Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.04.28.29.30.05.01CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers and Burlingame High Auditorium I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the April 28, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Senior Engineer, Philip Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 14, 2003 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 There were no public comments. C. Brownrigg arrived (7:07 p.m.) VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items on the agenda. 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. Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1a. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DISPLAY AREA (SHOWROOM) EXCEEDING 5,000 SF IN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT (CALVIN COATSWORTH, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC, ARCHITECT; ROBERT RIGGS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1B. 129 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE NILMEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM AND BEATE QUINN, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 2 1C. 1609 RALSTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION PHIL HYLAND, JPH DESIGN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN AND ANDREA CUTRIGHT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1420-1450 HOWARD AVENUE & 249 PRIMROSE ROAD – ZONED C-1, SUBAREAS A & B AND R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, REZONING OF PORTIONS OF THE SITE FROM R-3 AND C-1, SUBAREA A TO C-1, SUBAREA B, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND RECONFIGURATION OF LOTS, INCLUDING RECONFIGURATION OF TWO CITY-OWNED PUBLIC PARKING LOTS, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR SAFEWAY, WALGREEN'S AND RETAIL SHOPS (RICHARD S. ZLATUNICH, APPLICANT AND SAFEWAY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (163 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Keighran gave a brief overview of the ground rules for the meeting, noting that the intention was to hold the public hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and try to conclude the public hearing by 10:30 p.m. If necessary, the meeting will be continued to tomorrow evening, April 29, 2003. Reference staff report 04.28.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report on the revised project dated March 13, 2003, reviewed criteria for the various actions and noted that representatives from ESA, the environmental consultant hired by the City, would present the Final EIR. 53 conditions were suggested for consideration and it was noted that these included the mitigation measures from the Final Environmental Impact Report as adapted by the supplement to the EIR for the revised project and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan, dated March 13, 2003. During CP Monroe’s presentation it became clear that the sound system in the chambers was not adequate, especially in the rotunda where members of the public were standing. Chair Keighran called for a fifteen minute recess at 7:25 p.m. so that staff could try to adjust the sound system. Chair Keighran called the meeting back order at 7: 40 p.m. noting that it did not appear that the sound problem could resolved this evening. She asked for a motion to continue the public hearing on the Safeway project to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at a place to be posted at city hall, on the city’s web site and recorded on the Planning Department’s main telephone line 558-7250 after 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2003. C. Osterling made the motion and C. Auran seconded the motion to continue the public hearing to Tuesday April 29, 2003, and, if necessary Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be announced after 2:00 p.m. by the Planning Staff on their main phone line, the city’s web site and posted at City Hall. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The meeting was continued to April 29, 2003, and adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Notice of the continuance was posted on the City Hall door. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 3 1420 –1450 HOWARD AVENUE, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APRIL 29, 2003, AT BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, 1 MANGINI WAY, BURLINGAME. Chair Keighran called the continued regular meeting of the Planning Commission and continued public hearing on the Safeway project at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue to order at 7:02 p.m. She noted that all the Planning Commissioners were present: Cers. Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Osterling, and Vistica. Staff members Meg Monroe, City Planner; Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner; Larry Anderson, City Attorney; Syed Murtuza, City Engineer; and Philip Monaghan, Senior Engineer, were also present. No changes were proposed to the agenda and it was approved as posted. Chair Keighran noted that the meeting would continue where it left off the night before with commissioners questions of the City Planner about the staff report. The City Attorney and the Environmental consulting firm would then make their staff presentations and each take questions from the commissioners. At the close of the staff presentation she would open the public hearing for a presentation from the applicant and public response and comment. Chair Keighran asked if there were any questions of the City Planner regarding her presentation of the project, criteria for action or conditions proposed for the project. Does the city have established standards for illumination in parking lots; CE noted that the standard is safety and it can vary based on the location and need of the parking area, so it is determined on a case by case basis, CP noted that the city does have an illumination ordinance which must be adhered to as well. What was the out come of the Wilbur Smith parking study downtown; CE noted the study showed at build out there would be a 365 parking space deficit in the entire area, the fees the city charges for public parking are low compared to other cities, and in order to free up parking closest to the retail sales center we need to change the parking behavior of users and move the long term parkers away from Burlingame Avenue; to meet the long term short fall, the study looked at building a parking structure on Lot J. What effect does shortening the required standard parking space by one foot have, and what would be the effect of not granting this variance. CP noted that if a variance for dimension is not granted the applicant would need a variance for number, possibly not to meet the code requirement on site but to meet the assessment district for parking number on their site. It was noted that in 1962 when the assessment district was formed the purpose was to create spaces to meet the current deficit, not the supply public parking for future expansions. There were no other questions of the City Planner regarding the staff report. Chair Keighran asked the City Attorney to make his presentation. CA Anderson advised the commission on what it means to certify an EIR. He noted that the Final EIR before the commission consists of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments document, and the Supplement to the EIR which addresses the compliance of the revised March 13, 2003, project. The commission’s job is to determine the sufficiency of these documents as being adequate, a good faith effort at disclosure; do the documents include facts and analysis presented so that others can under stand the conclusions reached. When there is a dispute over items in the document EIR need only summarize differences and then determine effects. Does the document give the commission sufficient data to make a decision on the project. There were no questions of the CA by the Commission. Paul Mitchell and Marty Abell, Environmental Sciences Associates, presented the Final EIR. They noted the public review process and steps of notification for this document; the supplemental EIR addresses the revised project dated March 13, 2003, and reviews the quantitative differences from the original project which are summarized in Table 3. He reviewed briefly the changes caused by the reduced project and noted that the environmental effects of the revised project were the same or slightly reduced the environmental effects of the original project. There were no significant unavoidable effects identified in the environmental City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 4 review. Commissioners asked questions of the consultant: it does not appear that a shadow study was done; determined that a shadow study was not required because the project did not represent a major change in development pattern from that existing in the area, no major exceptions to height were proposed for example. How was the long term 365 parking space deficit addressed, report looks at the project's parking impact only, what about parking impact during duration of construction ? Acknowledge the problem, added a mitigation to the project to reduce the projects contribution to the deficit. Parking study looks at current demand, increase in employees, increase in retail area and background parking issues. There is a section of the EIR on phasing of construction which includes parking during this time, mitigations address the impacts of parking during this part of the project. How was noise from truck loading determined, how far was it from Primrose? The existing noise was measured at the current Safeway loading dock about 150 to 200 feet from Primrose. How many tractor trailers did you assume would use Fox Plaza Lane after the project? Four, based on data provided by the applicant, also assumed smaller trucks by vendors, assumed that the tractor trailers would all enter from Primrose. Did you address pedestrian traffic from the city parking lots? It was not identified as a significant issue based on change, the traffic engineer did not find a significant safety issue for pedestrians. Light and glare has a major impact on aesthetics since this location is a gateway, here we have a large parking lot, is that a significant impact at a gateway? Environmental document begins with existing condition and looks to change, since there is a parking lot in most of this area now, and the document indicates that the amount of parking, especially on the El Camino side, was not changing substantially, document does not see this as a significant change to the visual character of the area. Commissioners asked the City Attorney what are the options if they disagree with the findings and think that the aesthetic impact on the views at the gateway is significant. CA noted EIR consultant’s evaluation is based on the standards of environmental review, if the commission feels that the proposed mitigations are not sufficient to address the visual impact at the gateway the conditions can be added to. Was the impact of the project on parking lot J evaluated as Lot H was? Not as a part of the project since it was full at the time, looked at the parking lots which would be impacted by the project and looked at them as a unit, not individually (Lots H, L and K) because look at cumulative effect, tables review the impacts on each. Truck traffic on Primrose has been an issue, how many would be added to Primrose with the project, what percentage during the day would be attributable to Safeway? Environmental document looks at what would be added over the existing project, applicant documented an increase of 8 vendor trucks a day and the same number of Safeway tractor trailer trucks (on average 4); all would enter from Primrose, about half the vendor trucks load from the front of the store and would probably enter from Howard. There were no more questions from the commissioners on the FEIR at this time. Chair Keighran noted that the EIR consultants would respond again at the end of the public hearing to issues raised by the testimony and any additional issues from the commissioners. