowed would. the construction have to comply with all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes even if it meant replacing all that was presently there, staff responded yes. There were no other questions. Chair Key opened the pubic hearing. Farshid Samsami, 1638 Balboa Way, the architect on the project spoke noting that the structure was an existing covered porch when the owner purchased the property three years ago; they only added two walls; the wall on the west side, the 16 foot extension of the wall of the house, was the back of the porch; know city counts room as a bedroom but owners will use it as a work room and office; property owner is a computer consultant. Commission noted that the addition as it now stands is not up to the standards of the California building code in terms of foundation, materials and insulation, the applicant noted that they increased the ceiling height to comply; commission asked if the space will be heated, the applicant noted that they would use electric heat, it was noted that it is not legal to use electric heat in California. Jerry Senkir, 1468 Cortez and Helen Gunning, 1460 Cortez, neighbors on. either side spoke in favor of the request noting: lived 13 years next door and the covered patio has been there all that time, converting it to a room will increase his privacy; looks better now than the shed looked; know applicant needs the space now that they have a baby; they intend to expand the house more substantially in the future; the rear yard is beautiful; this is a small construction. Maryam Refahi, property owner, spoke noting that if they could not have electric heat it was alright since they will have a number of computers in this room and it needs to be kept cool. Commission asked if they have plans to enlarge the house later; applicant noted that it would be a couple of years before they could remodel, with baby do not have bedroom inside to use as an office; long term plan is to extend the back of the house and remove this room and add two bedrooms upstairs. Commission asked where additional parking required would be located; applicant suggested tandem configuration at location of this project; Commission noted that city code does not allow tandem parking. Commission noted that it appears that future expansion of this house will require that this improvement be removed, it will need substantial investment to bring it up to current code, so its removal in a year or so will not be cost effective. Applicant noted that they see this as a temporary use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: CA was asked if the Commission could put a sunset on this approval so that new construction would automatically remove the parking variance; CA Anderson noted that a -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 parking variance was based on the plans and any future plans which substantially changed the structure would require review of the variance. Further Commission comments: only reason brought up the way the present addition was built was to indicate that substantially more investment would need to be made; under the building codes the proposed office area cannot be used as a bedroom because it has a door directly into the garage, if determine that it is not a bedroom the applicant does not need a variance for parking dimension; the commission can focus on the side setback variance which is only 3 inches short of the required 4 feet; this is no problem to the adjacent neighbor, it is an existing condition and 3 inches is considered a minor non-compliance and if it were not for the parking variance the issue would not be before the Planning Commission. Therefore because the parking variance is not required, C. Deal moved approval of the side setback variance with an added condition that the new area being added to the house is not considered to be a bedroom because of its direct access to the: garage and so no parking variance is required and with the other conditions in the staff report appropriately amended to reflect the deletion of the parking variance. The action is by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission comments on the motion: should a condition be added so that the applicant knows that the variance will be revisited if there is an increase in the square footage of the house in the future; a sunset condition is not necessary since they keep the variance as long as the room remains; nothing is more permanent than a temporary building, like to see a plan for the :remodel of the house; this project may hit a problem when gets to the building department since it will probably need to be rebuilt altogether; do not feel that this addition matches the house in any way, it is wood sided house is stucco, it has flat roof, house has a pitched roof. Chair Key called for the vote on the motion as presented with one variance for side setback and the modification to the conditions made in the original motion. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Mink dissenting, C. Wellford absent) roll call vote. The revised conditions of approval are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 16, 1997, Sheet Al; 2) that the conditions regarding the electrical service drop and panel in the Chief Building Official's August 11, 1997 memo shall be met; and 3) that the proposed addition shall not be called a bedroom so long as it has a direct access to garage area; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BOAT PARKING AT 1633 MARCO POLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (HARRY E. DAVI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). (37 NOTICED.) CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 1997. Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were recommended for consideration. There were no questions of staff. CP noted a letter received today in opposirtion to the project fromRansom and Vicki Peek, 1636 Marco Polo Way. M City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 Chair Key opened the public hearing. Harry Davi, property owner, spoke noting that his letters of explanation were in the staff report; he is not introducing a new element into the neighborhood, he has been parking a boat at this location in his front yard for 19 years; CA told him that this review was based on an inquiry not a complaint, the person who made it was not a Burlingame resident; there is another alternative and that is to park the boat in the driveway, but then his cars would be on the street; if he cannot park in the front yard the boat will be parked on the street in front of his house more often; only intends to keep the boat for five more years, would be willing to have the permission granted for five years, the city conditioned another exception with a time limitation. The boat causes no harm or hazard, no problem to anyone, no advantage to any one if commission denies it. Commission asked how often is the boat taken off the property; in presentplace without moving the last year and a half while he worked on and refitted it, work is now complete and he takes it out 2 to 3 times a week; Commission asked if the boat had ever been gone for 6 months at a time, no. Commission asked if he had any objection to public storage areas, applicant noted that security was poor in such areas and he would have to equip the boat with cheaper equipment than he would like or strip out the equipment each time he stored it. Ben Rodriguez, 1637 Marco Polo, spoke in favor noting that within 15 years he had to replace the sidewalk in front of his house, and there has been no reason for the applicant to replace his; have to be within 15-30 feet of the house to see the boat, it is not a problem. Commissioner asked if he lived on the side of the applicant where the hedge was, yes. Jim Vangele, 1648 Marco Polo; Leo Tealdi, 1645 Marco Polo; Denise Granville, 1640 Marco Polo; spoke in opposition to the item: 35 year resident, went to 115 people in area and asked about