Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022304PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 23, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the February 23, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 9, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Gorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke noting that the last time she came to a Commission meeting it was because a neighbor wanted to add a 5 bedroom 5 bath house, now she is hear because she is concerned about the increase in water usage and wastewater volumes caused by these new, big houses which impact the flat lands of the City and her house in particular. The very old sewer system overflows in her area whenever there is a major storm. She would like the Planning Commission to better address the over burdened, clay sewer pipes. Staff noted there are more studies of the water distribution and waste water collection systems under way now. Chair Bojués directed staff to contact the proper person in Public Works and have them call Ms. Gorni. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZOMING CHANGES TO REGULATION DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT – PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report outlining the changes to development regulations for creek side lots proposed by the Subcommittee. Commissioners discussed noting: • That in the definition of creek side lot it should read “one-hundred year flood or flow depth line…” • Are swimming pools considered to be structures under the provisions of this ordinance? • The regulations for height should be reworded to make it clear that the maximum height of 30 feet still prevails even if the canopy of the trees is at 40 feet. • The six foot setback line from the one hundred year flood line should be a fixed setback, like a side setback, and to encroach into it should require a variance. Commissioners all agreed to direct that this change be made to the proposed regulations, and urged swift processing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 2 There were no further comments from the Commission. Chair Bojués set this item for public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. Staff noted that they would bring the creek regulations forward at the next meeting with the proposed regulations for emerging legal lots which the commission discussed previously. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. A member of the public requested that item 2B, 137 Crescent Avenue be taken off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. Commissioners did not request any other items be removed from the consent calendar. 2A. 1216 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JONATHAN AND JENNIFER VARNI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2C. 9 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK STOKLOSA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND CAROLINE LEE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (26 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Brownrigg noted that he would abstain from voting on the consent calendar because he was not present at the last meeting. C. Keighran moved approval of items 2A and 2C on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects at 1216 Cabrillo Avenue and 9 Mills Court. The motion passed 6-0- 1(C. Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2B. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks presented the staff report, noting the corrections including the addition of fencing and plant material along the property line between the two driveways. There were no questions of staff from the Planning Commissioners. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, represented the project. Neighbors Timothy O’Brien, 133 Crescent; Jim Lundi, 128 Costa Rica; Sandy Ladd, 141 Crescent City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 3 spoke. The applicant noted talked to neighbor O’Brien and submitted a letter to address the concerns expressed; he noted that willing to install the fence and greenery between the driveways, given the orientation of the house did not think that it was possible to block the sunlight to O’Brien’s house so changing the roof line not necessary, do not feel that it is reasonable to ask for story poles, did not include a cut to the gable roof feel that clipping it would not support the design of the house. Neighbor noted he has a 10,150 SF lot, it is worth $1.7 million but not matter bought the house 19 years ago for the quality of life in Burlingame, that will be taken away by the construction of this house next door; project does not comply with the design guidelines, it does not interface well with the adjacent property, it does not respect its neighbors, spoke about the driveway at last meeting, but what about the 30 foot tall roofline, want story poles with netting put up so he can see impact and Commission can as well, want the roof lowered and pulled back; not opposed to the project, just want the roof redesigned. Want story poles, this house will look into three back yards, house next door to his hurt worst because will lose morning sun; was shocked by new house on my block recently built, too big. Would like story poles to show where gable will be located, need to respect existing neighborhood conditions, part of the design review charge. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Neighbor eloquent about his concern about compatibility with the neighborhood character, did not support the application with the previous action, reasons are in the record; nice design, would ask for story poles to support that design, help neighbors understand; feel story poles are not out of line, would support, should note that lots are small in Burlingame and houses frequently look into one another’s yards, feel meets design guidelines; neighbor is not opposed just wants story poles, should install; like design, feel follows guidelines, respect concerns of neighbor, support story poles so everyone is aware of impact, we all live close to one another there will be over views. People in audience should listen to concerns expressed by public tonight, issues such as the impact on water supply of so many new bathrooms, concern about the size of houses, and make wishes known about the direction which community should take for future development. Chair Bojués moved to continue this item until the story poles could be installed and looked at by the neighbors and commissioners. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the story poles have been installed and looked at. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 318 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GEORGE RYAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Danielle Ryan, 318 Channing, represented the project. Want to remodel so that the bedrooms can be on the same floor. Commissioners noted: • The front elevation is very vertical, especially at entry, needs to blend more into the existing house; • West and rear elevations need articulation, too much stucco; • No overhang at the entry, lacks human scale; • Taking the wood siding off the master bedroom negatively affected the scale of the house; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 4 • Should look at window trim treatment, should use a more traditional stucco mold detail; • Left wall on the side and the rear need more windows; • Good example of entries that work are on Concord Way, should take a look; • Should include a landscape plan, large trees should be included to soften the addition and make an attractive setting for the house, landscape plan should be submitted with the revisions, landscaping can be done after construction. • The interior space between the kitchen and the dining room should be evaluated to see if a change could result in an increase in the rear yard. • House should have true divided lights throughout. C. Keighran moved to put this item on the action calendar since the mass and bulk of the project was all right, the issue is with the finer details, the front entry design, breaking up the stucco on the east and west walls, changing the trim. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: feel that the project needs to go to the design reviewer, changes affect the front back and sides; lot of comments, design reviewer could polish this project. C. Keighran made a motion to amend her motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the recommendations made by the commission. C. Auran the second of the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. It should be placed on the action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion to refer to a design reviewer passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if staff could provide the data table from the original application. Staff noted that it would be included in the action packet. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Bret Bottarini, 1225 Cabrillo Avenue, represented the project. Neighbors John Varney, 1216 Cabrillo, Angela Johnston, 1528 Ralston spoke. Applicant noted that bought house with approved plans for an addition, the FAR of those plans was bigger than this project, they reduced the garage to one car, narrowed the addition and increased the second floor setback to the rear; placed windows high on the side wall to protect the neighbor, did not want them to look into dining room and kitchen, wanted to retain the simple style of the original bungalow, had a problem with interior finish on windows matching, drove ceiling height, not add windows in kitchen because of sun. Commissioners discussed with applicant: unusual to go through mud room from kitchen to dining room; there are no windows on the west elevation, where are the egress windows for the bedrooms on the second floor; house is 2000 SF the mass and bulk are handled well, low height, 26 feet, but structure lacks detail, its all stucco, could the second floor be enhances by adding another material; eave detail needs study along with fascia, small windows could be added, fewer than with previous design; need to break mass and bulk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 5 on the east elevation; window trim should match existing, nice to have more relief; some of the problem is the way the elevations are drawn, not descriptive enough, add window in kitchen; windows should be true divided lights. Applicant is asking Commission to sacrifice their desires in order to accommodate the neighbors, think that is fine, add windows on that side or not, up to applicant. Neighbors noted: design review is important intended to add value to projects, to make the design fit in the neighborhood, there are a group of neighbors here to support this project because it fits, the applicant is investing in Burlingame. This is a family home, approve plans as they stand. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Keighran noted that over all the designer did a nice job, like the simplicity, the project works well, all the elevations are good except for the west one which needs the addition of one or two small windows to break up the space and make this wall fit with the rest of the house, move to direct the applicant to make the changes and bring this item back to the consent calendar with relief as noted. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED - PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AN APPLICATION TO REPLACE MILLS- PENINSULA HOSPITAL WITH A NEW SIX TO SEVEN-STORY HOSPITAL BUILDING, A 146,323 SF FOUR TO FIVE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR HOSPITAL SUPPORT SPACE AND MEDICAL OFFICES, A PARKING GARAGE AND A HELIPAD (258 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON CP Monroe introduced the environmental consultants for the project, Rod Jeung and Trixie Martelino from EIP Associates and Jane Bierstedt and Jaime Hicks from Fehr & Peers. The consultants made a presentation on the Draft EIR, starting with a description of the hospital project, the environmental methodology used in the analysis and a overview of the environmental review process. The consultants then outlined the significant effects identified in the Draft EIR, highlighting those which were determined to be significant and unavoidable, including the loss of open space along El Camino Real, conflict with the desired development character at the El Camino Real gateway area, parking deficit during construction and construction noise. The consultants then reviewed the alternatives presented in the Draft EIR, explaining that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives and that are capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project. The document looked at the "no project alternative" (keeping the existing hospital and doing a seismic retrofit of the building), and two alternative site plans. The objectives in creating the two site alternatives were to reduce the loss of open space along El Camino Real, achieve the City's design goals along El Camino Real, use the hospital proposed interior space planning of the project, and maintain delivery of health care services on the site while the replacement hospital is under construction. Alternative A would involve relocating the San Francisco Water District line which runs through the site to the El Camino Real frontage, retains the existing driveway on El Camino Real, creates a ring road with two main access points and retains the building footprint but reorients it so the main entrance is off El Camino City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 6 Real. Alternative B puts the main access on Trousdale, moves the garage closer to Trousdale, changes the shape of the hospital building to provide more open space on El Camino, and retains the shape of the medical office building but separates it from the hospital building. In comparing the two alternatives to the proposed project, both the alternatives eliminate three of the significant unavoidable impacts, but still have significant impacts during construction in both parking and noise impacts. The Draft EIR identifies Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the loss of open space, is consistent with the City's goals for the gateway area, better segregates the vehicle trips to the hospital at three driveways and has a better helipad locations. As noted, the construction parking and noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The consultants then highlighted the next steps in the process, noting that comments on the Draft EIR would be received through the closing date of March 5th, the consultant will prepare responses to the comments and identify a mitigation monitoring program. This information would be incorporated into the Final EIR and would be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration before action is taken on the project. Commissioners complimented the consultant on the comprehensive analysis, asked the following questions of the consultant and made comments: Question: Why were the potential traffic impacts further up Trousdale not analyzed, Trousdale is becoming more impacted with BART and the school traffic? Response: Looked at trip generation and distribution and how many trips from the hospital would be going towards Trousdale, it was a small amount, about one new trip every 2 ½ minutes, not considered to be significant. Looking at Trousdale, took into account the school traffic, determined that there are three peak periods, 7:00 – 9:00 a.m., 4:00 – 6:00 p.m., and because of the school and the hospital, also looked at 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., and this was the worst. Question: Where in the report is the analysis of the vehicle noise, odor, light and glare from the parking garage to residents on Davis Drive. Response: In Chapter 3.3, Visual, looked at lighting and the potential for spillover of the vehicle headlights, fumes were addressed in the Air Quality Chapter on Page 3.6-16, Noise was addressed in Chapter 3.5 on Page 3.5-14. Question: The parking deficit during construction is as much as 500 cars, when evaluated the amount of parking required for the project, is it based on the needs of the existing facility, was it compared other facilities, or is there an industry standard that is used? Response: Looked at existing parking demand and factored up for the increase in beds and office floor area, also compared to industry standard and looked at worst case, this analysis showed a higher parking demand than the industry standard, so the more conservative estimate was used. Question: Is this the right-sized hospital (bed count) based on the regional supply? Response: One thing that isn't done in an environmental analysis is to question the justification for the project, the project sponsor comes up with the proposal, and the EIR's role is to look at the impacts of the project as proposed. Question: There is a potential of residual land from this plan, and was the use of this land addressed; that also needs to be looked at when considering alternatives at the scoping session; had asked that the amount of residual land available be looked at. Response: Refer to Table 5-1 in the Alternatives Chapter for comparison, but only looked at maintaining the size of the parking structure, didn't look at in that level of detail, but there could be a larger garage and less surface parking to maintain or enlarge residual land, at this level of alternative analysis, just need to see if all the pieces fit on the site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 7 Question: The zoning of the site is proposed to be C-1, why was that chosen, it is a commercial/retail zoning, if this project is not built it would open the site to commercial retail uses, could it be zoned C-3 like the properties along Trousdale and Marco Polo, why is it being changed from Unclassified? Response: CP Monroe noted that the property cannot stay Unclassified because that designation only applies to a public use, some of the property is privately owned and the hospital is privately operated. C-1 was chosen over C-3 because of the interface with other C-1 zoned properties along El Camino Real, and C-3 is particular to offices and financial uses. Question: Saw a comparison of the open space in the document, some of what is shown as "open space" on the plans