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. She established the ground rules for the public hearing portion of the meeting establishing that the applicant would make their presentation, then organizations who wished to make a combined presentation could present, providing that they represented sufficient numbers of members to cover the time; and any member of the public who wished to testify would be given 3 minutes to speak following the combined presentations. Mark Hudak, attorney, Kathleen Gallagher, Safeway Vice President for Real Estate for Northern California, Richard Zlatunich, architect, Mathew Ridgeway, traffic engineer, represented Safeway and the project. It was noted that the current store is ugly and obsolete and does not serve its customers well, it was not feasible to replace the store until Safeway was able to purchase additional land; they are not proposing any new uses on the site, but are suggesting some design changes to make the uses fit both downtown and the customers better, the site plan is an improvement and provides greater safety for traffic and pedestrians, feel City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 5 that they have balanced the competing needs of pedestrian oriented and auto oriented retail. The proposal has a unique exterior, will serve the community for 30 to 40 years, will meet the all the customer needs, ADA, as well as Walgreens'. Safeway briefly reviewed the site plan, the elevations, the square footage of the components and the parking requirements. Safeway noted that this was one of the few projects downtown which would meet its parking requirement on site as well as add14 more parking spaces to the overall parking supply. The project includes off-site benefits including a newly configured and constructed city parking lot, direct auto access to El Camino Real from both the city and Safeway parking lots, developed retail frontage on Primrose and Howard. For this they are asking one variance to reduce the length of standard parking stalls one foot, other public and private lots in the city have 19 foot deep stalls, the hardship for the shortened spaces is that the developer is required to dedicate 8,000 SF of site area to the city to improve city parking. The project will include a number of improved retail opportunities for its customers. The proposed size of the store is comparable to other grocery stores on the Peninsula.; and presently Burlingame is underserved in square footage of grocery store to population when compared to neighboring communities. Polled customers and 1,500 people said they wanted a new Safeway. The steps taken to reduce the scale and make the design reflect the patterns in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area were reviewed. Commissioners asked the applicant: can Safeway control the time of deliveries of vendor trucks? Not effectively. What is the duration of the Walgreen’s lease if the project is built? 40 years. Are you familiar with the parking mitigation measures suggested with the project? Do not accept the position that the project cannot use any public parking, propose that some employees will parking in outlaying public parking lots, studies show that there is enough capacity in Lot G, most employees park on site now. How would you address condition 38? It is not practical for Safeway to build a parking structure for the city, alternative is to contribute money to the city and allow the city to address the overall parking problem and add to the parking resources. Where is the bank in the store? It's very small, about 200 SF. Where is the 8,000 SF dedication you refer to which creates the hardship for the parking dimension variance? Setbacks on three sides of the building, Howard, Primrose (10 feet), and Fox Plaza Lane. This is the fifth largest Safeway store on the list you provided, do any of these other stores have other retail areas incorporated with them, this store is not about 45,000 SF but actually 66,000 SF? It is desirable to mix other retail with a grocery store and a number have other retail immediately adjacent. Will the duration that a truck stays be longer at the new store? Slightly longer but with more storage on site they will not have to come as often. How will multiple trucks arriving at the same time be handled? Many vendors unload through the front door others at the dock, the number on site at once does not create a conflict. Do you know where the 35 parking spaces which are deficit could be built? Not familiar with any area which could be redeveloped into parking at this time. How does the relocation of parking Lot L further west benefit the Burlingame community? Safeway will not use public lots L and K, have enough parking on site for their customers, will park some employees off site, maybe in new lot K-L , but probably on Lot G which is long term. Changing the parking lots is the only way to get this project done, because of the location of Lot L, without land exchange the city is stuck with the existing Safeway. Noted earlier in original project that there were 1800 lineal feet of dry goods in the project and 1,750 lineal feet at Millbrae, how many lineal feet of dry goods will there be in the revised project? The number will be reduced because the dimension of the sales area was changed with the revision, not sure of the exact number but will find it for you. Why were the story poles not more complete in showing the outline and mass of the revised project? Only tried to show the height, there were some areas where could not put in poles because of pedestrian safety; could have done netting at Wells Fargo but not on Howard because Walgreen’s did not want to lose more parking. Are most of the truck deliveries before 10 a.m. and what percentage come through the front door? Think more than half unload through the front door and want to do so; Safeway delivery trucks come late at night, 4 per day, at times that will not conflict with Primrose businesses. Think Safeway and Citizens group improved on the project, do not agree "per capita SF grocery store" numbers because when you look at total stores that serve Burlingame residents City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 6 (Albertson’s in Millbrae and Safeway on Peninsula) the number is 5.2 SF per capita. Is your point that you'll increase local tax revenue and, if so, do have data to support? Safeway noted that there was no hard data, just common sense and experience, will not divert business from existing retail, customers may shift from San Mateo Safeway. Concerned about the size of the parking lot, do you intend to install mature trees as a part of the proposed landscaping, concerned about large area of hardscape seen when in a car and look to the east? Will work with the city to do the best we can. Safeway’s annual report indicates that many stores are over 44,000 SF and the ideal size for a Safeway is 50,000 SF, which is what you would have if Walgreen’s went elsewhere, would you agree to a covenant to always have a separate retailer next door? Yes, for some defined time, don’t think we could agree forever because don’t know what circumstances could occur, would accept a conditional use permit so city would review change in future. Safeway does not plan to use Lots K and L for parking? Yes, at peak hour on Saturday it may, for Safeway to succeed as a business they need to have parking on site to satisfy customer needs. Lot K and G are underused so space available for employees, although two hour meters in Lot K will discourage employees. Did not feel that the story poles installed were responsive to the direction that the Planning Commission gave, especially given the volume of this proposed structure, very difficult for the lay person to determine what the project is, why? Story poles for this structure is not like installing poles for a second story residential addition, they do not demonstrate the total volume of the building or describe the building, the only way to do that is to build an entire building of fabric. Sought some middle ground, that an intelligent person could use to determine structure, the poles show the height correctly at the corners. There were no more questions of the applicant from the Commission. Chair Keighran noted that now was the time for the combined presentations; the Citizens for a Better Burlingame have requested to make a 30 minute presentation. Charles Voltz, Russ Cohen and Michael Nilmeyer presented. The Citizens for a Better Burlingame are not opposed to a new Safeway but want one that works for Burlingame. Union representatives want a store that provides construction jobs and for people to work in. Proposed a two structure alternative which would increase the amount of construction work, but Safeway took the option off the table. Why should you not approve the proposal: environmental document does not adequately address parking and air pollution, EIR perpetuates the problem of trucks entering the site from Primrose Road, the noise analysis is in error because it assumes the existing trucks are there now so there is no increase over existing with the project, but they are not using Primrose/Fox Plaza Lane now; the visual impact of the large parking lot on El Camino is unsightly and not addressed; parking needs to be gotten right, proposal shows that 35 parking spaces short for the peak times that the public lots are used by Safeway shoppers, in fact that number should be 70 because it does not take into account the adjustment for the peak shopping season (the fourth quarter). Sales tax data shows an increase of 22% during that period, but parking demand generated by the proposed project does not show any seasonal adjustment. The cars now parking illegally in the Wells Fargo lot have not been included in the parking demand numbers, so the project will have a greater impact on downtown parking than described. Feel they did a good job with changes on Primrose, but overall the project is not integrated into downtown Burlingame. The issue goes beyond architecture, it is the size of the complex; could go with a 41,000 SF store, don’t need the specialty shops those services are all available on the Avenue, don’t need 40 seats in the deli; present proposal is the only way you can put a 70,000 SF store on the site; if you remove 5,000 SF you can twist the building on the site, reduce a lot of negative impacts, bring trucks in off Howard, not turn back to Burlingame Avenue. Building is designed on a formula to maximize profit; feel that 5,000 SF is what dictates the way the structure is oriented on the site; feel a two building solution facing Howard/Primrose would be more oriented to the downtown; the property owner has the right to develop but also the obligation to benefit the community. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 7 Presentation continued: concerned about the land swap for lot L, the relocation of Lot L will be a big benefit to Walgreen's since it will be right in front of it, no benefit to the city it will be more than 60 yards further away from Primrose, farther for people to walk; this is a real estate negotiation between Safeway and the city; if city approves project Safeway should provide access from Burlingame Avenue to the new public parking lot, so pedestrian access is maintained and improved. Think Safeway is giving the city a false choice, the existing or proposed, a 41,000 SF store is an option and would avoid all the pr oblems. There were no questions of the presenters from Planning Commission at this time. Chair Keighran asked if there were any other consolidated presentations. No one indicated an interest. She then called for a brief recess. The Commission reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Chair Keighran opened the remainder of the public hearing noting that individuals may speak on the item for three minutes. She would call upon those who had submitted cards, but submitting a card was not necessary. The following members of the public spoke in favor of the project: Arnold Ruff, 112 Anita Road; Jim Rafferty, 2711 Summit Drive; Jon Bykoff, 1616 Adeline Drive; ; Deborah Griffith, 2145 Roosevelt Avenue; Michael Murdock, 1228 Floribunda Avenue; Garbis Kevranian, 1294 Oak Grove Avenue; John Ulrich, 2560 Summit Drive; Linda Gregory on behalf of Ron Rickman, 501 Marin Drive; William Knapp, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City. Those testifying made the following comments in favor of the proposed project to replace the Safeway and Walgreen's stores at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue: People go to Millbrae now to shop, the economy is hurting and Safeway gives value, other stores in the area are too expensive, the deli will bring business here; it is time for a change, the new store will bring convenience and selection to Burlingame residents; want to see a healthy local economy, we've seen the worst drop in the city's revenues in 25 years, want to see a modern Safeway to help turn that situation around, project will create jobs and be good for the economy. There are 150 Union members that are