boat, 111 signed a petition asking to park the boat elsewhere; surprised at the number of people who knew about "Davi's arc"; problems caused by parking in front yard are environmental; aesthetic, looks bad; causes pollution by being washed down, with water, bilge whatever going into the gutter; dangerous to park on the street the boat is 30 feet long and weighs 2.5 tons; he submitted pictures of the site, showing where the boat was located, it has been recently moved; the boat in the front yard is not Burlingame; he also has a small 15 foot boat stored in the yard, no way to get the 30 foot boat into the driveway, if there is no way to prevent people from parking a 2.5 ton boat on the street we need to change the codes; CA notes that you cannot park a trailer on the street between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Lived in house since 1951, this is a quality of life issue; applicant washes engine out into the gutter regularly; there have been complaints, he has complained to the police a member of times; the 30 foot boat will not fit in the driveway since there is already a boat there; he tracks mud on to the street when he moves the boat in and out as well as creating a traffic hazard maneuvering in and out; there is insurance available to people who store things in off -site storage; boat is a health hazard, a haven for rodents, roof rats, raccoons; new to the neighborhood, not want hard feelings but issue is important; reason moved to Burlingame was for its beauty and charm, boat is an eyesore; if he extends his driveway in the side yard the boat will still be visible; people who buy boats should be willing to bear the cost of private storage. Mr. Davi responded: he is stunned by the opposition, the boat has been there 19 years and no one has commented about it; he has never had a rodent problem; the boat weighs 5000 pounds the same as his wife's car; many people admire the boat, it is not an aesthetic problem; he never flushes anything except salt water out of the boat into the gutter; has never found a child near it and he is home 24 hours a day almost every day. Told the commission he would sell the boat after three years. In City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 Asked about the second boat, it sits in the driveway and will be gone in a. few days, he will sell it if he can. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: made a site inspection and visited Mr. Peek; both he and Granville spent considerable money upgrading their homes and have to look across the street at this boat in the front yard, not feel residents of Burlingame should have to put up with this; lots of storage areas available in the area; people pay for aesthetics in price of the property. Why is this boat not non -conforming since it has been here since 1978? Boat looses its non conforming status when it is moved; if it is used as a car, taken on and off the site, then it is treated as a motor vehicle and the current regulations specifically address parking of vehicles in the front yard; CC wanted to stop parking on the front lawn; applicant had two boats on the lawn when he was contacted, removed one of them from the lawn to the driveway; he requested relief and was told that he would have to make this application; commission could find that this boat is non -conforming so long as it is outside of the front setback and limited to this boat identified by its registration number. Council was trying to address the nuisance, approved parking is clearly defined, and provides a way for property owner to make application, code is directed at vehicles cars etc., as well as boats. C. Mink noted that he cannot make findings for the proposed use since it is detrimental and injurious to the properties in the area as described in the testimony and by the petition, he finds that parking the boat in the front yard hurts property values; safety is another issue, have to get the boat in and out and that is hard to do without blocking the street for cars, creating a safety problem; it also affects the general welfare in the sense that a large number of people are dissatisfied and have been for some time. Therefore, he moved to deny the request to provide approved parking for the boat in the front yard. C. Coffey seconded the motion. Comments on the motion: how long before the applicant would have to move the boat; 30 days seems reasonable, but want it removed tomorrow; not like boat's location myself but had no idea of the extent of the adverse reaction, want the boat removed now; this is not a new problem in the city, but in past people have moved to side yards and screened them from the street under the old ordinance; want to make the front yard look like a front yard. C. Mink suggested art amendment to the motion that the boat be removed from the front yard no later than December 1, 1997. C. Coffey who seconded the original motion accepted the amendment. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to deny, noting that the motion included removal of the boat no later than December 1, 1997. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chairman Key then called for a break in the proceedings. The commission reconvened at 9:30 p.m. APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND OTTO AND VIRGINIA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS). (82 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Eleven conditions were recommended for consideration. C. Key noted that she would abstain since she lives within 250 feet -10- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 of the proposed project. The applicant was informed that since there are only five commissioners eligible to vote on this matter a minimum of three votes would be needed to approve a motion; there were no other questions or comments. Acting Chair Deal opened the public hearing for both the condominium permit and the tentative map. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, commented that he had nothing to add and would answer commission questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Mink commented on the completeness of this application and that the proposed project met all the requirements of the code and the condominium guidelines and was a nice looking structure so moved approval of the project by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 15, 1997, sheets Al through A7 and sheet L1, and Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes date stamped September 15, 1997; 2) that lot coverage shall ndt exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area covered by structure shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 67.74' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Floribunda Avenue (32.74") for a maximum height of 35'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. ;Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 30, 1997 memo, the Chief Building Official's September 2, 1997 memo, and the Fire Marshal's September 2, 1997 memo shall be met; 5) that one (1) guest parking stall (9'x20') shall be designated in the parking area and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stall shall be always accessible and not be separately enclosed; 6) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 7) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 8) that the on grade parking spaces shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 9) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and 11) the this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Key abstained, C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND OTTO AND VIRGINIA MILLER, PROPERTY OWNERS). (82 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CE Erbacher discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Public Works comments, and study meeting questions. C. Galligan moved recommendation of the tentative parcel map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 5-0-1-1 voice vote (C. Key abstaining and C. Wellford absent) . APPLICATION FOR A TAKE-OUT PERMIT AT 1112 BURLINGAME; AVENUE, ZONED C- 1, SUBAREA A, (ADAM ROSEN, THE NATURAL EDGE JUICE COMPANY, APPLICANT AND LORENZO & LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNER). (37 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 1997. Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Nine conditions were recommended for consideration. In her presentation the City Planner amended condition 1 to clarify that no tables or chairs would be allowed on the premise and that no "A" board signs would be placed in the public right of way and condition 2 to provide that no video games or pin ball type machines shall be provided on site. C. Galligan noted that he had a conflict of interest on this item since he had done business with the property owner and would abstain. Again it was noted that it would take three affirmative votes to pass a motion since only 5 commissioners were eligible to vote. There were no further comments. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Adam Rosen and Kyle Wolverton, 307 So. "B" Street, Suite 1, San Mateo, presented their proposal for a juice bar at this location noting that they wished to take advantage of the synergy on Burlingame Avenue, their business is a spin off of Java Jazz, they want to provide a superior product in an efficient manner, came to the Bay Area because there was too much competition in the Seattle take-out coffee business; presently they operate four coffee bars at local colleges, 2 at hospitals and 1 at a newspaper; smoothie bars are the future since there is a trend for people to get more healthy; they offer smaller as well as 24 oz smoothies; their first smoothie store is in Pacific Heights; this is a high profile A+ + location and they want to 'be here; they may look and feel like a corporation but they know their customers appreciate a neighborhood orientation; they provide music and video (without sound) so that the people standing in line have something to do, soundless videos are of sporting activities; they provide a wall of fitness, with frequently updated health tips. Assistant has a lot of experience on the marketing side of the athletic industry; felt that the juice bar market in San Francisco was saturated; heard that there were many issues with juice bars in Burlingame but wanted to proceed anyway; talked to other business people who they felt they would benefit; there is no juice bar on the Avenue; they can address the issues of litter and loitering, will monitor and address as they occur; should be reviewed on their own merits not biased by other applicants you have seen. -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 Commissioner asked about the color scheme at used their business, visited the San Francisco outlet, did not feel chartreuse would do on Burlingame Avenue; there also appeared to be a trash problem at the Fillmore site at 5 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, applicant noted that they would have 4 employees on site and one would be assigned just to do trash pick up and monitoring; they also encourage various promotions to reduce trash or encourage disposal these include discounts for use of recyclable cups, under cup reminder to throw away in a trash can, and under cup prizes; what is the age bracket of the typical customer, primarily 20-30 in the Fillmore district because of the nearby dental school, hope to pick up high school students in Burlingame, but not their focal point here. There were no further questions or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: tough, some real pluses, but would they be compounding the problem at the corner of Lorton; if properly run and managed an asset; in that location they will draw high school students, but basically in favor; visited San Francisco store, product good; Fillmore is different beast than Burlingame Avenue, no high school nearby; no caffeine but open until 10 p.m. which encourages loitering, seems like a problem; used to like to walk the Avenue without people running you over with a motor cycle; like to see this operation go in, and run a clean, good operation; need this type of business in the area; need to be in another block only one retailer left in this, this block can't support this activity; color scheme of the business is inappropriate. C. Coffey moved approval of the special permit for take out by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as amended by the city planner. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: would the maker of the motion consider adding a condition that the business shall not alter the predominant color of the structure and shall provide a regular sidewalk cleaning program subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the proposed amendment to the conditions. Chair Key called for the vote on the amended motion to approve by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 13, 1997, Floor Plan (8 1/z" x 11 "), except that there shall be no seating at any counter or tables, nor shall any tables and chairs be provided for service or customer convenience on the premise and no "A" board or other free standing signs shall be placed at the door or on the public right-of-way; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 18, 1997 memo shall be met; 3) that the store may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, and no music or entertainment activity provided for the customers or employees on this site shall be audible from the sidewalk in front of the business, and no video or pin ball types games shall be provided on the site; 4) that the color scheme chosen for the exterior of the business shall not alter the predominant color of the structure; 5) that the business shall provide, as required by the city, a regular sidewalk cleaning program as approved by the City Engineer; 6) that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold from the nutrition store and the take-out business shall be limited to items similar to blended fruit drinks and smoothies; 7) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store and on the sidewalk: along Burlingame Avenue at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8) that the store operator shall purchase and install on the street, the trash receptacle selected by the Burlingame Avenue streetscape study; 9) that the applicant shall remove once a day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters in front of the store along Burlingame Avenue, and within 50' of the store in each direction; 10) that in addition to other available remedies, any violations to the conditions of this use permit shall cause the take-out food service permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with the possibility of alteration of the current conditions or revocation of the permit; and 11) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a roll call vote by the commission was 3-2-1-1 (Cers. Deal and Key dissenting, C. Wellford absent, C. Galligan abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CHARGE FOR GUEST PARKING, ALLOW HERTZ -RENT -A -CAR TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL DESK INSIDE THE HOTEL AND USE REQUIRED HOTEL PARKING FOR CAR RENTAL PURPOSES AND A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPACT SPACES TO 29 %, AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MARRIOTT, APPLICANT AND HOST MARRIOTT, PROPERTY OWNER). (15 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirty-seven conditions were recommended for consideration. In her presentation CP noted that included in the record was a letter from Commissioner Galligan to John Ward, consultant to the Marriott Hotel for this project and a response to the commissioner's questions from Mr. Ward; she also suggested an amendment to condition 25 addressing a permanent limitation on placing temporary tents in required parking or parking access areas. The CA noted that the ability to