Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092704PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 27, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the September 27, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Contract Planner Karen Kristiansson, City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 13, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commission discussed the agenda and polled the audience regarding the number of people wishing to speak, and decided to move item 3 Public Hearing and Action on the Bicycle Transportation Plan before item 2 the public hearing on the Hospital Replacement. Staff also noted that in the interest of time, any consent item removed from the calendar this evening would be placed on the October 12, 2004, meeting agenda for public hearing and action. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. 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. 1A. 754 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND HELEN GRANCOLAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1B. 2108 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT O'CONNOR, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY STRAWTHER, DESIGNER) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1C. 1420 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHIL HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGN; CAREY AND BRYAN WELSH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 2 1D. 217 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLIS SCHOICHET, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; HOWARD AND ELISE CLOWES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1E. 1417/1419 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (98 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1F. 1844 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (FABIO SILVA, APPLICANT; JEFFREY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. VII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON FINAL DRAFT BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL (NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report September 27, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report summarizing the plan, noting that the action was to approve the plan and to recommend to City Council that the Plan be amended to the circulation element of the General Plan. Commission asked: looking at route map there seem to be a couple of destinations missed, Ray Park, Roosevelt School, McKinley school; was there a reason the subcommittee did not include these destinations? C. Brownrigg, Bicycle Subcommittee member noted that there was a lot of discussion about the various routes to include, could not stripe every street, made an effort to balance recreational and commuter usage, felt that the Ray Park residents were pretty careful; also noted that this plan is a beginning not an end, will evaluate how people use the routes in the future and can add lanes/routes as needed. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented that she had attended the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meetings on the plan and had a couple of ideas: currently there is not enough time at the bicycle actuated signal at ECR to walk bicycles across the street, maybe this actuation could be coordinated with the "walking man" ; the regional plan does not reflect bicycle routes through Hillsborough, perhaps that could be added to the final regional map; the Traffic, Safety and Parking commission did incorporate the intersection near Ray Park, the school and Ray Drive. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 3 Commission comments: this is a document which will grow; it will be the basis for the city's permanent plan. C. Vistica noted that this is a great piece of work which is long overdue and moved to recommend the plan by resolution to the City Council for amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the plan and recommend to City Council that it be amended to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Staff was directed to place this item on the City Council agenda for action. The item concluded at 7:20 p.m. 2. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED AND C-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARCEL MERGER, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED TO C-1 FOR HOSPITAL AND RELATED USES FOR A PROJECT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING PENINSULA HOSPITAL WITH A NEW SIX TO SEVEN-STORY HOSPITAL BUILDING, A FOUR TO FIVE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR HOSPITAL SUPPORT SPACE AND MEDICAL OFFICES, A PARKING GARAGE AND A HELIPAD. (239 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON Chair Osterling began by explaining the procedure for public comments. CP Monroe presented the staff report, focusing on the process and actions required, since the applicant would be presenting the project. She reviewed the required applications and the process to date; explained that the Commissioners had a memo at their desks responding to a request at the August 30 meeting for a comparison with parking supply at the Mills medical campus; discussed the findings and statement of overriding considerations; reviewed substantive changes to the conditions of approval; and in response to a question from the Commission, went over the general outline of the meeting. Todd Tierney, project architect, represented by Oren Reinholt, project manager, Antonio Bava, project landscape architect and Trixie Martelino and Rod Jeung, EIP Associates, responded to questions on the final EIR with Jamie Hicks of Fehr and Peers on traffic. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. The applicant began by presenting the project. Key points made during the applicants' presentation were: the project has been ongoing for 3+ years, has involved 200+ design professionals, and is now finishing the design development phase. Hospital believes that the present project is a great design and a great project for the community. The project began with objectives to be accomplished in replacing the medical center: meeting the state mandate for seismic safety; existing hospital is 50 years old and functionally obsolete; this is a district-owned site dedicated for medical use; providing a clinically safe environment incorporating features such as all private rooms and no recycled air; providing a hospital that is patient and family centered with a place in every room for a family member to sleep; designing a flexible project that will last about 70 years, so they are including 70 beds of shelled space; an efficient hospital with 35-bed units for optimal staffing service in nursing units; sensitivity to the neighborhood with no pile driving in project and placing the parking garage away from Ray Park; current hospital remaining fully functional through construction with no reduction in services or access; providing an integrated medical office building (MOB) that is connected to the hospital on all floors; improving site access by eliminating the dangerous El Camino Real entrance and providing three separate entrances; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 4 improving the Emergency Department with increased patient capability, adjacent parking, a trauma capable department, and a helipad near the entrance. They continued: the project is different from the original project changes include: the hospital rotated 90 degrees, the main entrance at Magnolia, MOB facing El Camino with direct pedestrian access from El Camino, rerouting the water line, and increasing landscaping; this revised project was based on the conclusions of the DEIR, study sessions and examination of a variety of alternatives, and with this project, the preferred alternative in the EIR, they were able to reduce major environmental impacts from 6 to 2. For Davis Drive residents, most of the hospital is significantly screened by trees, it is 117' away at the closest point, the narrowest end of the tower faces Davis Drive and has only four patient rooms facing Davis Drive on each floor of the tower; design of rooms places beds in center to provide distant views, and couches for family members by windows so they must stand back from window to look out and would sit with their backs to the windows; the structure steps back from Davis Drive, with the widest and closest part to Davis Drive at the lowest floors being significantly screened by vegetation; design team worked to reduce floor plate and have minimum of functions facing Davis Drive; have more solid surfaces on Davis Drive side of building to minimize light spillage; most patient rooms look away from Davis Drive. Commissioners asked questions of the applicant, the EIR consultant, and staff: How does the height of the eucalyptus trees at Albemarle compare with the height of the trees being proposed? Redwoods should grow to same height as existing trees, but have to be located between fence and water line easement. There is a mix of trees proposed with varying heights because a solid wall of trees would block light. CP Monroe noted that the Commission could impose a condition requiring landscaping to be adjusted to provide tall trees where there are existing tall trees. Why are heights of trees on plans so short? There is mix of small, medium and taller trees, with a layer of redwoods in front of tower. What is the status of the visual impact on Davis Drive? Could it be mitigated with color palette, landscaping, design, etc.? Alternative C was mitigated. Visual impact is still significant and unavoidable. Since impact is based on blockage of sky views, the impact can be lessened but can't be mitigated to less-than-significant. Alternative C was mitigated through required step back of the upper floors of the office building, but applicant has stated that those step backs are not feasible so Alternative C would have same significant visual impact to Davis Drive. The applicant responded that the reasons are that the MOB couldn't change its shape to provide the floor area that would be lost in a different location, and without that floor area, there would not be enough space. Also, the Revised Project has less visual impacts in some ways because it is narrower than the MOB and further away from Davis Drive. Council questions of applicant continued: In Table 2-8, the table and the footnote don't appear consistent— is there a significant impact? The text on page 2-45 indicates that there is a significant impact before mitigation, but that impact can be reduced to less-than-significant through mitigation. The footnote is an error. Why don't the plans show more detail on the MOB? The MOB is on a separate track since the hospital needs to go through the approval process at the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). The plans are at an early stage of the design, with elevations just showing massing. Is it possible to hold back part of the