Burlingame residents, deserve same respect as other participants, support project; union member, live in Burlingame, Safeway has made enough concessions, Safeway is a good neighbor, project will improve the neighborhood, will be easier to shop and enjoy the small town feel, resent accusation that union members are a mouthpiece for Safeway. Appreciate the efforts of the Commission, commend both sides because this is a better project today, time to say stop, every side has done a good job in negotiations, now it's time to get it done; like to see the store built there will be trees in the parking lot next to El Camino Real to visually break up the parking lot; Primrose in this area is not a nice street now, the new stores on Primrose will make it a nice walking area and part of Burlingame Avenue, live in Burlingame and shop at Safeway for 40 years, would be proud to have new building, look at the picture, it's beautiful, want to take it home and hang it in my room; in favor, support the one-building option, Safeway has done everything they can, project will be a corner gateway, if we don't accept change, there won't be a gateway. The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the project: Jane Borodkin, 1517 Burlingame Avenue; Lauren Parker, 725 Vernon Way; Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue; Robert Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue; Darlene Schumacher, 35 East Carol Avenue; Gloria Barton, 734 Winchester Drive; Jim Scileny, 212 Anita Road; Donna Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue; Jason Brady, 35 East Carol Avenue; Stan Clarke, 1319 Burlingame Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Annamarie Holland-Daniels, 515 Howard Avenue; Tom Carey, 1404 Floribunda Avenue #217; Tom Gilman, 1540 Columbus Avenue; David Kinkead, 124 Lorton Avenue; Ralf Nielsen, 1216 Burlingame Avenue; Kent Lauder, 449 Bloomfield Road; Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way; Leslie Reisfeld, 724 Lexington Way; Mike Spinelli, 1301 Mills Avenue; Jeannie Gilmore, 1431 Carlos Avenue; Constance Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; Stephen Rosenholtz, 712 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 8 Crossway Road; Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue; Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue; Bob Lugliani, 620 Lexington Way; Sue Fuller, 2210 Poppy Drive. Those testifying made the following comments in opposition to the proposed project to replace the Safeway and Walgreen's stores at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue: The new store will have a profound effect on the neighborhood; impact local businesses, Safeway says that if they don't expand we will be missing additional services, but those services are now available in the area; we have a responsibility to review this closely because it is the largest construction project in the downtown's history, seen downtown undergo changes, this decision affects all businesses in downtown Burlingame, it will change the small town atmosphere, the project would challenge the concept of our friendly, tree-lined city, it was never envisioned that would be taken over by commercialization, size of the project is inappropriate to location and neighborhood. Appreciate the democratic process; like to thank both sides for being respectful; appalled by Safeway supporters' use of scripted speeches; Safeway's web site notes endorsement by two former mayors, there are also two former mayors here who do not support the project, majority of the community is for smart growth; everyone wants a new Safeway, but it must be agreeable to both sides, the city is not in the position to bail out a developer if the project doesn't benefit the City; the techniques of obfuscation that Safeway has used are exasperating, the square footage has been manipulated, safety is downplayed, they state that the story poles are impractical because they don't want to show the project's true size; glad to see the Planning Commission asking direction questions. Think that Safeway could do better for the community, Burlingame has a unique, small town character, we deserve better than a cookie cutter store, other Safeway stores on the Peninsula are not in a downtown area, the store will become a destination without interaction with downtown; happy to see them rebuild, but oppose this proposal, with the location of the building on the site, it is walled off from downtown, appreciate the attempt Safeway made by adding retail, but it is only ten percent of the project; through good design the problems could be solved, this site plan is almost identical to the Safeway store in Redwood City, they are still trying to resolve the issues caused to the adjacent downtown there. With a little more effort, the project could be reduced by a few more square feet, don't see the need for a bigger store; wish the location on the site could be changed as shown in the alternatives; we will have to live with it for 30-40 years; by adding width to the street, the gateway to Burlingame becomes the gateway to Safeway; if Safeway decides to expand, they will take the retail space on Primrose; the Safeway store now hides much of the backs of stores on Burlingame Avenue, when it is taken away it will expose these buildings, Safeway has built two level stores elsewhere, it could be done here; the project is out of scale with the area. Five years ago, Safeway came to city and spread out plans, asked if the architect had ever been to Burlingame, the answer was no, now we see the same plan and orientation as the project seen in 1998; it is a glorified strip mall that belongs in Roseville, Burlingame is a walkable city, need to have Safeway to be a part of it and fit into the urban plan; not opposed to new store, but opposed to the design. The location of the loading docks will draw delivery trucks to downtown; they are placed away from the entrance to the Safeway store, and closer to the downtown area, the truck loading will be 120 feet from the tot lot, there will be deafening noise and diesel exhaust when trucks pass by on Primrose; traffic flow of delivery trucks will increase 40 percent; haven't heard about the web-based deliveries, this will impact truck traffic; what is proposed. The traffic on El Camino Real will be slowed by cars coming out of new driveway on El Camino Real; the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 9 Howard Avenue entrance to the store will be gridlocked because it is only 75 feet from El Camino Real; there will be traffic backed up on Primrose with the new diagonal parking; the right turn only onto and off of El Camino Real won't work because cars will still shoot across the intersection to Ralston. Concerned about the impact of the project on pedestrians, it is detrimental to pedestrian oriented town, want a new store, but one that you can walk to with strollers and children; there will be a parking problem in the nearby residential neighborhood; concern with parking, many employees of the Safeway on Delaware were concerned that store would close if a new store were built here; there is a deficit of between 35-78 parking spaces, should predict the future needs at this site if the Delaware store closes, need to have 50 more parking spaces; with the project there will be fewer parking spaces than there are now; we have a parking problem now, should think of adding a parking structure to this project; parking in every block of downtown affects businesses a block away, Lot J is most impacted. The proposal does not have good access from the new public lot through to Burlingame Avenue; the proposed location of the new lot is not equal to what we have now, we should trade for something equal that benefits the whole area, the Wells Fargo parcel would be a better trade; hope the land swap is not allowed without proper compensation; park in Lot L now behind Fox Mall to shop and dine downtown, the plan is to give that to Safeway, the exchange will only benefit Safeway. The story poles are supposed to give an indication of size and shape, recommend decision be postponed until proper store poles installed; on the drawings of the project, it appears that the trees are 30 years old, what will they actually look like when they are first planted; the project will destroy existing mature trees; the project could be designed to preserve them. The commission noted that the time was getting late and it was suggested that the meeting be continued to tomorrow night at City Hall. At the continued meeting, there will be continued public comment, followed by a presentation by the environmental consultants addressing environmental issues raised at the public hearing, followed by the applicant's rebuttal. C. Vistica made a motion to continue the public hearing until tomorrow night, April 30, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., to be located at City Hall, Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The meeting was continued to April 30, 2003 and adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Notice of the continuance was posted on the City Hall door. 1420 –1450 HOWARD AVENUE, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APRIL 30, 2003, AT BURLINGAME CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME. Chair Keighran called the continued regular meeting of the Planning Commission and continued public hearing on the Safeway project at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue to order at 7:03p.m. She noted that all the Planning Commissioners were present: Cers. Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Osterling, and Vistica. Staff members Meg Monroe, City Planner; Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner; Larry Anderson, City Attorney; and Philip Monaghan, Senior Engineer, were also present. No changes were proposed to the agenda and it was approved as posted. Chair Keighran opened the continued public hearing on the project. The following people spoke in favor of the project: Michelle McGettigan, 1411 Floribunda Avenue; Travis Dawson, 777 Morrell Avenue; Pamela Appleby, 500 Almer Road #109; Jessie Bush, Carpenter's Union 217, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City; Kelli Elson, store manager, Safeway, 1450 Howard Avenue; Frank Caprino, 1117 Chula Vista Avenue, Apt. C; Virginia Inglefinger, 2067 Potomac Way, San Mateo; Michael Barrientos, 1821 Ogden Drive; Marvin Ray, 114 Barneson, San Mateo; Dominic Nolan, 12 Dwight Road; Matt Maychrowitz, 850 Walnut Avenue; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 10 David Mauro, 1532 Columbus Avenue. Those testifying in support of the project to replace the Safeway and Walgreen's stores at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue made the following comments: Safeway employee, every day customers ask when project will be approved, current employee facilities dreadful, don't forget the employees of Safeway; Safeway store manager, customers support the project; store is in terrible shape now and is too small, like the layout of the new store; like to see a bigger Safeway with more products and a price range for working families, have to go elsewhere to shop now, it will improve the economy. The project will make the most hideous part of Burlingame better; new façade on Primrose will be similar to other buildings in area, it will not be taller, there will be roll down doors on the loading dock; Safeway seems to have given serious thought to considering community; project will provide needed gateway at Howard and El Camino Real, it isn't attractive now, thought the story poles along with written material gave a good idea of the effect; the store is an eyesore now, we need the new store; the proposed project takes Primrose and makes it more walkable; because this business is auto based, don't see that there will be a conflict the way it is oriented; would like to see the landscaping installed at a larger size. With new store there will be more storage space, so fewer trucks will have to come for delivery; concerning the issue of truck traffic, there is a similar situation at the San Mateo store and it works, access there is also from a narrow street and there never seems to be a traffic problem; if people walk and don't drive to downtown, there would not be the parking problem; there will also be added parking on Primrose; parking problem is created by what exists now on Burlingame Avenue, don't believe Safeway is responsible for that. Union representative for Burlingame, support the project, like the project as is; Union member, Burlingame resident and consumer, this is not