charge for disabled accessible parking was a state regulation, the city could require a higher standard but not less, therefore it was appropriate in this case to leave the determination of fees for this type of parking to the state. Commissioner asked for a clarification of the number of required hotel parking spaces being used by Hertz on this site, one; five extra spaces are provided Hertz in the parking garage. Chair Key opened the public hearing. John Ward, consultant, 792 Wiillborough, introduced the General Manager of the hotel and Don Chandler the parking consultant, and noted that the conditions at Marriott changed recently when the Westin began regulating and charging for their parking, the location of the Marriott became even more attractive for misuse of their parking because the shape/length of the parking lot naturally draws people who want the park and ride to the airport for free; the hotel is sensitive to the issue that their charging for parking will shift the parking off site, and have proposed that their short term rates be very low, $.50 per hour for the first four hours to encourage on site parking; the applicant would like to amend several of the proposed conditions of approval, #31 they do not want the city to regulate the rate for valet parking for overnight, day or evening by requiring review when these rates change; #34 they do not want the city to regulate the rates charged for over night hotel guests by requiring review, the market should determine this; if the city wants to regulate the short term (4 hour) rate by reviewing any change in it in the interest of addressing the impact on the adjacent property owners and on street parking that is alright,but need to know how that impact will be determined; #32 why should the city review any change to the valet parking operation, would like this restriction removed. C. Galligan noted that he had met with Mr. Ward and discussed the project and then wrote him a letter which he responded to; the issue of disabled accessible parking has been clarified, it is the state's responsibility; the parking may be the -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 hotel's but it is there because the city required it and without it there would be no hotel, this relates to the requested modifications to conditions, the city may need continuing; review to make sure that the impacts of this change to the parking does not spill over onto other people's property; what has the hotel done up to now to keep people from poaching on their parking; met with Mr. Geller, adjacent property owner,suggested they would survey the use of his lot 30 days after change and 6 months later, then look at a ways they could work together resolve problems; the low short term rate was chosen to reduce off site impacts; want to consider what the park and flys are charging in doing their pricing so that they are not an attractive alternative; want to be able to adjust pricing to discourage abuse without having to come back to the Planning Commission. Stan Moore Manager of the Marriott Hotel, 1450 Capuchino, feels that they need the flexibility to charge the higher long term rate to discourage people who use their lot instead of park and fly; not sure at this time what that price needs to be; asked what other strategies the hotel has considered; have found that the key to guests returning is the speed of check in, if need to return to car or other time consuming requirement like chit on departure, guest will go to competition; a $15 fee to park a car overnight is an incidental charge when paying $189 for a room. They do :not expect registered hotel customers to leave the property and park elsewhere; the hotel might make $12,000-$14,000 a year on this operation which, given the total revenue from the hotel, is not a decision point for them; let them set the rates for overnight, if the city is to regulate anything let it be the short term parking only. Why charge at all for the first 4 hours; want to recover expenses. Mr. Ward presented a letter from Southwest Airlines which was a survey of hotels in the area asking them if there was a way that, during the construction at the airport, they could provide parking for Southwest's employees. Long term off -site parking is going to be an increasing problem for airport hotels. Joseph Geller, 1799 Old Bayshore, property owner commented that he is concerned about cars using his lot for hotel generated activities; it is a shorter walk from his lot to the front door of the hotel than it is from the far end of the hotel lot; it is a good idea to make the first 4 hours cheap; real question is the overnight charge, those people could elect not to pay and park closer to the front door; Marriott will not run the parking operation it will be run by Mile High Valet who will take the profits; city should continue to regulate, does not want the hotel to continue to increase costs and impact the neighborhood; don't know the perfect solution to this problem. Mr. Ward noted that he met with Joe Cochett, also a neighboring property owner who had been a victim of a overflow crowd parking on his site in the past; he understood the program being proposed. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Have a better appreciation of what they are trying; to do, no objection to the city helping, glad the manager wants to take action; city needs to have an idea what the rates are going to be, hotel needs some flexibility; parking is extremely tight in this area,if rates are not high enough abuse will not be deterred. C. Coffey moved to approve the amendment to the special permit to charge for guest parking, allow a car rental business inside the hotel and to use one required hotel parking space and a variance to increase the percentage of compact parking spaces to 29 % with all the conditions as amended by staff except 31, 32, and 34, by resolution with the findings as discussed in the record including the hearing, based on the need to control poaching of required parking by non hotel guests and the fact that this -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minuses October 14, 1997 is the best alternative at this time to put into effect to do this. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: feel it is alright to have the charges market driven but would like to amend condition 37, the last staff proposed condition, to include review of the entire permit upon complaint; issue is what happens in the future; CA Anderson pointed out that because this is a Special Permit the commission can call it up for review anytime in the future, the effect of condition 34 is that the city has the right to modify the rate; think should retain conditions allowing review of the rates,this is a collaborative effort and the city wants to participate for everyone's benefit; need something to protect the businesses in the area impacted; problem is #31 basically sets fees which should be market driven; remove #31 and modify #32 to regulate the area used for valet parking, not the charge, modify #34 so city retains right to review fee for hourly rate charged to guests to be sure it stays low enough that there is no impact on on -street parking; if there are enough complaints about the other fees the city can review. C. Coffey moved an amendment to the conditions to remove #31, modify #32 so that it addresses city review of the area used for valet parking, and to drop #34 except short term parking fees. C. Key seconded and the motion to amend was approved on a roll call vote 4-2-1 (Cers. Galligan and Key dissenting and C. Wellford absent). C. Galligan moved to amend the conditions with a modification to condition #32 so that it addresses city review of the area to be used for valet parking, to #37 to add review upon complaint, and to #34 so that it addresses city review of short term/hourly parking fees. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Key. The motion passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Chair Key then called for a vote on the amended motion which was to approve the proposed special permit amendment and parking dimension variance with the conditions suggested and initially amended by staff except for the deletion of condition 31 and modification of conditions 32, 34 and 37 as made in the previous amendments, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide's memo of Apri1,5, 1982; 2) contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in the level of service at the intersection of one level; 3) maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; 4) development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; 5) contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the improvement of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; 6) pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates" Traffic Assignment study for the project; 7) approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin -destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 8) provide signalization at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be necessary; 9) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along El Portal Creek; 10) during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; 11) as part of the Title -16- amended PC mtg 11.24.97 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 is the best alternative at this time to put into effect to do this. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: feel it is alright to have the charges market driven but would like to amend condition 37, the last staff proposed condition, to include review of the entire permit upon complaint; issue is what happens in the future; CA Anderson pointed out that because this is a Special Permit the commission can call it up for review anytime in the future, the effect of condition 34 is that the city has the right to modify the rate; think should retain conditions allowing review of the rates,this is a collaborative effort and the city wants to participate for everyone's benefit; need something to protect the businesses in the area impacted; problem is #31 basically sets fees which should be market driven; remove #31 and modify #32 to regulate the area used for valet parking, not the charge, modify #34 so city retains right to review fee for hourly rate charged to guests to be sure it stays low enough that there is no impact on on -street parking; if there are enough complaints about the other fees the city can review. C. Coffey moved an amendment to the conditions to remove #31, modify #32 so that it addresses city review of the area used for valet parking, and to drop #34 except short term parking fees. C. Key seconded and the motion to amend was approved on a roll call vote 4-24 (Cers. Galligan and Key dissenting and C. Wellford absent). C. Galligan moved to amend the conditions with a modification to condition #32 so that it addresses city review of the area to be used for valet parking, to #37 to add review upon complaint, and to #34 so that it addresses city review of short term/hourly parking fees. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Key. The motion passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Chair Key then called for a vote on the amended motion which was to approve the proposed special permit amendment and parking dimension variance with the conditions suggested and initially amended by staff except for the deletion of condition 31 and modification of conditions 32, 34 and 37 as made in the previous amendments, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of April 5, 1982 and the Zoning Aide's memo of April 5, 1982; 2) contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project causes a worsening in the level of service at the intersection of one level; 3) maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; 4) development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; 5) contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the improvement of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant,, secondary treatment solids improvement; 6) pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates' Traffic Assignment study for the project; 7) approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin -destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 8) provide signalization at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be necessary; 9) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along El Portal Creek; 10) during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; 11) as part of the Title -16- amended PC mtg 11.24.97 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 is the best alternative at this time to put into effect to do this. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Comment on the motion: feel it is alright to have the charges market driven but would like to amend condition 37, the last staff proposed condition, to include review of the entire permit upon complaint; issue is what happens in the future; CA Anderson pointed out that because this is a Special Permit the commission can call it up for review anytime in the future, the effect of condition 34 is that the city has the right to modify the rate; think should retain conditions allowing review of the rates,this is a collaborative effort and the city wants to participate for everyone's benefit; :need something to protect the businesses in the area impacted; problem is #31 basically sets fees which should be market driven; remove #31 and modify #32 to regulate the area used for valet parking, not the charge, modify #34 so city retains right to review fee for,hourly rate charged to guests to be sure it stays low enough that there is no impact on on -street parking; if there are enough complaints about the other fees the city can review. C. Coffey moved an qff, to thec ,�#�.32 so that it addresses city review of ,lnod�fy #37 to add review upon complaint and to drop #34. The seco er of the motion di '` `` C. Galligan moved to amend the conditions with a: -modification to condition #32 so that it addresses city review of the area to be used for valet parking, 19 #37 to add review upon complaint, and to #34 so that it addresses city review of short term/hourly parking fees. The motion to amend was seconded by C. Key. The motion passed on a roll call vote 6-0-�(C. Wellford absent). Chair Key then called for a vote on the amended motion which was to approve the proposed special permit amendment and parking dimension variance with the conditions suggested and initially amended by staff except for the deletion of condition 31 and modification, of conditions 32, 34 and 37 as made in the previous amendments, by resolution with the following `conditions: 1) compliance with the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of April 5, 1982 and the.Zoning Aide's memo of April 5, 1982; 2) contribute 12.2 percent to the modifications to the signalization of the Millbrae/Bayshore Highway intersection necessary when traffic generated from the project~causes a worsening in the level of service at the intersection of one level; 3) maintenance of catch basins and grease traps serving the project; 4) development of a final landscape plan which meets BCDC public access concerns and approval by the Burlingame Park Director; planting and ongoing requirement to maintain whatever landscaping is approved; 5) contribution, as required by the City and depending upon receipt of Federal grants, to the improvement of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, secondary treatment solids improvement; 6) pay cost of independent review of the Jefferson Associates' Traffic Assignment study for the project; 7) approval of Phases II and III of the project is subject to an origin -destination study of actual traffic generation and distribution from previously completed phases of the project; 8) provide signalization at the Malcolm Road intersection if traffic studies required