application, like the design review for the office building or landscaping plans? Could bring office building back for design review, and could have condition that before issuance of a permit, the landscaping would need to come back to the Commission. Chair Osterling asked for public comment on the project included comments from the following people: Keith Duncan, Vice-Chief of the medical staff at Peninsula Medical Center; Celeste Chavez, Burlingame resident and nurse at Mills-Peninsula; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; Victor Richmond, 1653 Balboa City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 5 Avenue; Steven Dambrosio, 1604 Davis Drive; Mrs. Dambrosio, 1604 Davis Drive; Dave Matterelli, one of the owners of the Burlingame Plaza; Grace Chen, 1860 Magnolia Drive; Steve Purdue, 1601 Davis Drive; Tim Vinelli, address not provided; Nancy Fraser, 1645 Albemarle Way; Teresa Post, 1617 Coronado Way; Pat Nicholson, 1652 Balboa Avenue; Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Luchan Pincer, nurse at hospital; Kevin Nelson, 1652 Albemarle Way; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive; Andrea Mettas, surgeon and resident of Marco Polo Way; Vince Muzzi, resident of Hillsborough and owner of 1766 El Camino Real and 1100 Trousdale; Dan Andersen, 728 Vernon Way; John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; George De Sivestri, Jr., attorney for Lunardi's Markets; Igor Yagolnitser, 1501 Davis Drive; Robert Bruening, 1645 Albemarle Way; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way. Needs of Doctors and Hospital Staff. Medical staff has been involved with design of project and supports it; want to meet earthquake standards; the MOB is a critical part of the project to allow timely access to patients; medical staff wants best medical facility; nursing staff could use more space; hospital needs to be built; MOB is essential part of project for providing good care. Project Alternatives. Consider placing hospital on El Camino side; consider alternatives submitted in public comments; please come up with alternative that doesn't have negative impact on Davis Drive; believe there could be a better plan with hospital closer to Trousdale; has Commission considered keeping existing structure/footprint; if hospital were told they needed to provide an option with no impact on Ray Park, they would do it; could the MOB be put on top of the parking garage so that you could move the whole project over towards Trousdale; need to find alternative with least impact on Ray Park and most positive impact on city's gateway. Location of cooling towers. Towers are further away from the utility plant in Alternative C, why can't they be moved further away in the revised project? Cooling towers are a nuisance now, can hear them at night and they are about twice as far away. Noise. Problems with trucks and people partying in parking lot; hospital needs to post hours at loading dock. Privacy for Davis Drive Residents. Difficult for people to live under 6-story building; have lived in house for over 20 years and now feel house is being taken because will not have privacy, etc. Visual Impact on Davis Drive Residents and Nearby. Impact affects sight lines from Balboa and Albemarle as well as Davis Drive residents; currently have views of grass, trees & sky and have light into house, but all that will change; height and setback of project is out of scale with neighborhood character, project is disrespectful and an abomination; hospital has visually affected people at other end of Davis Drive for years and this project may not be as bad as everyone thinks; having large parking garage on corner with few trees seems like it would be an impact; architectural character is too stark and modern for what's appropriate in Burlingame; was told by architect that second story addition to home on Davis Drive wouldn't be approved because out of scale with neighborhood, but now there will be a 7-story building across the street; old hospital is at angle, but new hospital is parallel and like a wall; push architects to do more to make structure stand out or blend in. Public comments continued: Impact on Property Values. Concerned about impact of project on property values; probably impossible to sell now because will have depressed price; took everything to buy house and don't know what they'd do if value was reduced. Replacement Landscaping. Revised project would remove mature trees and replace with immature landscaping; could applicant replace first row of parking (about 20') behind upper Davis Drive homes with landscaping strip for trees; how many deciduous trees compared with evergreen in trees proposed. Changes Affecting Burlingame Plaza. Concerns about traffic at shopping center and removal of left-turn entrance from Trousdale; no study done of street running through the center (Plaza Lane); what about trucks in alley, where are they going to park to make deliveries; concern about impacts on customer access. Traffic Impacts. Concerned that increased traffic on Trousdale and at intersection with Magnolia will affect attendance at College of India; concerned about traffic on Davis Drive; why do conditions of approval allow traffic to double; why is the existing El Camino entrance unsafe but the loading dock entrance safe; what about trucks making left turns onto El Camino; has the traffic that would be generated by the shelled space been considered in the traffic and parking calculations; don't want