a Union/Burlingame issue, would like to see the project built; concerns for livelihood of Union members, some are being laid off at grocery stores because of the economy, it affects small and large businesses, support the project because it is positive for the economic well -being of the community. The following people spoke against the project: Joseph Seliger, 724 Farringdon Lane; Teresa Lindhartsen, 733 Farringdon Lane; Francesca Tashjian, 1408 Burlingame Avenue; Dr. Richard Schwartz, 1411 Cortez Avenue; John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue; Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero Avenue; Jason Tolu, 213 Rosalie Street, San Mateo; Frankie Meyer, 308 Lorton Avenue; Cliff Woods, 234 Primrose Road; Peggy Ryan, 772 Willborough Place; Andrew Reback, 1224 Bellevue Avenue #4; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Lynette Watterson, 819 Fairfield Road; Archie Offield, 233 Dwight Road; Rosalie McCloud, 1215 Bayswater Avenue on behalf of Sam Malouf; Steve Musich, 325 El Cerrito, Hillsborough; Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive; Rebecca Haseleu, 232 Stanley Road; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Will Holsinger, 772 Willborough Place; Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; Ray Otus, 2727 El Prado Road; David McKean, 1345 Drake Avenue; Will McGowan, 37 Lorton Avenue, Sheila Meyer, 1400 Floribunda Avenue. Those testifying in opposition to the project to replace the Safeway and Walgreen's stores at 1420-1450 Howard Avenue made the following points: Concern with traffic and safety, are there adequate provisions for southbound traffic turning from project onto El Camino Real; concern with diagonal parking near the new signal at Howard and Primrose, now see a conflict between cars pulling out of spaces and cars trying to make the green light at Primrose and Burlingame Avenue; concerned with traffic pattern on El Camino Real; concerned with traffic on Primrose, it is a narrow street, traffic from the project will make it worse; intersection at Howard and El Camino Real is already dangerous, the project would make it worse, not enough distance from driveway to get into left lane to turn onto El Camino Real; As a public facility manager, know that it is important to separate pedestrians, cars and trucks, the traffic pattern with the trucks going in front of the stores will create a safety issue; Safeway claims that trucks are City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 11 directed to use Primrose now, but it now is impossible for the large semis to use Fox Plaza Lane because it is too narrow, can't make turn; there is no way to enforce the limit on delivery times; with the trucks turning from Primrose onto Fox Plaza Lane, there will be engine noise, loud idling; delivery trucks will contribute to diesel particulate in area, which is generated by stop and go traffic and idling trucks, should check if 24-hour standard is being met now; there will be more delivery trucks through downtown, the Safeway trucks will have to use Primrose, where is the holding pattern for trucks waiting to enter loading docks, trucks will cause a back up on Primrose; don't see how the pedestrian/car/truck traffic mix will work; trucks exiting the site will pass in front of the store and pedestrians will be forced to weave between traffic. In favor of a new Safeway but concerned with parking deficit and congestion, now a problem finding parking in area; downtown parking study shows a 400-500 space deficiency; this project will only make it worse; if the only feasible alternative is contributing funds toward a parking structure, need to consider the increased traffic on Primrose from a parking structure with its main entrance on Primrose; Safeway says it has no plans to close the store on Delaware in San Mateo, but if it was closed, there would be a parking impact at this store. Key issue is whether this project is good for Burlingame, this store is auto -oriented and turns its back to downtown; in Redwood City, the new Safeway was not advantageous to the downtown area, it cuts off the downtown from its main access; the strip mall design is not conducive to creating a steady flow of people in and out of downtown; this is a livable City with shops and residences within walking distance; there is a new complex in Washington state which fits into the environment, similar project could be done here, need to ensure vibrancy for generations to come; project would fit next to a freeway but does not fit in to Burlingame texture; existing store should be revitalized on that site mature trees in downtown are becoming endangered, the project would eliminate a mature oak and a eucalyptus, will be a loss to Burlingame; Concerned with safety of pedestrians on Primrose sidewalk at Fox Plaza Lane, there is a blind corner now, with the widening of Fox Plaza Lane, it will become a sidewalk that crosses a street, will separate the site from the rest of the block; also concerned with safety on Fox Plaza Lane, people use it cautiously now because it is narrow, will drive faster if widened, people walking will be put in jeopardy; concerned with pedestrian safety hazards, asked for analysis of pedestrian traffic, there is a key safety hazard in front of the store where pedestrians will have to navigate across cars, trucks coming in and out, the busier the store, the greater potential for accidents. Commend the Planning Commission on the time spent and job done on this project so far; like to see a smaller project and different orientation; need and deserve a new, modern store, but one that fits into the community; , now you can walk from downtown to Safeway and Walgreen's to pick up a few things, with the new design will have to walk around a big wall to do that, the large structure facing El Camino Real doesn't make sense; the discussion isn't about jobs, it is about the design, will the building look good in 40- 50 years; Safeway should speak to the church across the street, this design ignores the church altogether; not a lot of thought has gone into the design and it’s still too big; while the design of the project has improved, the footprint is nearly identical to the proposal in 1996; new project's reduction in size is negligible, there are limitations on the options for design because of the size of the building; you can put earrings on a pig, but it's still a pig; this proposal would be one of the largest on the Peninsula, we aren't the biggest city, we don't need the biggest store. If the proposed building were 5,000 SF smaller, taken from the Safeway store, there would be more design options on how it would fit on the site; would provide more area for parking and could come up with less hazardous design; modernized store would be wonderful if it weren't as large as proposed, could be the size of the Crystal Springs store, about 37,000 SF; time to stop excessive growth, 35,000 – 36,000 SF store is big City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 12 enough; bigger isn't better, do we need 140 types of cereal, a pizzeria, greeting cards, sushi and a 40-seat deli, we already have these in the neighborhood; should adopt a size cap that would limit new building size, should also provide tax breaks to small businesses; like to see a smaller project with two buildings. There are six things that need to be done to improve the project: commit that this store not be used for an on line grocery store; commit that this will remain two stores; ensure pedestrian access on Primrose; that there is adequate pedestrian access from the public parking lot that is ADA compliant; when the Safeway at Peninsula and Delaware is closed, the parking deficit needs to be addressed; ensure that landscaping is done with mature trees. Looking at the story poles, astonished at the size, doesn't feel right, it is too tall; concerned with the way the story poles were put up, they aren't complete, don't give a good picture of what is proposed; have to connect the dots to see the size, should at least put up flags like are used and car dealerships to give a better representation of the scope of the project. This project involves a real estate negotiation, Safeway needs and wants City land, are proposing a trade for a less valuable place for parking; don't think the land exchange is fair, the location of the new parking lot is not comparable to the existing lots; it is not fair to put all the new public spaces in front of Safeway, for land swap to be of equal value, new parking area should be in a more central location; cannot give a gift that would favor Safeway; the owners of Fox Mall are concerned with the swap of parking Lot L to a location close to El Camino Real, it now provides convenient parking to Burlingame Avenue businesses, if the project is built with the loading and trash area right behind Fox Mall, the owner may consider closing off the back entrance, so there would not be an easy access to Burlingame Avenue. Resent the tactic by Safeway to run their store into the ground to push this project through; this one project won't solve the economy, in the long range, the jobs created by Safeway will take away from small businesses; clearly this project is good for Safeway and will bring tax revenue, but is it the best for the citizens, we deserve better; should be another alternative that considers what is right for Safeway and for Burlingame, define and understand what each wants and determine what is acceptable for Burlingame and still profitable for Safeway; concerned with the services proposed, they are already provided by Burlingame Avenue merchants; proposal offers advantage by rezoning from Subarea A to Subarea B, will open it up to allow eating places, financial uses and offices. There were no further public comments from the floor. Chair Keighran asked the environmental consultants, represented by Marty Abell, Paul Mitchell and Jack Hutchison of Environmental Science Associates (ESA), to address the environmental issues raised during the public hearing. Paul Mitchell noted that ESA had been hired by the city to assess the environmental impacts of the project and prepare the environmental impact report. He presented a memorandum to the Commission which addressed the comments received from testimony prior to this evening. He noted that there does not appear to be any new issues identified tonight which were not covered in the EIR, and that the memo addressed the issues raised regarding light and glare, credit for added on-street parking spaces; size of parking spaces, construction impacts, pedestrian analysis, air quality, seasonal adjustments for parking and other issues related to parking demand; issues with trucks and semis; parking impact if the Safeway store on Delaware closed, and drivers crossing El Camino Real at Ralston. Commissioners asked the following questions of the EIR consultants: we received written and verbal comments regarding diesel particulate, could you respond to those comments; has the consultant observed how many children are in the tot lot on Primrose before 10:00 a.m. The consultant noted that as noted in the Draft EIR the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has a significance standard for health risk exposure to diesel emissions, which is 10 cancers per million for a 70-year exposure. The primary concern City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 13 for diesel engine exhaust emissions is the potential long-term health risk to sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors for long term exposure is the residences across El Camino Real from the site, which would be about 75-100 feet from the loading bays. The existing loading bays are closer to these residences. The tot lot is of special concern because it is used by children, but it is not considered a significant risk because the exposure is not long term, the same children are only at this lot intermittently. Due to its location next to a parking lot and an urban street, there is already exposure to air emissions including diesel exhaust from traffic in the area. Although not considered a significant impact the DEIR identifies mitigation which will require the truck engines to be turned off while in the loading bays. Also, the truck data shows that 90% of the vendor trucks and all of the Safeway trucks arrive before 10:00 a.m., when the tot lot would be less heavily used. The consultant noted that they had not observed how many children use the lot before 10:00 a.m. Commissioners asked about the analysis of truck traffic on Primrose, what is the increase in the number of trucks using Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane, how many trucks, especially the larger semi trucks, use it now; was there analysis done of the potential danger to pedestrians at Primrose crossing Fox Plaza Lane. Was the loading for Walgreen's and the timing of their deliveries also considered in this analysis. The consultant noted that the information provide by Safeway indicated that there would be eight more vendor trucks and the four Safeway trucks which now use Howard and would use Primrose/Fox Plaza with the proposed project. He noted that there are two standards for measuring adequacy of pedestrian facilities, is the width of the sidewalk sufficient to accommodate the expected flow of pedestrians, and pedestrian safety. In the analysis they looked at the frequency and timing of deliveries compared to the time of greatest pedestrian activity, and no significant conflict was apparent. It was also noted that with the project, the proposed pedestrian facilities would be improved, with a raised sidewalk which separates the pedestrians from the vehicles, and deliveries largely occur outside the hours that businesses operate, there is not high pedestrian activity during the peak delivery times, therefore it was determined that there was no significant effect. The consultant noted that there were no separate truck counts done on Primrose. The analysis took into account the Walgreen's delivery trucks, there would be two tractor trailers and 10 vendor trucks per week for Walgreen's. Continued Commissioner questions of EIR consultant: The Draft EIR addresses noise from trucks in the loading docks, what about increased noise from increase in trucks on Primrose; what is the current number of trucks compared to increase as a result of the project. The EIR consultant noted that the incremental increase in the number of trucks passing by on Primrose was not considered to result in a significant change in the noise environment, the studies showed an increase of noise of one CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) or less, the trigger for significance is an increase of 5 CNEL or more. While the actual number of existing trucks was not counted and how many come from which direction, Safeway had indicated that the Safeway tractor trailer trucks now enter from Howard, and the rest of the trucks access the site from all three entrances. The baseline was determined using an actual noise measurement. With the project, it was assumed that all trucks will use Primrose and Fox Plaza Lane, even with the increase in trucks on Primrose, the increase in noise will not reach a level of significance. Commissioner Questions: how does the EIR consider the General Plan and its policies, does it respect the goals of the community as they are reflected in the general plan, the open space element specifically requires that project contribute open space pathways to and through downtown, there was no mention of open space in the environmental document, was it considered; how is the capacity of a five foot sidewalk assessed, is it adequate to provide sufficient capacity to maintain the average flow of pedestrians. The EIR consultant noted that the EIR looks at general plan consistency on a general level, there are specific policies that may or many not be met, but from an environmental standpoint, it does not mean that there is an environmental impact. The noise analysis did use the General Plan standards for evaluation. The purpose of an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 14 environmental document is to look at the environmental effects such as hazards and safety, not whether the project is consistent with every general plan policy. The projected volume of pedestrian traffic would not exceed the capacity of the five foot width sidewalk on Fox Plaza Lane. Why was a shadow study not conducted for this project. The EIR consultant noted that a shadow study is usually only done when the proposal is for a tall building that is in contrast to the surrounding area or if there is reason to believe there will be an impact on a public park. There are no criteria for determining that, in San Francisco for example, the shadow ordinance only requires shadow studies for projects over forty feet tall and if it will have an impact on public parks, that standard would not apply to this project, there is no reason to believe the impact would be significant, the impact is the difference between existing conditions and what is proposed. Was Parking Lot J considered in the parking analysis, when Lot J is full, the spillover now would go to Lot L because it is closed, when the public lot is moved, that won't be available for spillover from Lot J, was that considered in the analysis. The consultant noted that Lot J was not considered as a potential for spillover from the Safeway project because of its distance from the store entrance and because it is already used to its full capacity. The analysis looked at the degree of project generated traffic which could not be met on site, and then looked at the closest city lots which would accommodate that spillover. At the intersection of Howard and El Camino Real, coming eastbound on Howard at the queuing lane into the site, there is room for two cars, there will also be cars westbound at the light, will they interfere with the ability to turn left into the site. The traffic engineer noted that there is enough capacity on average to keep the driveway into Safeway clear, but during peak times, there is a potential for it to be blocked. Therefore, the project included a painted "Keep Clear" zone in front of the driveway so westbound cars would let cars turn into the driveway. Concern with safety for pedestrians from the store into the parking area, with the number of shoppers going across, would traffic back up across the drive aisle. The traffic engineer noted that the flow is generally random and there are gaps, based on the volumes of traffic expected back ups would be infrequent. The safety of shoppers was not a concern even with delivery trucks, it may not be the best design, but it would not be a significant safety issue. What about the seasonal adjustment to parking demand, we all know there is more shopping during the holidays and less parking available. The traffic engineer noted that the Safeway parking lot is the initial supply that shoppers would use, for grocery shoppers, generally customers don't shop more often, they just buy more with the same number of trips. In the Burlingame downtown district, there will be increased demand, but the analysis looked at project generated demand and there is no need to apply an adjustment to that. The mitigation measure for parking in the DEIR notes that there is a need for 35 parking spaces, yet a site has not been established, is this mitigation measure sufficient if it is not feasible, what happens after three years and a site is not picked. The EIR consultant notes that there have been instances where a site was not readily available and the applicant could pay the City to find and construct a lot, could be reasonable as mitigation if it is acknowledged that it might take time to provide, the mitigation measure states clearly how it would take place and the time frame. The City Attorney noted that the mandate is on the applicant or the City to provide the parking, it is the city's obligation to find, locate and acquire parking within 3 years, it was the only way to get a commitment on conditions, three years was chosen as the appropriate time frame because that is how long it will take for the project to come on line. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 15 The initial study checklist for the project in the DEIR lists one category of aesthetics as a potentially significant effect; would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In the DEIR, I don't see a discussion of this issue nor any mitigation proposed. The consultant noted that when the detailed analysis was conducted, the effect was determined to be less than significant. However, there were mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR to reduce any impact. Chair Keighran then asked the applicant to respond to any comments made during the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Kathleen Gallagher, David Bowlby and Matthew Ridgeway, traffic Engineer were available to comment. Mr. Hudak noted that this is an important project, have an obligation to give fullest response. Regarding the issue of size this is significant for Safeway, think this store at 45,000 SF is the right size for Burlingame, because of inefficiencies in the shape of the building, need to look at the effective space in the store and how it compares to others, Millbrae has 1,505 lineal feet of dry goods, 17th Avenue store in San Mateo has 1,356 lineal feet, and Belmont has 1,620 lineal feet, while the proposed store has 1,320 lineal feet, less than these three stores. Regarding the size of the trees at planting, determined that what seems to be best is to provide 24 inch box trees for both street trees and on site, this will be a pretty good size and should help mitigate the visual impact. He notes that the noise consultant determined that there would be no noise impact at the interior of the Christian Science Reading Room, and you have received a letter in support of the project from the church,. Matthew Ridgeway of Fehr and Peers Associates addressed the parking issues. He noted that there is no disagreement among experts in estimating the parking demand for Safeway and Walgreen's, it cannot be met in the Safeway and Walgreen's parking lot alone, there is a spillover of about 35 spaces. However, there are different ways to deal with this, the downtown parking study recommends implementing parking controls which will change behaviors. There are spaces available in outlying Lots H and G to accommodate the demand from employees. If the employees park off the Safeway/Walgreen's lot and go to H and G, there would not be a spillover to other lots, don't need a parking garage, but need to effectively control the Safeway and Walgreen's employees to park in the peripheral lots. Mr. Ridgeway further notes that in the EIR, all the assumptions used are conservative, and all are layered. The background parking demand relied on counts done in 1996 through 2002, and the highest numbers at any of the lots was used, so it combined peaks. It also doesn't acknowledge the economic cycle which was going on during the time of the counts. When adding the traffic for the project, the Pleasanton store was used because that was the most conservative estimate, it was also assumed that none of background demand in the peripheral lots were Safeway and Walgreen's employees or customers. A 90% efficiency factor was used for the parking lots, you don't want a lot 100% full because it causes cars to circle, should have used 95%, what was used was conservative. Safeway and Walgreen's don't have seasonal peaks, people generally don't buy gifts there. A parking lot should be built to the 85th percentile, don't need to accommodate for the highest peak day. Mr. Ridgeway commented on the pedestrian circulation and noted that his expertise is in pedestrian design, three-fourths of his work is bicycle and pedestrian related. There will be an improvement over existing conditions, now Fox Plaza Lane has a strip to separate the pedestrians from traffic, the five-foot wide raised sidewalk will accommodate 1,000 pedestrians an hour. There are now three driveway on Primrose and three on Howard, now there will be one, which will be an improvement for pedestrians, the alternative which puts the parking lot next to Primrose is not pedestrian friendly with the building on the corner, you can't get to the building without crossing the parking lot. Commissioners asked: Question the assumption that employees use City lots to meet on -site demand; regarding the 46 employees at peak time, does that assume that some take public transportation; granted that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 16 the sidewalk on Fox Plaza is better than what is there now, but is it adequate for potential pedestrian traffic, does it encourage pedestrian use; what is your opinion on safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk due to traffic on Fox Plaza Lane. Mr. Ridgeway responded that when doing the parking analysis, we were only looking at supply and demand, not on the policy of the city whether or not the project can rely on City lots. It is assumed that 90 per cent of the employees drive to work, and that every sale contributes