by the City for Phases II and III show it to be necessary; 9) provision of the following during construction of all phases of the hotel: adequate off-street all weather parking for construction workers and physical protection to the marsh habitat along El Portal Creek; 10) during construction of all phases require erosion control to include limiting construction as determined necessary by the City during the wet season, hydro seeding at the onset of the wet season, developing a specific plan for sedimentation control approved as necessary by the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burlingame; 11) as part of the Title -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 24 survey, the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devises should be considered; 12) submit excavation procedures to protect public and private property and final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the City; 13) all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed in the City's sanitary land fill as directed by the City; 14) receipt of permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 15) compliance with Mr. Edward Hope's letter of March 19, 1982; 16) the project shall include a 14,000 SF ballroom/convention center in its first phase; 17) the "footprint" as submitted by the developer shall be followed; and 18) the project shall generally follow those plans date stamped March 31, 1982 and submitted to the Council; 19) that the car rental operation at the Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week, and that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 20) that 6 parking spaces shall be reserved for car :rental vehicles in the garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; there shall be no rental cars parked in the surface parking lot; 21) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, washed or repaired on the Marriott site; 22) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to the operating limits of the car rental use shall require an amendment to this use permit; 23) that before charging for on -site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage; 24) that the parking regulation and layout plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997; Sheet 1, Site Plan - Existing and Sheet 2, Site Plan - Proposed; 25) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's September 9, 1997 memo, Fire Marshal's August 25,1997 and September 8, 1997 memos, senior Civil Engineer's September 11, 1997 memo, Traffic Engineer's September 10, 1997 memo and the City Engineer's September 22, 1997 memos shall be met and that there shall be not temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site; 26) that storage in the parking garage shall be limited to areas permitted by the Burlingame! Fire Department and not designated as parking spaces on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1&2); 27) that on - site security and patrol shall be provided; 28) that during construction all parking for construction equipment shall be provided on -site and a supervised program for on -site and off -site parking for construction workers shall be approved by the Department of Public Works; 29) that the hotel shall install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas and maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city; 30) that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet parking; 31) that any change to the operation of valet parking affecting the area used shall require modification of this use permit; 32) that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall not occur at this site (including "sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33) that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34) that 14 spaces remain on the site for the purpose of public access in the location indicated on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1 &2), and that these spaces shall be clearly marked as public access spaces and shall remain unrestricted (outside any parking control gating) and that no fee shall be charged for these spaces at any 'time; any revisions to these public access spaces require the permission of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prior to any alterations; 35) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; and 36) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliances with its conditions in one year (October 1998) and every two years thereafter or upon complaint. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Wellford absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. amended PC mtg 11.24.97 -17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14. 1997 24 survey, the feasibility of solar energy and other conservation devises should be considered; 12) submit excavation procedures to protect public and private property and final grading and drainage plans acceptable to the City; 13) all excavated material, acceptable to the City, shall be treated and placed in the City's sanitary land fill as directed by the City; 14) receipt of permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 15) compliance with Mr. Edward Hope's letter of March 19, 1982; 16) the project shall include a 14,000 SF ballroom/convention center in its first phase; 17) the "footprint" as submitted by the developer shall be followed; and 18) the project shall generally follow those plans date stamped March 31, 1982 and submitted to the Council; 19) that the car rental operation at the Marriott Hotel, 1800 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm, 7 days a week, and that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame; 20) that 6 parkhag spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles in the garage and no car shall be stored in one of these. spaces for more than 72 hours; there shall be no rental cars parked in the surface parking lot; 21) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned, washed or repaired on the Marriott site; 22) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to the operating limits of the car rental use shall require an amendment to this use permit; 23) that before charging for on -site guest parking the applicant, shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage; 24) that the parking regulation and layout plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997; Sheet 1, Site Plan - Existing and Sheet 2, Site Plan - Proposed;. 25) that the conditions of the Senior Building Inspector's September 9, 1997 memo, Fire Marshal's August 25,1997 and September 8, 1997 memos, senior Civil Engineer's September 11, 1997 memo, Traffic Engineer's September 10, 1997 memo and the City Engineer's September 22, 1997 memos shall be met and that there shall be not temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site; 26) that storage in the parking garage shall be limited to areas permitted by the Burlingame Dire Department and not designated as parking spaces on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1 &2); 27) that on - site security and patrol shall be provided; 28) that during construction all. parking for construction equipment shall be provided on -site and a supervised program for on -site and off -site parking for construction workers shall be approved by the Department of Public Works; 29) that the hotel shall install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas and maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis as approved by the city; 30) that up to 251 parking spaces in the below grade parking garage shall be designated for valet parking; 31) that any change to the operation of valet parking affecting the area used shall require modification of this use permit; 32) that long term airport parking for a fee or no fee shall not occur at this site (including "sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33) that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34) that 14 spaces remain on