Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout150 Anza Boulevard - Staff Report, 4 , ' � � TO: DATE: y n 1; � r .-` 1 f,� i i- �. c�ry � �j, o,� AGENDA BURLJNGAME ��: � STAFF REPORT M GM� 3/7/83 � b� DATE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SU6MITTED �� BY FEBRUARY 25, 1983 FReM: CITY PLANNER eAPPROVED S�B,E�T: REVIEW OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES, SPECIAL PERMIT F0� HEIGFIT� AND VARIANCE FOR PARKING FOR A GRAPdADA ROYA�E HOMETEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD RECOMMENDATION: City Council hold a public hearing to review the Planning Commission's action on two special permits and a variance for parking for the Granada Royale Hometel project located at 150 Anza Boulevard. The public hearing should include the staff recommended conditions as amended by the Planning Commission (Exhibit I). Counc�il should take action on the special permits and variance including the conditions. BACKGROUND: - Commission Action At the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1983 the Commission voted �-0, Commissioner Giomi absent, to approve a special permit for height (9i" build-�ng with a 40' tower, giving a total building height of 137') to the �ranada Rcya':p H:.rnetC�l pr�aject in the Anza area. Next the Corranission voted 6-0, Comm�i�sioner Gio�,•= absPn�i„ to approve a specia�l permit to allow the project to exceed the Design Gui��l�ines. Finally thE Commission made findings having to do with the property a�d voted 6-J, Corrmissioner Giomi absent, for granting a parking variance which would allow 430 parking spaces on the site. The 18 staff recommended conditions were attact�ed to all three actions. - Permit and Variance Requests As the staff report (February 14, 1983) notes, the Planning code issues on this project are three: height, Design Guidelines and parking variance. Height is measured from the top of curb to top of parapet, unless there is a structure which projects more than 10' above the parapet. In this even� height is measured from the top of curb to the t�p of the projection on the roof. Based on this definition the proposed hotel structure is 137' tall. A special permit is required (Code Sec. 25.41.025-e) when a building or structure located within 100 feet of the shoreline or in BCDC jurisdiction exceeds 35 feet in height. A special permit is also required in the C-4 district under the Design Guidelines (Code Sec. 25.41.025-f) when a building exceeds 50 feet (in this portion of the Anza area) and/or has a projection more than 10 feet above the parapet line. In short, based on the code there are three height issues: over 35' in BCDC jurisdiction, over 50' in the northern half of the Anza area and over 10' above the parapet line. The C-4 zone requires a special permit when the Bayfront Design Guidelines are exceeded (Cc�de Sec. 25.41.025-f). Since app7ication of the Design Guidelines re�q�iires some subjectivity a single special permit is being required for exceeding the � -z- guidelines. The staff evaluated the guidelines. Planning Commission staff report (pages 2-4) reviews in detail how each guideline and what subjective decisions were made in applying The variance for parking is based on interpretation of city policy growing out of previous approval actions. The C-4 district requirements (Code Sec. 25.41.080) require additional parking for restaurants over and above the restaurant parking requirement in the rest of the city. In the C-4 zone a ratio of 1:100 gross square feet is required for patron parking and 1:1000 gross square feet for employee parking. In the rest of the city 1:200 gross square feet parking is required. In other mixed use projects in the Anza area, e.g., Four Seas Center, the city adjusted the restaurant parking requirement in the C-4 zone to 1:200 gross square feet because of the availability of parking accruing from the overlapping with a mixed use. Based on this precedent, staff required the applicant to provide parking to the city standard for hotel use (1 space per room) and to the city standard 1:200 gross square feet for the restaurant. This would mean a parking requirement for the project of 405 spaces. The project as submitted includes 430 parking spaces. Parking as required in the C-4 zone for free-standing restaurants and a hotel would be 459 spaces. It should be pointed out that since the hotel is an airport oriented hotel that its traffic generation and its parking needs are anticipated to be less than a hotel which does not provide airport pickup. Thus there will be more parking spaces available than might otherwise be. In addition the restaurant is being required to