to a parked car. The proposed sidewalk on Fox Plaza is certainly adequate and meets the demand, would rarely approach the capacity of a five-foot wide sidewalk, the goal was to try to accommodate the auto oriented use in a pedestrian environment. There is a degree of separation between the cars and trucks and pedestrians on Fox Plaza due to the strip of parking spaces separating the roadway from the sidewalk, think that it provides comfortable and convenient connections and crosswalks to Safeway. Regarding the parking deficit, Mr. Ridgeway is of the opinion that there is no deficit for the project, on a cumulative basis there will be a deficit, but there is a pool of spaces now available on the periphery, and you can change behavior to use the peripheral lots. In the short term, parking is available, there is a justification for an in-lieu fee if there is not an entitlement to use public spaces. He noted that regarding the variance for the length of t he parking spaces, Burlingame's parking standards are in excess of the industry standard of 18 feet, Burlingame requires 20 feet. CE Murtuza noted that he would like to make a correction regarding the parking study and the deficiencies predicted by the study. The study notes that in the near term (2 – 5 years) there will be a 365-space deficit, and in the long term there will be a 700 space deficit. Also noted that when the parking counts were done again in 2001, found that the demand was up by 6.7%. Commissioners asked if the parking study incorporated the Safeway project. CE Murtuza noted that it was considered in the background and the projected trends of development. In looking at the Citywide analysis, there would continue to be availability in this quadrant in Lots G and H, the outlying lots had lesser occupancy. The strategy is to give incentives to park in outer lots so there is more turnover of spaces on Burlingame Avenue, the core area is already impacted. With the change in policy to encourage use of the outlying lots, the free lots on the periphery are being used more. Mr. Hudak continued his response to public comments. He noted that measures are being implemented based on the parking study to reserve the parking in the core area for reta il customers, rates have been raised, and incentives given for employees to park in peripheral lots. The programs are in effect and it is working, there is and better turnover in the core area and better use of the peripheral lots for long term. There is plenty of capacity if behaviors can be changed. Regarding the concern about spillover from Safeway into the core, Mr. Hudak noted that the peak for the grocery store is different than the downtown peak and there is still a surplus using the 90 per cent efficiency factor. When there is a deficit, employees can park in periphery lots, potential for spillover is nonexistent. Need to determine if they are entitled to use City lots. Safeway and Walgreen's paid into the parking district to be sure that customers and employees can use lots. The project provides its code required parking on site and the parking spaces required by the parking district credit taken. The code provides controls to prevent overdevelopment, the project meets those requirement, so are entitled to use municipal lots. There is no off- load effect on core retail, the proposed mitigation measure for parking is only justified if it is determined that there is no entitlement to park in public lots, fee based mitigation is an accepted practice even if the applicant doesn't have the ability to provide, can conclude that the project with this parking doesn't threaten anyone's parking in Burlingame. Mr. Hudak reviewed the two alternative site plans presented by Citizens for a Better Burlingame. During the mediation sessions, looked at other options, if there were a two-building plan that worked it would have emerged, the two building option shown by the citizen's group doesn't meet city policies. The "modified City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 17 Spinelli" option does not have a viable configuration for the Safeway store, the parking lot on Primrose would be a disgrace, has a sea of parking along the entire frontage. The two building option has Walgreen's walled off at an important corner compared with the proposal for retail at that corner, the front of Walgreen's faces the back side of Fox Plaza Lane, Walgreen's won't accept that location; the Safeway building is too small, it would reduce the available space for lineal dry good storage area. The pedestrian access to downtown Burlingame is poor, Safeway wouldn't build this, it may be good in theory, but won't work in reality. Mr. Hudak noted that one building option has an efficient layout with parking in front of the store, retail on Primrose, auto traffic concentrated near El Camino Real and Howard Avenue and will not spill into the core retail area, there is a balance between the pedestrian and auto oriented retail which is achieved by having pedestrian area on Primrose. The project has been through a lot of changes since last time, took away the park and put in retail, donated land for parking to benefit retail shops, changed the architecture, decreased Safeway area by 5,000 SF, added landscaping and screened roll-up doors. This is the most scrutinized project, have enough information, would like to consider if Burlingame is prepared to accept it. Commissioner observers offered clarification that in the applicant's characterization of the mediation, referred to the "City" architect, was meant to be a neutral third party professional, the architect said that if you can't reduce the area of Safeway and Walgreen's, then can't seem to find a two-building alternative. There are viable designs if the floor area were reduced, why can't Safeway build a smaller store. The applicant responded that the Walgreen's would be smaller than they are now, given the concessions made and the store layout, the shopping area has shrunk to the point where it can't be shrunk more, it would come out of the product area. The project has to be economically feasible, if you can't attract customers and get a return on the investment, than it is not viable. Commissioners noted that this is hard to understand given that there other Safeway stores in the area with less floor area. The applicant noted that in those cases there is a better configuration that allows more product. Commissioners noted that they had gone to different size Safeway stores in the vicinity and found that the variety of products offered was comparable in all the stores, what is the difference. Kathleen Gallagher responded that Safeway is not trying to get more variety in the dry goods, the footage of dry goods is about the same, this is about creating a better experience, the store is now crowded, the employee areas are deficient, the behind the scenes areas are lacking, the extra area is needed for back room areas. Commissioners asked: how many check stands in the new proposal, how many are open day to day, are more open during holiday periods. Kathleen Gallagher noted there are eleven check stands proposed, the number opened varies based on time to day, driven by policy of customer service to minimize the number of people standing in line and designed to accommodate the peak of day and on weekends. Commissioners asked if Safeway will agree that if the lease is broken with Walgreen's that Safeway won't take over that area. The applicant noted that within reasonable parameters, would entertain for a period of time, such a change would take an amendment to the conditional use permit as the project is now conditioned. Commissioners noted that this design isolates the auto oriented retail from the downtown pedestrian area, and asked if it is a Safeway business philosophy to isolate stores from a vibrant pedestrian environment; are we at the minimum threshold in floor area, can see ways to connect the store to pedestrian shopping area without sacrificing much area, but a strong connection hasn't been made, if there were a 15-foot wide plaza along Fox Plaza it might be more inviting to pedestrians. The applicant noted that when the Belmont store was redone, retail was added to create that environment, it doesn't make sense here, you don't want to gum City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 18 up the downtown area with the auto traffic from Safeway if you can separate it. With the retail along Primrose, it draws the pedestrians all the way down to Howard and connects the project as a whole, don't think we need a plaza on Fox Plaza Lane when have already provided other amenities. Commissioners asked about the access to Fox Mall, the new public lot will not be convenient for seniors getting to Fox Mall, will be a longer walk, this is a concern; noted that stores in Belmont and San Mateo have more parking than is proposed here, explain why. The applicant noted that you will have to walk a little further but it will be safer there will be a proper sidewalk. Safeway bought another lot to provide parking in San Mateo after the project was built but the spaces are not always needed, in Belmont there are also retail uses in the center, that store is not in a downtown area, it wasn't a pedestrian retail experience before, created an interconnected retail center, difficult to try to fit in to the existing environment. Commissioners asked about the photograph submitted of the Safeway store in Washington State; Safeway builds other types of stores, how is it determined that a store is more urban rather than suburban. The applicant noted that the photo shows a mixed use project with housing, similar to the project being built in Mission Bay, it is a 50,000 SF store with two levels of retail and a plaza combined with parking, the lower level for residential and upper for the retail. There is no formula for determining urban or suburban, in Burlingame it isn't either, the critical things are parking and how to deal with the intensity of the use. Because of the constraints of the site, couldn't find an urban solution that worked, parking would be murder. The commission determined that due to the lateness of the hour the meeting would be continued to the next night, May 1, 2003. Commissioners asked if after the public hearing was closed, there would be a chance to ask questions of the EIR consultant. CA Anderson noted that the EIR consultant was hired by the City and is considered City staff, so questions can be asked after the hearing is closed. Chair Keighran closed the public hearing. C. Auran made a motion to continue the hearing to tomorrow night, Thursday, May 1, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The meeting was continued to May 1, 2003, and adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Notice of the continuance was posted on the City Hall door. 1420 –1450 HOWARD AVENUE, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION, MAY 1, 2003, AT BURLINGAME CITY HALL, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME. Chair Keighran called the April 28, 2003, continued public hearing and meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. She noted that all the Planning Commissioners were present: Csr. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica. Staff members Meg Monroe, City Planner; Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner; Larry Anderson, City Attorney; Syed Murtuza, City Engineer; and Philip Monaghan, Senior Engineer were also present. There were no changes to the agenda for the evening. The chair announced that the public hearing on the environmental impact report and proposed project was closed at the end of the continued meeting and public hearing session on April 30, 2003, so the opportun ity for public testimony has passed. She thanked the representatives of Safeway for their active participation in the evolution of this project and felt that the process represented a positive display of the democratic process. At the meeting tonight the Planning Commission would discuss the environmental documents and the proposed project and take action. Chair Keighran asked if the commission had any questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 19 o Are there any restrictions for people south bound on El Camino Real to keep them from turning left into the proposed driveway on the El Camino street frontage? Could a signal be installed at El Camino and Ralston? ➢ CalTrans will require that the proposed driveway on El Camino Real be designed with barriers to discourage in-bound left turns. CalTrans has also noted that the intersection at Ralston cannot be signalized because there is not enough distance between the signals at Burlingame Avenue and Howard. o If the access through Fox Plaza Mall is closed to pedestrians, does the environmental document address the impact on access to parking? ➢ The environmental documents did not look at the alteration in the pedestrian pattern , the change did not rise to an environmental significant level, however it may still be a project concern and addressed there. o Is it possible to change the proposed construction hour limitations in order to speed up the project and reduce the disruption, especially when working inside? ➢ Yes, with the permission of the Public Works Director. During construction the applicant could make such a request, staff would probably notify the Planning Commission about a proposed change, since the limitation is a condition of approval. o In the initial study there is a check that the project may cause a degradation of visual character, did not see analysis on that point. Feel the view now is of scattered eucalyptus , modest parking lot and a structure close to El Camino Real, looks rather attached to El Camino Real. This will be removed and replaced with a large expanse of hardscape which is a big change. Sense of EIR as a whole discounts impacts the community thinks are important and therefore requires no mitigation. General plan states community goals including to provide an attractive entrance to the downtown center; a hardscape parking lot is not an attractive entrance. Many existing views from El Camino in the downtown area now include hardscape e.g. the city parking lot on Burlingame Avenue, the parking lot for Molly Stones at Chapin and the Bank of America parking lot, made the city lot look good with a monument, this project deserves equal treatment. Traffic is passing at 35 mph, this new exposure should be seen as an opportunity for the stores with their backs to the present Safeway, particularly those eight that have direct access to Burlingame Avenue from the new public parking. ➢ It should be noted that the initial study is done early in the process and identifies areas for investigation to determine if they will rise to a level of significance and/or can be mitigated. Visual effect evaluation is the most subjective of the environmental evaluations. In determining negative impacts CEQA looks at changes from the existing condition. Page III-D-13 in the Draft EIR discusses the view from points on El Camino Real to the east and finds that the view is not dramatically different from the existing view of parking lots and buildings. In DEIR page D-18 there is discussion that even though the item is not significant, mitigation should be offered because fell that this issue rises to a higher level of concern and to see it dismissed is troubling in light of community goals and this is an important entrance to the community. Should note that the EIR does require tree protection and replacement along El Camino Real and landscaping including trees in the parking lot between El Camino Real and the store front, where there are none now. o Aesthetics are more encompassing and should have been addressed in the EIR, community values are obviously important. ➢ Design of a project is a topic of rich debate, as for CEQA, try to determine if there would be a substantial adverse change in the physical environment with the new design; issue not if the design is the best, it is different from what is there now, and did not find that the change from the existing design was significant. Commission can add changes to the design as conditions of approval as they wish to improve the design as a part of project review. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 20 o EIR does not address the impacts of the relocation of Lot L, why was this not separately studied? It is important for both the land swap and the impact on parking? What about the change in convenience, moving the parking supply further away from the access to Burlingame Avenue at Fox Mall and closer to the project? ➢ As traffic engineer pointed out yesterday, the walking distance only moved internally so it was a relocation and not an impact, the analysis looked at the cumulative parking demand and the spill over as it affected all lots; EIR doesn’t look at convenience impact, did not feel tha t the distance for the relocation created an impediment to the public or pedestrians. No significant safety or impediment to access was created by the relocation even though it was further away. o Safety at the new location is an environmental concern; have loading docks and large trucks, possibly queuing on Fox Plaza Lane, need to walk by? Where does the sidewalk end? ➢ Considered safety, a city sidewalk will be added to the north side of Fox Plaza Lane replacing the painted line on the asphalt two feet out from the wall which now separates cars and pedestrians on this narrow right-of-way. The pedestrians on Fox Plaza Lane will no longer be moving in the street. The proposed sidewalk on Fox Plaza Lane ends at the westerly corner of Safeway, there is a cross walk proposed there noted by a change in pavement. There will also be some landscaping on the sidewalk. o Part of the aesthetics of the view of the project from Howard and El Camino are the trees proposed, looks like over 20 new trees, where presently about 5. The recommended trees are deciduous trees with nice Fall color, prefer having a tree that is green all year. Would recommend an amendment to the conditions to convert the propose screening trees to evergreen to be installed with 24 inch boxes with a fairly big crown, to address the environmental concern that the impact on the existing view is less than significant as well as retaining and replacing as needed the eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real. Trees could be mixed with one kind at ends of aisles and another in the middle to provide variety, in that case a few might be deciduous to get the benefit of Fall color. Commission went on to note about the project: during the review process there have been positive changes which should be acknowledged: the architectural style has come a long way, improved street frontage on Primrose with the larger square footage of retail, will add character to the area. The existing store has been neglected in side and out for a long time, but don’t think the exterior proposed improvements justifies the interior which drives the size. However the long term effects for the next 30-40 years need to be weighed and need to be sure it's a benefit to the community. Environmental document shows that there will not be sufficient on-site parking and project parking (customers and employees) will spill over parking into the city lots. There is a deficit in parking downtown, it is not Safeway’s fault, but it is not right to increase that deficit, the project needs to provide the parking necessary. There are now 55,000 SF of improvements on the site with 203 parking spaces, with the project there will be 66,910 SF of improvements with 158 parking spaces. It does not make sense. Have added parking on Primrose, the spaces on Fox Plaza Lane are not useable; it is not the city’s responsibility to find a site for Safeway parking in Burlingame. Continue to be concerned about Lot L, it is heavily used in a highly used area, it has 20 parking spaces and is often full, perhaps with over flow from Lot J which is always full. If relocated closer to the entrance of Walgreen's and Safeway these spaces will benefit Safeway but not the local merchants now being served. People do not want to walk. In land exchange need to consider the impact of the relocation of Lot L on the shoppers and merchants. The point about seasonal shopping was interesting, believe that during the holidays there are more checkers and people in the grocery store too, there will be more cars at this auto oriented use, needs to be evaluated. Indicate that they will donate land to widen Fox Plaza Lane (for the trucks for Safeway’s benefit); donate land on Howard to improve their access, donate land on Primrose the increase parking. Concerned about the safety of angled parking on Primrose, people will be distracted by the new signal on City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 21 the corner at Primrose and have accidents. Pedestrians need to get through to the new public parking from Burlingame Avenue. Fox Plaza Lane is not a safe access because of the loading dock and does not support Burlingame shoppers. Purpose of the story poles was to give an accurate picture, so public could know as much as possible about the project and its effects. One of the things that seemed to drive the siting of the project was the desire to keep the existing store open though out the replacement process, if the existing store was demolished first a whole new range of options would open up. Looked at General Plan and discussion of community goals, Burlingame is a unique environment and this is a gateway location need to provide an inviting entrance to the commercial area, need to improve the quality of the environment. Can have a big store but needs to reflect the planned community goals. Pedestrian safety is an issue with the project particularly at the entrance, need to improve the efficiency of circulation at the front; trucks on Fox Plaza Lane present a safety issue; Howard Avenue is wide and designed for trucks. Would have liked to talk to a representative of Walgreen's to better understand their goals. Need to look at a balance Safeway would like more selection and variety, but many of the specialty centers add to the size and duplicate services already in the downtown, if you remove them have a 36,000 to 41,000 SF store similar to what other communities in our area have and which will be profitable here. Burlingame is a role model for the Peninsula and want to keep it that way. Commission comment on the project continued: like the retail parking on Primrose; different opinion on Lot L, was there this morning and only a few cars parked; positive for Primrose to move spaces that were in Lot L to the street where they are more convenient; the 8 businesses fronting Burlingame Avenue with back doors on the new parking lot will benefit a lot; the truck schedule is a concern need to community that large truck deliveries will be at non-business hours; Safeway truck study showed that average vendor stay is 23 minutes and average time of delivery is 7:23 a.m., this mitigates the trucking issue on Fox Plaza Lane, along with the addition of sidewalk and trees will change it from an alley to a Lane, feel that the truck and safety issues have been adequately studied in the environmental documents; for pedestrian safety the alley has been changed into a pleasant place to be and has been well mitigated; drive way issues can be worked out with CalTrans; parking lot is larger than some but will be more landscaped; bulk and mass may involve individual taste, a large building with some bulk and mass with landscaping is appropriate at this location; if going to have a Safeway of some kind will need to give and take for everyone; this building will be there for 50 years, need to do what right for the city in the long run. Would add, story poles a problem people express concern about blocking parking and traffic, effective installation was an issue from the start; originally concerned about moving parking Lot L because of its proximity to Fox Plaza and Primrose Road, however with the addition of diagonal parking on Primrose and the visual of how close the Safeway and City parking will be, now favor the new design; the parking lot off El Camino Real is similar to Chapin with Molly Stone's parking and the Bank of America parking, as well as the City lot and gas station at Burlingame Avenue; the tearing down of the existing Safeway building which causes the exposure of the ugly rear of Burlingame Avenue is not Safeway's problem, but an opportunity for these stores to have more visibility and additional parking available; there is a duality of elements in the downtown, there is the pedestrian-friendly and the auto-friendly; this project echoes the pattern downtown with the pedestrian friendly on Primrose and the auto friendly behind the Avenue with stores having customer parking on the Avenue and in the rear; this is the case between Primrose and Park, between Park and Lorton, on Donnelly and on Chapin; there are micro-economies within the downtown which move with time, at one time the busiest area was the 1 400 block (between Primrose and El Camino Real) now it is the area of Lorton Avenue and that section of