the site for the purpose of public access in the location indicated on the plans date stamped September 10, 1997 (Sheets 1 &2), and that these spaces shall be clearly marked as public access spaces and shall remain unrestricted (outside any parking control gating) and that no fee shall be charged for these spaces at any tune; any revisions to these public access spaces require the permission of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prior to any alterations; 35) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; and 36) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliances with its conditions in one year (October 1998) and every two years thereafter or upon compla• 1 <:,•, -17- S City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT TO CHARGE FOR GUEST PARKING, INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR VALET PARKING AND ALLOW BUDGET RENT -A -CAR TO USE REQUIRED HOTEL PARKING FOR CAR RENTAL PURPOSES AND AN AMENDMENT TO A PARKING VARIANCE FOR DIMENSION TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPACT PARKING TO 38.3 %, AT 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (H YATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, APPLICANT AND HTKG DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, L.P., PROPERTY OWNER). (21 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 10.14.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Thirty-six conditions were recommended for consideration. CP noted two additions to the suggested conditions, #27 clarify "that car rental customers... and to #30 add that temporary tents shall not be placed in required parking or access areas on site or on the adjacent city property. There were no otherr comments or questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. John Ward, consultant, representing the Hyatt Hotel commented on the fact that the reasons for this application were the same as for the Marriott and he would consider them covered, but would answer questions regarding them. On the proposal he noted that the changes will improve the access to the garage substantially by taking the immediate right hand turn out, the circulation from Bayshore Highway will also be improved. fie would also like to see conditions #24 and #33 addressing city review of parking fees and changes to the fees removed. Ron Agron, General Manager of the Hyatt, Larry Builta, Hotel Engineer are here to answer questions. Don Chandler, Traffic Consultant for the Marriott, who has left, pointed out to Mr. Ward that Burlingame has the lowest percentage of compact parking in the area, most communities allow 35 % (the applicant is asking for a variance for 38.3 %). There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey moved to approve the request for an amendment to the special permit to charge for guest parking, allow a car rental operation to use 8 required hotel parking spaces, and to amend a parking variance for compact parking increasing the percentage on site from 24% to 38.3 % by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as changed by the City Planner, and changes to condition 24 correcting the number of valet parking spaces to 85, deleting reference to the amount of fees to be charged and the city review of future fee changes, retaining the city review of any changes to the areas used for valet parking; amending #33 to remove the proposed fees to be charged and any city review of these fees except for short term parking which shall not exceed $0.50 per hour for the first four hours and $1.00 thereafter and which will continue to be subject to city review of any changes in the future; and amending #36 so that the special permit can be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memos of June 29, July 2 and August 20, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of September 4, 1984 and the Director of Parks' memos of June 25 and August 22, 19841 be met; 2) that the project be developed consistent with the plans submitted and date stamped August 16, 1984 and parking garage as shown in the plans of October 1, 1984; 3) that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and buildings shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; valet parking, patrons, visitors or employees may not be charged for use of on -site parking without review and permission of the city; the applicant shall design the parking structure so that one-half deck of parking can be added in the future if it is needed to on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 relieve on -site parking demand; 4) that any future rental car use and storage of rental cars on -site operate according to a program reviewed by Hyatt and city staff and be brought to Commission for review prior to introduction of the use on -site; 5) that the project receive all necessary permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over this site including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration; 6) that in the future, as required, the developer participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east -west transit connection to Southern Pacific, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or other intercity transit opportunities for employees as well as providing an on -site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the hotel; provide airport shuttle pick-up; 7) prior to construction of the on -ramp, install and maintain landscaping on the entire site; 8) provide on -site security services and patrol; 9) make improvements necessary to fire mains for adequate flow and pressure to meet fire fighting standards, install low flow water fixtures, put all underground utilities in non-ferrous pipes or encase/coat steel pipes; 10) during construction provide all parking for construction equipment on -site and a supervised program for on -site and off -site parking for construction workers approved by the Department of Public Works; 11) design building of concrete with non -reflective window areas, incorporate energy efficient systems to match expected loads, provide natural ventilation in atrium area, incorporate passive and active building, site and mechanical systems; have a PG & E energy audit within 18 months of completion and implement all recommended cost effective conservation measures; 12) soil and foundation investigation by a California licensed engineer to determine foundations, structural protection within area between elevation 5' and 10', provide protection to Easton Creek to a standard acceptable to the City Engineer, recompact and fill site as required by city; 13) conduct a hydraulic engineering study to determine necessary improvements to Easton Creek to accommodate 100 year flood, coordinate creek improvements with site and roadway improvements, minimum floor entry of site 9' MSL, site should be filled to 10' MSL; protect Easton Creek from silt during construction using measures approved by the City Engineer; 14) drain site away from Route 101 and to Easton Creek, install oil separating traps for runoff from parking areas, maintain oil separating traps on a regular basis approved by the city; 15) landscape site with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest control, follow procedure established by a qualified landscape architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 16) retain an acoustical engineer to determine design and construction measures to reduce noise during construction, place solid wooden fence around construction site as necessary to reduce on -site construction noise, project should comply with Title 25 requirements and interior noise level standards of the city, atrium cover design should take into consideration possible need to replace fabric cover with a more noise attenuating covering if city established interior noise levels cannot be attained after construction; 17) to retain traffic allocation the project will be developed on the following time frame: Date Submit final plans Pick-up building