may not stay open space, has the impact of changing that area to other uses been looked at, what would the impact be if the open space area at the rear of the parcel were fully developed, would it come back to the Commission. Response: CP Monroe noted that any future changes on the site would need to be reviewed for environmental impacts and a conditional use permit would be required. Question: The existing office building at 1515 Trousdale which will be demolished has a lot of dentists, with many patient visits. With the new office building, was the potential for frequent patient visits to physicians taken into consideration in the parking and traffic analysis? Response: Applicant didn't provide specifics on how the office space would be used the detail of type of doctor's office but an assumption was made that it would be similar to 1515 Trousdale with patients visiting physicians. There are two ways to handle the variability in use, either with a very specific program and a facility that can be measured, or when you can't compare with a like facility, you can use the industry standard that provides for a range. In this case we looked at the average conditions and added a 10% increase to resolve the fact that there is no specific program. Question: There are 1931 employees now and there will be an additional 281 employees, but overall only 341 parking spaces are added, seems like there should be more. Response: Will respond in writing and explain the parking analysis methodology in Response to Comments Document. Question: Regarding truck deliveries, a decrease in the number of truck deliveries was mentioned, based on a warehouse that will be leased in the Rollins Road area, if this doesn't happen, how would that change the analysis? Response: There are 27 truck deliveries per day today, would go down to 23 with the warehouse, because of the loading docks location and the width of El Camino Real and the ability for on-site turnaround, the impact was not considered significant. If there were no warehouse, the number of trips would go up, but the difference would not be considered significant. Question: To get to the shopping center, cars traveling west on Trousdale will no longer be able to make a left turn into the parking lot but will have to make a left at Magnolia and enter the site at the narrow lane in the middle of the shopping center off Magnolia, what are the impacts of the increase in traffic that will result on that lane, is there room for two-way traffic, when there is a truck in the yellow zone on Magnolia, cars entering can't see oncoming traffic. Response: Will look into further and provide response in final document. Question: There is a lot of surface parking in this proposal, did the EIR address potential for underground parking, would improve the project visually. Response: When look at costs of underground, it is expensive but it can be done, without the cost, that would be the first option, the parking garage already cuts into the grade so it is partially underground. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 8 Question: On Page 3.3-37, there is an analysis of the potential glare from headlights in the garage, there will be concrete planters to relieve the glare from sedans, but what about SUVs? Response: Without the planter box, there is screening for sedans but not SUVs, with the planter boxes, the SUV's headlights would also be screened. Question: What will be done with the current vehicle entrance from Davis Drive? Response: It would be closed to vehicles and would be part of the public pedestrian access and fire access. Question: Was the number of accidents at Ray Drive/Trousdale and Trousdale/El Camino Real looked at and impacts studied? Response: Did not collect data on existing accidents, but in looking at how the vehicles stack, would tend to see more accidents if left-turn traffic extends into the through lane, other improvements would help prevent stopped vehicles, which would reduce rear end collisions, whether or not there is an existing problem. Question: Concerned with the 60-inch water pipeline in the easement, propose to make the hospital safe, but with the pipeline over the emergency entrance, how will vehicles get to the hospital if the line breaks during a seismic event, why is this not listed as significant? Relying on information from the SF Water Department, need third party to evaluate the condition of the line. Response: Refer to Page 3.10-4, spent time talking with the San Francisco Water Department, looking at the schedule for maintenance, the older line is in the El Camino Real right-of-way, the line in this easement is a more recent pipeline and is in good condition. It is evaluated on a regular basis, if the line were to rupture, because of the changes in grade on the site, the water would drain to the south towards Davis Drive, or to the north towards Trousdale, there would be no significant ponding, there are no fault lines that run through this area, so no rupture is expected, looked at the geotechnical report and the potential for liquefaction, the soil types on the site are not likely to liquefy. Will provide more information on the structural integrity of the water line in the final document. Comment: In the traffic analysis, there is a lot of information about the queue lengths, but would like to see the interaction of the different turn movements, could a diagram be provided that lays out all the lane changes on one sheet. Question: Alternative A shows new traffic circulation that breaks up the traffic flow, will a traffic analysis be done of this circulation pattern? Response: A traffic analysis of the alternatives has been done, the impacts and mitigation measures are similar for the proposed project and the two alternatives, the biggest difference was with Alternative A, the significant impact at the intersection of Trousdale and El Camino Real would go away; there is an error on the graphic, the intersection at Magnolia and the emergency exit would be signalized, not a stop sign. Question: Was the same rigorous analysis done on the alternatives as on the project? Response: Typically alternatives are analyzed with less detail, but did look at the intersections, if the site plan changes significantly, the EIR would be amended to look at how the changing impacts would be balanced, the EIR is a disclosure document that looks at adverse impacts, don't look at beneficial effects. Question: In looking at the project and alternatives, assumed that the old building would be kept intact because of the need for emergency, could build the office building first to handle emergency only and shuttle other patients to Mills Health Center in San Mateo, then the building could be planned to fit the site, is there a way to find out the size of building necessary for those uses that would have to be provided to use as a transition, then do the site planning on a clean slate? City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 9 Response: It is the project sponsor's objective to be able to provide continuous health servies from this site. When talk about splitting off services, it gets difficult because of the relationships of services and transport. Comment: Concur that it would be easier for site planning, understand the need to provide services to the community. Question: Alternatives A and B are shown to reduce the significant impacts, why weren't they studied more thoroughly? Response: Can request to have further study done for final document. Question: In traffic analysis on page 3.4-23, don't understand the difference between trip distribution and trip assignment and what is the difference in trip distribution given the entrance is off Trousdale? Response: The distribution refers to the regional percentage of trips and their direction; the assignment is specific to each intersection, all the existing trips from the El Camino Real Driveway have been shifted to Trousdale, distribution assumes entrance/exit off Trousdale. Comment: Challenge the conclusion that added trips on Trousdale, one trip every 2 ½ minutes, would be an unnoticeable impact on Trousdale and 280, provide more basis for that conclusion. Question: On Page 3.4-15, it is noted that with build out of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, it is assumed that there won't be additional traffic generated from developing that plan, is that a safe assumption, given assumption that development would be more dense? Response: The land use data base used looked at the square footage and type of development both being added and buildings which would be demolished. Overall, there would be a decrease in traffic, even assuming up to 50 residential units per acre. Trips from residential development are of a different timing, and the distribution would be different. Question: The visual impact from Davis Drive is determined to be significant, but would be reduced to less than significant by stepping back the upper stories, how is that conclusion reached? Response: The receded office building would be masked by a double row of new landscaping in front of the building, which is expected to grow to 40 feet tall in ten years, that would reduce the visual impact to less than significant. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Rich McGough, 1712 Davis Drive; Simone Almasi, 1604 Davis Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Vince Muzzi, 1818 Gilbreth Road; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; and Mike Shea, 1812 Davis Drive spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the project. Had a question about the parking structure, says in the EIR that it is 5 stories, thought it was three and one underground, why is the garage being put next to the Davis Drive houses when there is 26 acres to work with, could be put on Trousdale or underground, stated that if all land could be used, could build first phase of the garage next to Davis and the second phase on Trousdale, this is now not included in the proposal; plans show all four sides of the garage are open, were promised it would be closed at the back facing Davis Drive, the 100 foot green space stops at my property line and there is parking behind my back yard, thought the green belt would extend to Marco Polo; was the air pollution analysis done assuming cars would be parked all day, or cars coming in and out all day long, which would be the case for doctor's offices; we were told that the access alley from Davis Drive would be closed before construction began; Alternative A looks nice, but the main entrance on El Camino Real would funnel the traffic behind our houses, should be moved over 100 feet and have a 100-foot tree buffer zone. Appreciate the opportunity to speak against the entrance being changed from El Camino Real where it has served the community for 40 years, if entrance is there it is a State highway and the State has the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 10 responsibility to maintain the roadway; in 2003, several local residents signed petitions against the relocation of the entrance, 200 signatures delivered, concerned citizens are depending on us to look after their interests; the existing hospital grounds and configuration provide open space and ambience, opposed to building office building on public land, diminishes the appearance of the property and detracts from the quality of life, there is a lot of office space in the private sector, the addition of the office building on public land reduces the tax base to fund community services and the site is overdeveloped, haven't heard anyone mention that as BART ridership develops, there will be increased traffic on Trousdale, it is already impacted, don't make a bad situation worse. Concerned with the visual character of the project at the entrance to Burlingame on El Camino Real, propose wall, palm trees and loading dock, should be a greater setback; the number of employees exceeds the available parking, need to add in the requirements for patients, doctors, visitors, will be 100 spaces short just with staff; in looking at the identification of hazardous materials, need to look at "hot spots" created in loading dock, with 27 trucks a day, with hospital change in operation trucks will