meet the typical parking standards of the city; ��rhile it is free-standing from the hotel, it is interdependent with the hotel, and some of its patrons can be expected to walk over from the hotel. A covered arcade is being provided to encourage this pedestrian access. Nonetheless, since the exact parking requirements of the C-4 district are not being met, a variance is required. - Other Review Council should be aware that this site was called out specifically in the BCDC Guidelines for the Anza area of Burlingame. The BCDC Design Review Board has reviewed this project, informally found it consistent with these guidelines and, subsequent to city approval, recorr�nended it ready for BCDC Commission action. In reviewing the guidelines the City of Burlingame also discussed a conceptual site plan for this area. The proposed. project complies with this conceptual plan by leaving the south end of the site (3.9 acres) open and developed into a public park area, providing a fishing pier, and providing unobstructed public access along the bayfront and Anza lagoon to the standards satisfactory at least to the Design Review Board of BCDC. property owner. Other items of concern to the Planning Commission and applicant's comments on the project are included in the February 14, 1983 Planning Commission staff report. The staff report also discusses the concerns of the State Lands Commission, the underlying EXHIBITS: - Exhibit I, Staff recommended conditions as amended by Planning Commission, 2/14/83 - Mayor Barton's request for review of project - Planning Commission Minutes of 2/14/83 - Planning Commission Staff Report, 2/14/83, Item #9 (with attachments) - Plans date stamped January 14, 1983 cc: City Clerk City Attorney �c , �', �',�, �,. �'�i � _ �� . !,��`� , .. ,� �i . L y T cc: Paul Salisbury, AIA, Blunk Assoc. Granada Royale Hanetels, Newport �each, CA. State Lands Commission ;� � � .,.. . .._..�.�t i � � EXHIBIT I (Staff recommended conditions as amended by the Planning Commission, February 14, 1983) 1. that the final plans and construction of the project be consistent with the plans date stamped January 14, 1983 and amended for screening of the loading dock on February 4, 1983, and that no occupied area of any structure be below elevation 9'; 2. that the requirements of the Chief Buildir�g Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of Ja�uary 5, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1983 be met; 3. that the applicant abide by a 30 months construction schedule to begin with BCDC approval; benchmark dates running consecutively from the date of BCDC approval would be as follows: six months to submit final plans, five months to pick up final plans and purchase building permit, two months to start foundation, four months to foundation inspection, six months to framing inspeciion and seven months to occupancy permit; 4. that a private security patrol be provided to regularly patrol the park area, public access area and buildings; 5. that a study be prepared to determine fire flow capacity of water main(s) and identify necessary improvements, make improvements including installation of fire hydrants and provide adequate emergency access built to the Fire Department's standards; 6. ti�at the secondary sewer treatment facility improvements are completed before this project is connected and that this pro�ect contribute its proportional share of the one time cost to make the required sewer �acility improvements; 7. that sewage pretreatment facilities for all areas where food is prepared are provided on site and facilities should meet the standards of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 8. that the developer would develop a seismic ground response spectra and i�corporate its conclusions into the final design, surcharge fill areas to be used for parki ng and roadways to reciuce settl ement, ���G ���.���y? 1 ize expansive ar2as under roauways and parkings 9. provide a s�torm water collection and pumNi��y sy5tem to serve the K��•oject including oil sepdrating traps at all drains ar�d driveways and in parking areas and at collection points before drainage pumps; provide regular maintenance of all grease traps on a predetermined sche�iule established by the city; 10. that during construction measures will be followed to ����tect adjacent. bodies of water from siltation; landscaped areas will be designed to prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon; hardy plants will be used which require a minimum of fertilization and pest and weed control; L � EXHIBIT I (page 2) 11. develop final landscape plans which meet BCDC and the State Lands Commission's requirement for public access including public +ccess walkways, a public fishing pier built on cement piles and a-4 acre park, final plans of all facilities to be approved by the Burlinc�ame Park Department and built; improved and maintained by the developer. 