City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 6 entrance moved from El Camino to Trousdale; concerned about hammerhead intersections on Trousdale, could have driveway but not intersection no left turn; haven't addressed increase in traffic from new condo project or from increases in BART traffic or increased densities due to North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan; concerned that Magnolia would be used for emergency entrance or that the level of service would be affected, but understand that's not the case. Adequacy of Parking. Don't know how this project can happen without parking impacts; need to get mitigations to parking first; BART parking garage has lots of extra space, could use that during construction; residents would prefer parking impact to visual impact; what if parking garage is full, how do cars get to other parking areas on site; must be a parking deficit, because with 1504 employees and 1486 spaces, where are visitors and patients going to park; would there be paid parking, shouldn't be paid parking at hospital; people don't obey posted speed limit so why would they obey paper requirement not to park in residential area; parking will end up on streets. Davis Drive Entrance. Hospital is supposed to monitor use of entrance, but they're supposed to monitor it now and it hasn't been effective; need to close entrance to vehicles before construction or sell hospital entrance property on Davis Drive. Project Processing. Need to take more time to look at this; meetings were in summer when fewer people could come; need to have more meetings and opportunity to meet and interact with applicant, presenting signatures of people who would like to get involved; still time to make better decision; don't yield to pressure to make decision quickly when community would need to live with it; shouldn't act on this until it's ready. Helipad. Hospital building currently blocks sound, noise will be big impact at new location; requiring no more than four trips per month is ridiculous because if you need trips, you need them. Other Comments. Hospital can become research center and needs to put people, children, care and the environment first; meeting should be recorded for community on television; office building competes with private office buildings owned by residents; oxygen tank location on El Camino doesn't fit area and would be security target; has been lots of noticing for this project and chances for people to become involved; applicant has been very cooperative and receptive; need to work closely with community, having more open public engagement will result in better project. Chair Osterling recognized the applicant who responded to the public's comments and addressed at Commissions request some of the constraints affecting the placement of the structures on the site. Points regarding constraints on the site. Grades on site are issue; lot of clay on site so water level is not very deep, constrains how deep buildings can go; water line/easement location and use is constraint need to keep existing hospital operating without changing the existing power plant location; problem with El Camino entrance, it's OK for right turns but not left and with the single present entrance it's confusing how to get to the Emergency Department; and timing constraint in state legislation, already have to apply for extension and slim chance may not get it, but there's only one extension possible, must be done by 2013; Applicant also noted about the issues raised by the public: the project as now proposed provides all on site parking required during construction; the entries at the hospital, medical office building and parking garage are now level; kept 10' on each side of water easement to plant deep rooted trees since cannot plant in easement; compressed building along Davis Drive side; have buried proposed cooling towers into part of hill and provided sound wall; stepped building back from Davis Drive so tallest tower farthest away, closest portion is two stories; today CalTrans requires any entrance on El Camino to be farther away from Trousdale; will opened warehouse for trucks to reduce number of deliveries and have them made by smaller trucks; reduced number of loading docks and loading dock area, put as far from Davis as could; have looked at seven alternatives, and EIR found that all other alternatives had more impacts, are proposing the environmentally preferred alternative; don't agree with all conditions, believe Davis Drive entrance is needed until completion of project because during time they're taking down existing hospital they'll need the Davis Drive entrance for staff; can control construction access from Davis Drive because have single contractor and have clout of progress payments, can require in contract that contractor physically monitor City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 7 Davis entrance during construction if there is a problem; and have not rushed process, redid Master Plan, submitted plan two years ago, then as a result of EIR developed another plan. Commissioners asked a number of questions of the applicant, the EIR consultants and city staff: Can applicant sit down with community, having heard these concerns, and try to come together? Want to be good neighbor, but can't redesign hospital; believe can work with neighborhood better than have done about mitigations. Have impression that having cooling towers in current location actually makes things