Burlingame Avenue; it will move back to the 1400 block and this new parking will be a benefit to those businesses; added retail on Primrose is good, the parking will be added to Lot K; new lot behind Burlingame Avenue will serve business from the back doors, merchants need to clean their sites up since they are being given an opportunity with increased parking for customers; proposed project has two faces one on a parking lot (auto oriented) and one on Primrose (pedestrian friendly). The parking deficit is the biggest issue; whether the 35 parking space deficit is proper is a matter of discussion , if they have to pay an in lieu fee for City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 22 the 35 parking spaces it adds to the mitigation to implement the city’s long term plan and provide more parking spaces; EIR says environmental issues are mitigated. Comment on project continued: Need to think about impact of this decision over the next 30 to 40 years. Safeway’s ways are fixed, tried to accommodate, but could not address our needs sufficiently. This is the same site plan that was submitted in 1997 and is fundamentally flawed and favors a location of the building that orients it to traffic; truck traffic should not travel 150 feet from Burlingame Avenue, don’t like it that Safeway captures the new public parking lot and would like a project that accommodates the city’s needs as well; project does not accommodate city needs, it widens three streets to provide for Safeway’s traffic, Howard Avenue does not need to be widened; if the site is not big enough to accommodate all the parking needs , the building is too big; open space is an issue, General Plan definitions and policies call for a system of open spaces large and small between and about buildings, and that development should enhance the creation of these areas which you can see beyond, they should be linked physically and visually, takes little effort to do; owners and developers are required to preserve open space; pedestrians should be safe and comfortable; open space should be maintained in the right of way and the quality of the streets enhanced; despite redoing the sidewalks the project does not include a network of open space; way project relates to El Camino Real is important to Burlingame. A big part of Burlingame's identity is the experience on El Camino Real. Eucalyptus trees flank El Camino Real with buildings relatively close to the street, this creates a strong pattern that Burlingame is noted for. This project proposes a large parking lot between El Camino Real and the building which is something typical in other cites, extensive parking lots between the building and El Camino Real. This scheme is better than previously, articulation is more appropriate to Burlingame’s downtown; but it is masquerading the same scheme nearly as big, with traffic circulation and parking not in keeping with downtown. Concern with pedestrian connections along Fox Plaza Lane have not been addressed, needs to be strengthened; this is not a live or die situation, want a new Safeway but don’t need a store this big. Safeway has asked for a decision, worked 6 years, the footprint has not changed much. Safeway has asked for and deserves a decision, it is clear that Safeway will not consider any fundamental changes such as orientation or two buildings until this project is acted upon, we should not delay action for small changes or improvements. This is the best one building alternative seen, retail on Primrose is a plus, for example; but after days of public input, the answer we hear to the question of whether to keep current store or new project, is no to both. Overall: concerned with way parking connects to Burlingame Avenue, no sidewalk access, concerned about how get children from parking area, current store has about the same variety of goods as Belmont which is appreciably smaller, for the extra size getting florist, deli, specialties; the orientation of the store will keep people from going to Burlingame Avenue, sales tax revenue will increase by diverting people from Millbrae and San Mateo but will reduce customers to local merchants, so in end probably no net economic gain, if there were an overall economic advantage would need to consider; Safeway annual report note the ideal Safeway is 55,000 SF, that is the size with Walgreen's incorporated; annual report noted also that Safeway operates a number of smaller stores and one or more specialty stores when driven by community needs or restrictions; reason store 45,000 SF not 69,000 SF is to accommodate Walgreen's; they could wait to develop until Walgreen’s lease expires and then reorient on the site and build which would eliminate a number of problems and make for a better project for all. Commissioner comments continue: commission action needs to establish a road map and detail for City Council when they will hear this, then need the benefit of the commission’s analysis of the facts and data. Concerned with the environmental review, parking study, agree with consultant that there is a deficit with the project and on the point that it is a significant impact, the mitigation measure proposed in the EIR regarding parking B4 is not feasible, it requires new parking financed by the applicant within 300 or 600 feet, applicant does not know of any available sites and the EIR does not identify potential sites and no City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 23 alternatives; pedestrian safety not adequately studied, conclusion is supported by inadequate data and is not complete; noise vibrations from trucks in the vicinity of Fox Plaza Lane , no data to support conclusion; the effects of diesel was not adequately studied and did not have sufficient data provided; important to evaluate increase pedestrian activity in the area did not take air sample at the tot lot before 10 a.m.; parking study did not address the location and the change in location of Lot L, west toward El Camino Real, the physical impact of this relocation was not addressed, think this is a significant impact short and long term; for the parking deficit the number of long and short term was not emphasized, struck with the fact that only with the lots K, L , H combined and including G and F provide enough parking to meet needs of the project, will eliminate public lots serving Burlingame Avenue. Agree with the conclusion that the project is not consistent with some of the goals and policies of the General Plan, and EIR did not recognize times identified there as critical to this area of Burlingame. Pressed applicant on why a store of this magnitude and it was explained only in terms of Safeway’s need, appreciate not want to share economic data, but feel deserve an explanation. Planning Commission needs to make a number of decisions, these include: o Variance for parking space dimension: applicant did not show hardship to justify variance, noted in proposed findings “other site constraints cause need for variance” this is not sufficient to grant; o Recommend not certify the EIR: not enough analysis on certain points; not sufficient facts in the areas identified; o Conditional use permits: should be granted for Safeway and Walgreen's; o Rezoning: recommend that the Council rezone all parcels to C-1, Subarea B; o Land Exchange (Lots K and L): troubled, take a close look, not sure value is fair, not recommend; o Suggested conditions should project be approved: − Safeway should not be able to add an on-line/.com delivery use to the site; − There should be no distribution beyond retail sales to store customers who come to the site; − Because the impacts are too significant, the Safeway store or the Walgreen's/Safeway store in combination shall never be used as a regional distribution center for Safeway or any other business; − When Walgreen's leaves, Safeway must lease this space to a third party different than a grocery store to be in effect for at least the duration of the Walgreen's lease (40 years); − Type of trees to be added in the parking lot facing El Camino should be mixed evergreen and deciduous, at least 24 inch box at installation; − That there be a safe and visually attractive pedestrian link between the project and downtown along Fox Plaza Lane; − Revise condition 35 to read "that a one year contractor maintenance period including fertilization be required for all landscaping and irrigation"; − Applicant shall be required to post a bond and contract with a landscape professional for maintenance including fertilization for a minimum of two years from the issuance of an occupancy permit for the project; − Limit all truck deliveries to the project site, Safeway and Walgreen's, to the time between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 a.m.; and − Condition 70 should be amended to insure that the roll down doors are closed between 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. because they are an important mitigation to the pedestrian quality of Fox Plaza Lane. Commission comments concluded: Need a new Safeway appropriate for Burlingame, one that “fits in”, like the retail stores proposed along Primrose; biggest concern project is too massive, the towers too big; the two building solution is more workable and the lineal feet of goods available is not affected a lot, it's the other stuff that increases the size of the store; two building alternative screens more of the rear of the stores facing City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 24 Burlingame Ave., trees will help some but not enough; concerned about the comment from the owner of Fox Mall, without this pedestrian link it will discourage people from going downtown or getting to the reconfigured parking. Commissioners discussed with CA ways to proceed. Further Discussion on the action: regarding the EIR, issue is the impact on the land use compatibility, there is evidence in the Supplement page 2 that there is an increase of 14,230 SF between the existing and proposed project, feel that it is unreasonable that this is not a significant increase and the fact that it is not is not supported by substantial evidence; city council will take final action on the EIR, to take a positive action on the project commission only needs to say that the EIR was considered and it is adequate; CA noted that the EIR addresses both the project and the land exchange, so the Council must also certify the EIR before any approval. Disagree that there is no hardship for the variance to parking space dimension, measured a number of city lots and not found 20 foot depth, unreasonable to hold the applicant to a higher standard than the city, and the lot configuration after the combination of Lots K and L and the adjustment to Howard Avenue, is difficult, the resulting parking spaces are useable, not detrimental and are compatible with others in the area; the land exchange was based on square foot for square foot and space for space, in reconfiguration they were short 4 parking spaces in the new public lot, this was added into the mitigation, could add more value for Lot L because of the change in location; not see the justification for the variance for parking dimension, new city lot standard 20 feet, buildings are being demolished, able to layout as they will; trash bins are in the loading dock area, may need to clean that area during time when trucks are not present; should do all they can to discourage vendor deliveries during the 10 am to 11 p.m. period;. C. Vistica moved to deny the project on the basis of the discussion and issues about the fit of the proposed development in Burlingame and failure to enhance the downtown and to decline to certify the Final EIR based on the comments made by the commission and to refer to the City Council the recommendations for the project and conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: the Planning Commission felt that the project needed significant revisions and that a denial without prejudice would yield a similar response to those we had seen previously; and would give the applicant the opportunity to address some suggestions by the Planning Commission and return, a denial requires that the project cannot be returned without being in a significantly different form. Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the application for replacement of the Safeway and Walgreen's stores at 1420 –1450 Howard Avenue and for action on the Final EIR and Supplement prepared for the project. The motion carried on a 6-1 (C. Auran dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 28,29, 30 and May 1, 2003 25 S:\MINUTES\unapproved04.28.29.30.05.01.doc