12. that the project include low flow water fixi.ures, drought resistant plants in landscaping; 13. that the project contribute its share to one time costs 1`or expanding water mains; 14. that pile drivers be provided with noise shields and pile driving be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays; surround construction site with a fence which would attenuate ground level noise by 5 dBA, and select building materials which would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA; � 15. receipt of all permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 16. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single person f�r more than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential purposes; 17.- that Anza Boulevard be improved to standards established by the City Engineer including concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, a bus pull-off area and driveway and intersection improvements as suggested by the TJKM letter of January 10, 1983; and 18. that one-half the Bayfront Development fee be paid at the time of final plan submittal with the other half paid at the time of final framing inspection. ,, � AGENDA ITEM #l0A MEETING DATE 2/22/83 F TO: h,norable City Council FROM: City Clerk RE: Granada Royale Hometels Project Mayor Gloria H. Barton would like council to review the Planning Commission decision approving two special permits and a v�r_�ance to construct the Granada Royale Hometels project, a 360 room hotel at 150 Anza Boulevard. EHH : _� m B�arlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 14, 198 3 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT A 360 ROOM HOTEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, BY BLUNK ASSOCIATES FOR GRANADA ROYALE HOMETELS (APPLICANT} WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed this request for construction of a 360 room hotel, a 9,000 SF free-standing restaurant and a shop area to serve the public access, fishing pier� and 3.9 acre park area located in the Anza art�a of Burlingame. Reference staff repoti��� dated 2/�/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/5/82; sheet comparing t.he Design Guidelines with the project proposal; Exhibit A, Anza Public Access Plan; Exhibit B, Bur�lingame State Lands Master Pla��; December 6, 1982 minutes of BCDC D�sign Review Board meeting; February 1, 1983 letter from James F. Trout, Assistant Executive Officer, State Lands Commission; Burlingame City Council Resolution No. 1-83 certifying Final EIR-57P for the proposed Granada Royale Hometel with Exhibit A attached listing significant effects, mitigations and findings; January 13, 1982 letter from StF�phen B. Oveson, President, Hometels Management Company, Inc.; staff comments as follow�: Chief Building Inspector (memo January 3, I983), Fire Marshal (memo Janu�ry 5, 1983) �nd City Engineer (memo January 5, 1983); Design Guidelines Annotated for the Granada Royale Hometel project and dated 2/4/83; February 1, 1.983 letter from Paul G. Salisbui��y, AIA, Blunk Associates, Inc.; 1/20/83 memo from the Fire Marshal; view of site from Bay; Anza Area Development, height of corr�leted and appr�ved prcjects; January 10, .1983 letter from Thomas J. Clausen, TJKM, Transportation Consultants; Granada Royale Hometel Visual Analysi�/Certified EIR date stamped January 20, 1983 and Visual Analysis.'��vised Project 4ate stamped January 20, 1983; 7Ghle I, Suite and Buildin� Area �tatisc���� ,, reviseG Jan�ary 185 1983; Granada Royale Humetel , S��^•✓ic.e Area Si ��.�e►�i�.�; Plar Jar�uary �19, 1983 Planning Commission special sf.udy ��•sticn myr�a�i��5: ��.' ���'ans .:=' stamped �'anuary 14, i983. CP di scu - sed detai 1 s of the proposal and i ts c e� i���� �.��� th al �I rooms oper��� :�g oni.