permit Final foundation Final framing Occupancy -19- September 1985 January 1986 July 1986 January 1987 September 1987 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 18) that the tent as installed shall match the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994, Sheet C-4T Tent Site Plan, Sheet 1, Tent Elevations and Plan, and Sheet A3.1 Hotel Elevations; 19) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 28, 1994 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 20) that all employees shall be encouraged to park in the off -site parking lot during non -office hours, when all the parking spaces at the hotel site are full; 21) that the tent shall be permitted at this location as a temporary use for 10 years (2005); 22) that the Hyatt Hotel staff shall submit to the Planning Department, plans documenting all on site parking within 60 days of this action; 23) that the tent and its use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 24) that up to 85 parking spaces shall be designated for valet parking, that the two parking areas suitable for valet parking use shall be the 32 spaces in the outdoor lot between the front entrance and Bayshore Highway and the 53 spaces at grade and out of doors in front of the parking garage on the Bayshore Highway side, and any change to the area used for valet parking shall require modification of this use permit; 25) that the car rental operation at the Hyatt Hotel, 1333 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 7 am to 3 pm and 12 pm to 6 pm 7 days a week (changed number of employees from 1 to 2 and increased hours by 14 hours per week), and that 8 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles on the first floor of the parking garage and no car shall be stored in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; 26) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned or repaired on the Hyatt site; 27) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to these operating limits shall require an amendment to this use permit; 28) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October 1998) and every two years thereafter, or upon complaint; 29) that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame. 30) that: the parking plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 5, 1997; Sheet. Al. 1 Site Plan, Sheet Al. 2 Improvement Plan, Sheet A2.30(N) Parking Garage Level G1 & G2 Re striping Plan, A4.0 Control Lane Layouts, Sheet A2.31 (N) Parking Garage Level G3 & G4 Restriping Plan date stamped September 9, 1997, and Parking Revision pg. 1 and Parking Revision pg. 2 date stamped October 3, 1997; and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site or on the adjacent city property; 31) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 8, 1997 memo, Chief Building Official's September 15, 1997 memo, Senior Building Inspector's September 8, 1997, Traffic Engineer's and Senior Engineer's September 8, 1997 and October 6, 1997 memos shall be met; 32) that for a fee or free long term airport parking shall not occur at this site (including" sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33) that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter, any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided or site, their configuration and or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; and 35) that before charging for on -site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage. Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to approve was passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) . Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS -20- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 18) that the tent as installed shall match the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 27, 1994, Sheet C-4T Tent Site Plan, Sheet 1, Tent Elevations and Plan, and Sheet A3.1 Hotel Elevations; 19) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 28, 1994 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 20) that all employees shall be encouraged to park in the off -site parking lot during non -office hours, when all the parking spaces at the hotel site are full; 21) that the tent shall be permitted at this location as a temporary use for 10 years (2005); 22) that the Hyatt Hotel staff shall submit to the Planning Department, plans documenting all on site parking within 60 days of this action; 23) that the tent and its use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; 24) that up to 85 parking spaces shall be designated for valet parking, that the two parking areas suitable for valet parking use shall be the 32 spaces in the outdoor lot between the front entrance and Bayshore Highway and the 53 spaces at grade and out of doors in front of the parking garage on the Bayshore Highway side, and any change to the area used for valet parking shall require modification of this use permit; 25) that the car rental operation at the Hyatt Hotel, 1333 Bayshore Highway, shall be operated by two commissioned agents from a desk in the lobby area between the hours of 7 am to 3 pm and 12 pm to 6 pm 7 days a week (changed number of employees from 1 to 2 and increased hours by 14 hours per week), and that 8 parking spaces shall be reserved for car rental vehicles on the first floor of the parking garage and no car shall be stored. in one of these spaces for more than 72 hours; 26) that no cars shall be serviced, cleaned or repaired on the Hyatt site; 27) that car rental customers shall not exceed 700 per month and any change to these operating limits shall require an amendment to this use permit; 28) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October 1998) and every two years thereafter; 29) that all rental contracts shall be written and signed in Burlingame. 30) that the parking plan shall be implemented as shown on the plans date stamped September 5, 1997; Sheet A l . l Site Plan, Sheet Al. 2 Improvement Plan, Sheet A2.30(N) Parking Garage Level G1 & G2 Restriping Plan, A4.0 Control Lane Layouts, Sheet A2.31 (N) Parking Garage Level G3 & G4 Restriping Plan date stamped September 9, 1997, and Parking Revision pg. 1 and Parking Revision pg. 2 date stamped October 3, 1997; and that there shall be no temporary tents for any purpose installed in required parking or access areas on this site or on the adjacent city property; 31) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's September 8, 1997 memo, Chief Building Official's September 15, 1997 memo, Senior Building Inspector's September 8, 1997, Traffic Engineer's and Senior Engineer's September 8, 1997 and October 6, 1997 memos shall be met; 32) that for a fee or free long term airport parking shall not occur at this site (including" sleep, park & fly" promotions) without amendment to this permit; 33) that a fee may be charged for self -park visitors at a rate of up to $0.50 per hour for the first four hours, and $1.00 thereafter ( . main), any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing; 34) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided or site, their configuration and or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 35) that before charging for on -site guest parking the applicant shall apply for and receive a sign permit or sign exception, if necessary, to install appropriate directional signage; and 364-that ibis permit. shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October 1998) and every two years thereafter, in one year (October 1998)-and .e:very, two .years thereafter, or upon complaint. Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to approve was passed on a roll call vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). Appeal procedures were advised. -20- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1997 PLANNER REPORTS CP reviewed City Council's regular meeting of October 6, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. MINUTES10.14 -21- Respectfully submitted, Chuck Mink, Secretary