quieter, and moving them would increase noise. Is that true? If removed cooling towers, there would be an exposed wall of the hospital with open louvers facing Davis Drive with the power plant behind it; there is mitigation that if there is a noise problem in excess of community standard, they will fix it; will do what it takes to solve any noise problem. Oxygen tank bunker on El Camino is unfortunate, have you looked at alternatives? Tanks need access at loading dock and can't be located on easement, also don't want to push it back closer to Davis Drive residents; have sized tanks so more horizontal with minimal height and with bollards around sides. Existing cooling towers cycle on & off, will new ones do that? If cool enough, won't go on at all; will run varying numbers of chillers depending on the temperature, so if heard, will sound more like increasing speed on fan. Could the existing water line be pulled closer to the hospital on the Davis Drive side to provide more room for trees next to residences? Need to check; that would result in less landscaping on hospital side, current proposal is to balance tall landscaping on both sides. How many delivery trucks now? How long is warehouse lease? What will be the frequency of trucks and timing of deliveries? Is left turn out of loading dock safe, and if so, why not for cars? Truck traffic numbers are in EIR; lease is 10- years with option to extend; will improve situation because then truckers arriving from long-distance hauls will go to warehouse to unload and it will be hospital employees driving smaller trucks to hospital, so hospital will have more control. Timing of deliveries would be controlled by Condition 87 in revised conditions. Current El Camino entrance doesn't work because of grades; CalTrans wants entrance separated as far from Trousdale intersection as possible; will have smaller trucks because of warehouse, and will add acceleration pocket to El Camino Real for left-turns by trucks. What is proposed for site security? Concerned about increased calls to Police Department. There will be cameras that will project to guards; security staff 24-hours per day, with three to five people per shift; security office on garage is placed so can see all entrances; guards will make rounds, there will be monitor cameras. Will Marco Polo Way be used mostly by staff? Could there be a gate there to limit access to staff? Will be staff entrance, would consider gate there at future date. How will use of the Davis Drive entrance be monitored? Could there be a gate to prevent use by construction vehicles? The Davis Drive entrance is currently used by patients and neighbors as well as staff; in early phases, don't expect that pattern to change, but when use Marco Polo Way for construction access will need to have additional staff access at Davis Drive. Commission discussion with applicant continued: Commission is familiar with the project, think it's a good project, but it would be good to have community involved more; need to figure out how. Then about exterior design: Why so much surface parking when another smaller garage would leave more undeveloped space? Would like to see that as possibility. Surface parking gives flexibility for site use in future; what’s been done to blend the building in? Trying to make building a feature, it's not a residential building, not hiding it; use warm colors: precaste concrete with river rock aggregate, granite down low, metal panels with light bronze color; modern high tech materials but warm and will vary colors to give impression like bricks; glass on stairways to include both translucent and clear panels, except for Davis Drive side which won't have clear glass; will have sunshades for privacy in each room; parking structure will be pre-cast concrete with glass panels at corner and metal at stairs; heavily landscaped around garage; want a pre-assembled look, not a 'historicized' look. Will this look dated in 20 years? Client don't think so because trellises are simple enough they won't become dated; it's a 50-year building but want to build it to last 100 years. Doesn’t City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 8 trellis emphasize the height on Davis Drive side? Can't hide the building so need to make it look good; eye will follow up vertical features, trellis gives eye a place to rest rather than just going off. What if project were continued? What about looking at less high tech designs? Looked at and exhausted alternatives; stopping process isn't in best interests of applicant or community; if could stay on schedule, would engage in dialog with community; delay costs at least $45,000 per day, also funding has to compete with other Sutter projects and now are first in line, and then have state deadline of 2013; replacement hospital is currently projected to open in 2010 if no delays with construction.; OSHPD approval process will take 12-18 months and may get longer as more applications for other hospitals required to be replaced come in. Are comfortable with design, haven't heard any problems with that? What are the dimensions on the face of the building towards Davis Drive? Tower is about 90 feet wide. Where is shell space (empty for future use) located? Is it possible to remove the top floor of the tower on the Davis Drive side and maybe build it later if needed? Top floor of tower towards Davis Drive and second to top floor of other tower—whole fifth floor. short term the shelled area is slated to be the fitness