be more frequent, small trucks instead of larger diesel trucks, there is no mention of the truck traffic to serve the office building; the increase in traffic on Trousdale is not adequately addressed; the zoning on the property should stay Unclassified, not changed to C-1 zoning, if hospital ever goes away, could be commercial uses with buildings built to property line; what happens if the 230 kV Jefferson Martin transmission line is put in Trousdale, testified that this will disrupt imaging equipment; hospital with entrance on Trousdale is inappropriate. Original concerns not covered, should look at parking garage and consider moving it closer to Trousdale, not shown in alternatives, why not; there is very little open spaces, plans show 5 acres in the back, the Hospital Board is looking into building in that location, there will be no open space, need to have an alternative using properties on Trousdale for the offices; there is a problem with the Alternatives, parking garage would go where the existing hospital is, won't be able to build it until after existing hospital is demolished, understand they have to have ½ of the garage built to meet the hospital parking needs during construction; don't think there is enough parking proposed for added medical office building; shouldn't have the truck access and loading docks on El Camino Real, this is the gateway to Burlingame, don't want to be looking at trucks and dumpsters; states that there would be 23 delivery trucks, but none are shown for the office building, would there be more, where would the trucks park if can't get in to loading dock because it is occupied, will traffic on El Camino Real be stopped with trucks maneuvering on to site; where will the trucks go when they leave, through the neighborhoods, how will they cross El Camino Real to get back on the freeway; need to make sure the hospital keeps the warehouse for storage of supplies for at least 50 years. Discussed the visual impacts of the office building on Davis Drive, but not the hospital building, concerned that the table shows a parking deficit during construction, will take 7 years to build, will be short 170 to 580 parking spaces for construction workers and hospital personnel, that was not addressed, am concerned that parking for construction will spill over onto Davis Drive if overloaded, haven't looked at the ramifications; regarding the C-1 zoning, does action on the EIR automatically change the zoning, open space is shown, what protection do we have when zoned C-1, what could be built on the area shown as open space. Strongly object to El Camino Real being used as rear delivery entrance for the hospital, the design being used as a template for the alternatives is a concern, there may be programmatic issues but if the 60 foot easement goes away, it changes everything, how the facility could be sited, there are lots of possibilities for doing a project that is acceptable to the community and applicant. My bedroom is located 100 feet from construction area, it will be going on for seven years, could tall evergreen trees be planted now to prevent the concerns with construction dust and allergies. Applicant has stated that project could not be flipped so City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 11 that the building faces El Camino Real because it would affect the proposed medical office building, would that option work if the medical office building were left out of the proposal; seems to be an assumption that all doctors now across the street would move to the new building, but most doctors with a practice on El Camino Real are only courtesy doctors to the hospital, if the office building is built, would there really be an exodus of doctors from across the street, don't know if that will happen. Alternative A provides an opportunity, once the pipeline can be moved we have a big piece of land to decide where to put the hospital, much more viable than the applicant's proposal. Have concerns with the garage, applicant originally stated that the rear wall would be solid, now it is shown open, foresee increased traffic for the medical office building visits, are the parking figures accurate, could the garage be used for longer term parking, roof and interior light and noise impacts would be minimized; concerned about the C-1 zoning, would it allow retail, would be better if it were C-3 for medical use and have an override for the height, would be happy to see the medical office building with staggered height to reduce the visual impact. Could the cooling towers along El Camino Real be moved near the helipad to add more open space along El Camino Real, and could the helipad be moved to the roof; concerned with the pedestrian access and fire access road along the south property line, could it be moved closer to the garage building; need to keep the garbage and coolers away from the Davis Drive residences. Told that there would be a 3-story garage before, it's getting bigger, now a medical office building, when talking about the EIR it is hard to separate out the political issues and look at larger picture with Sutter Health as an organization; concerned with traffic, right now the traffic on Davis Drive is unbearable, this will become a construction zone concerned that construction traffic will park on Davis Drive and use public access way during construction. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: There were a lot of points made and questions asked, will they be addressed as part of the EIR? Planning staff noted that they will be addressed as a part of the Final EIR specifically in the Response to Comments document; comments also can be submitted in writing to the Planning Department through March 5th. Regarding parking and site use, we haven't seen where the construction lay down and materials handling will occur during construction, could that information be provided. Also in analysis, if we don't look at future uses on the open land, will it be considered piecemeal analysis; we have to assume build out of the site, look at the zoning and make conclusions as to future use based on that. The discussion and comment on the Draft EIR for the Peninsula Hospital project concluded at 10:55 p.m. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 6. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW CHAPTER 3, ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS AND CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (265 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the chapters of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to be reviewed tonight: Chapter 3 and 6. Tom Ford, DCE, was available to respond to questions. Commission Discussion: • The Adrian Road Subarea, not clear how the design concept works, signage should be incorporated; concerned about the use of specific types of sign such as neon or bill boards. Staff noted that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 12 design guidelines should incorporate more detail on signage to establish a sense of the over all scale of signage and how it fits. • Concerned about the use of the frontage roads on El Camino and how that will work. Consultant noted that the frontage roads would be incorporated into the development and could parcels be developed individually, although ideally the parcels would be aggregated – would be phased and a slip road would provide access to remaining parcels. • On Rollins Road the “green ways” proposed should be designed for pedestrian and bicycles; why was the drainage area not included. Staff noted that the drain was not connected to the creek areas and it was hard to establish a network which included land already developed and the drain; also the drain includes protected habitat. • Concerned with process, looking at these chapters in segmented fashion and at the end of Commission meetings, two weeks ago made some radical changes not in keeping with the public workshops and subcommittee in put, would like to see the plan as a whole, would also have better opportunity for public participation. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. John Ward, representing CES development, Bruce Balshone, representing a property owner on Ogden spoke. Feel that there is a need to look more closely at the gateway concept at Broadway and Rollins Road, the FAR and land use and development incentives being proposed do not seem sufficient to achieve desired end. Concerned that Commission might revisit and change decisions made at last meeting, people are making plans to develop based on direction at that meeting. CA Anderson noted that any comments made by the Commission at study are points in discussion. The decisions are not final until after a public hearing; given input at the hearing, the whole could change. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioner discussion continued: • Need to correct page 14, simulation of gateway does not include bicycle path, guidelines include it. • Page 15 talks about building heights how will that be incorporated into zoning? • Would like to revisit commercial uses on El Camino Real; need more design detail for residential uses on California Drive. • Consultant should comment on the traffic impact from all the changes in zoning proposed. Consultant noted that with changes from commercial to residential, the types of trips would change, so the trips occur at different times and the overall impact is decreased. • Should add an illustration of the Trousdale/El Camino Real intersection now that we know what the access needs of the hospital project will mean for lane configuration. • Feel am not seeing the whole, but pieces; conclusions reached so far have been out of context of whole. • Think design element is nice, the visual descriptions are clear. • Confused about what came out about the use of the west frontage of El Camino Real, would like the document to be open to changes and let the property owner be able to come up with a plan. This is an important element of the plan, needs to address the feed back we’ve received from the hospital. Following some discussion the Commissioners decided to continue the discussion of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to their regular meeting on March 22, 2004; and set aside the entire regular meeting to a study session of the entire proposed plan. They directed staff to make a presentation which would tie the threads of the plan together so that it could be evaluated as a whole, and suggestions for further consideration could be based on the whole. This item concluded at 11:55 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 13 - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 17, 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 17, 2004. Council set the Second Unit Amnesty ordinance revisions and the Broadway Commercial Area revisions for public hearing at their March 1, 2004, meeting. CA noted that there is a study meeting of the City Council on Saturday, February 28, 2004 at the Recreation Center to discuss the budget. The meeting is at 9:00 a.m. - Next Steps in Review of Mills-Peninsula Hospital Project The applicant is reviewing the Draft EIR and discussing changes to the project to address the significant and unavoidable impacts identified so far. This “project” response will be included in the Final EIR analysis. They are developing a collection of “studies” and asked if three Planning Commissioners would like to volunteer to review them with staff. Cers. Osterling, Brownrigg and Vistica volunteered. Staff noted that they would follow up. - Scheduling a Special Meeting for March 29, 2004 Commission directed staff to set a special meeting of the Planning Commission for Monday, March 29, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Since the regular meeting of March 22, 2004, is being used for study of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the agenda items which would have been on the regular meeting of March 22, 2004, should be put over to the March 29, 2004 meeting. In addition any backlog of design review or other planning projects also could be placed on that agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 12:04 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary minutes.02.23.04