center; then if obstetrics service needs to expand, it could go there, some forecasts show hospital desperately needing more obstetrics others don't; if don't build now, would need to go back to OSHPD in future for approval to add on to building, which is complicated so want to avoid that. Discussion continued: Is it necessary to analyze flow of traffic in the alley off Magnolia at the Plaza Shopping Center; any thought to studying it; drive through daily and it's a mess? Observed but haven't quantified as level of service; peak is about one car per minute; alley can accommodate two way flows; would be more cars entering but not more exiting because still have right turn out of Trousdale driveway. Burlingame Plaza alley is privately owned; what if the center changed? That would affect all traffic going in and out, not just traffic affected by this project; traffic study would be needed; would come before Commission for review as a part of any proposed shopping center change. There is parking on one side in the alley (Plaza Lane) as well which increases congestion and makes it difficult to turn in because need to make a wider turn; was that considered? Lane is wide enough for parking and two lanes of traffic, problem would be illegal double-parking, which is an existing issue that needs to be addressed. Would applicant be open to idea of public at a sculpture at corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and if so, how would you engage the City? Haven't given that adequate attention, but it's a wonderful opportunity. What if could shift water line and deed an additional 10 feet of land to residences? Land belongs to District, but would talk about that if it solved everyone's problems. A member of the public noted such a shift would put utility poles and PG&E visits in Davis Drive backyards. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the project and provided additional comments on the following topics: Dialog with community. Applicant needs to engage community in dialog; urge meeting with community, need to discuss problems; would have been good to see this crowd earlier in process. Alternatives. In discussions with applicant over last eight months, because convinced there are few options that will work, and there will be a big building facing Davis Drive, think Revised Project would have less impact than Alternative C; EIR. The EIR is excellent, one of best Commission has seen; don't want to approve yet because want to leave open tool of mitigation measures in case dialog with community results in additional mitigation measures; want to look for more creative solutions to reduce impacts further; does provide adequate disclosure; Landscape plan. The landscaping plan needs close attention, especially with a view towards creating a permanent massing on Davis Drive side; there is room for improvement; request meeting with staff and applicant to discuss; Design of buildings. Would like to see other renderings considered; think it looks too high-tech and another design might fit better. Timing of actions. Commission can act on some items tonight and hold others, but all should go to City Council as a package; could take directive actions tonight to send signal about what is acceptable and to help focus future discussion; good to look at project as a whole rather City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2004 9 than piece by piece; if continued actions, would then probably come back to Commission at its October 25 meeting, would need to discuss potential City Council meeting date with City Manager and Council; acting on zoning recommendation tonight would allow introduction of zoning at October 4 City Council meeting. Commissioner Keighran moved to recommend approval of the conceptual lot line adjustment and the tentative parcel map, the zoning text amendment, and the rezoning, as described in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bojués. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0 on a voice vote. Since this project will go forward to the City Council there is no appeal period required. Following comments by a number of commissioners regarding the good quality of the Final EIR and the positive effect of the extensive revisions made by the applicant to the project since its submittal and their support of the applicant's submittal of the preferred alternative with the fewest significant and unavoidable impacts, as well as noting that since many of the neighbors were new to the process, the consensus was that there would be benefit for the applicant to meet with the neighbors and discuss these issues as they relate to their properties. Commissioner Bojués moved to continue consideration of the EIR, CUP and design review to the October 25 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Auran seconded the motion. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the Final EIR, conditional use permit and design review to October 25, 2004, so that the applicant could meet with the neighbors and better inform them about the limitations caused by the site constraints, the reduction in significant unavoidable effects caused by choosing the preferred alternative, and to discuss specific mitigations related to Davis Drive properties. The motion passed 7-0-0 on a voice vote. This item concluded at 11:50 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - There were no Planners Reports. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2004\minutes.09.27.04.doc