� : centra'i atrium and a bell tower extending 40' above th� ':.op �f parapet on the frunt of �;!;t building, making the total height 137'. She furi,��er �i�scussed the height of the proposed free-standing restaurant (36') and the covered arcade (-17') connectinc� the two structures; review by BCDC's Design Review Board; comments from the State Lands Commission the underlying pr�perty owner; Council certification of the Final EIR; the Hometel concept in which each room is a suite with sleeping area, sitting room and fully equipped kitchen; staff concerns and applicant's comments concerning the potential for more residential uses in this area; staff review and comments; Planning staff comments addressing the relationship of this project to the Special P,rea Plan and Design Guidelines including height, setback from street, view corridors and visual access to the shoreline, setbacks from shorelines in BCDC jurisdiction, landscaping, and parking requirements for mixed uses. CP also noted Commission study session concerns which were addressed in the staff report. Eighteen ccnditions for consideration were listed in the staff report and an amendment suggested to Condition #1 as well as a change to Condition #6. Discussion: app'I�cant's submittal for a 38' roadway, preferring to put the additional 10' roadway widtr� into landscaping; traffic consultant's study which showed 38' was the maximum width needed for peak hour requirements. Paul Salisbury, Blunk Associates, architect representing the applicant, introduced Carl Wahlquist of HometEls Development Corporation. Mr. Salisbury gave a brief presentation using a rendering of the project site as viewed from the lagoon and a modified site plan including modifications recommended by BCDC and screening of the loading dock. He commentec on the 38' roadway request which it was felt would enhance the space between the two t��ildings and advised they planned to prohibit parking along the road. He said the change in the rear parking 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 ' � February 14, 1983 lot would improve screening of the service area and increase landscaping within the parking area; 40% of the site is now landscaped. He discussed the par,.king variance indi�ting their willingness if necessary to provide more parking, �-,h'e fact that they are ex�eeding the Design Guidelines and their efforts to minimize;-tSulk, optimize views by clus'�tering and provide amenities for the public. ,��" �=` Chm. Mink,�opened the public hearing. There were no immediater''�comments in favor. Those speaking i� opposition: Eric Cox (2720 Arguellc. Drive), viG2' president, Raiser Architectur�l Group, San Mateo and Harvey Cha!-�man, Raiser�'Development Company, San Mateo. Both�,were familiar with Anza area development a.�'d thought hotel useage appropriate f�r this site but not this projEct. Mr. ��tix discussed in detail three concerns: code�'��questions, project concept and compat�bility of design. He objected to the bulk and`�poke in favor of requirir�g a 48' � de street as well as more parking than proposed. N� asked, will this unique concep� be compatible with local standards for the area? Mr. �hapman seconded Mr. Cox's remarks. He noted that pres�ntly this area is f�irst rate w�lth compatible development and view corridors being maintained. He expressed his conc�:rn about the impact of;'a structural design 500' wide by 137' high. Speaking in rehuttal an� in favor of the pr,.Oject, David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' LiGuidating Trust, advis�d that at the tir�e SeaBreeze was built the road was considered a private dr���eway. Apparent width and 5etbacks for SeaBreeze were not measured from Anza Boulevard at that time but from A�Y�port Boulevard. He stated there was no formal agreement to bu;ld the other half of the roadway. When SeaBreeze received the easement they were requested not to build to city specifications; however, they decided to build half as a city street. He felt an airport oriented hotel does n�t require the amount of parking stin��lated by the code�; spoke in favor of the atrium design and Spa��ish archit�ctural st;/�e and noted th�tis project would serve Burlingame's needs, produce more ir�come an�'; �,��ith the single exc�ptior� of the 137' heioh�t, it meets th� guidelines of the city< !he•r-e were no further comments and the public hearing �:;� ��cla�^ed c'osed. Commission dis�t;,sion: two Commissioner� ��nmediately spoke in favor of grarting the two sp�cial permits and th�e variance; ;,he;r,liked the Spanish architectural style and the unique design. It was pointed out tr�a�-the special study meeting had been most effective in br•i��ging out the issues. The Ch.air determined from the City Planner the veracity of David Keyston's statement rega�ding measurement of apparent width and setbacks for the SeaBreeze building. CP cla.�ified the public/private status of Ar�.a Boulevard. CA advised the bell tower would`�,ot be considered a sign. Mr. Wahlquist added the tower is not a logo of his c,ompany but an architectural feature used on most of their hotels, designed to fit the stytle of each. C. Graham found that the guidelines were set to review projects but not necessarily to limit height; that this is an area in which, in some inst�ces, height is what the city is looking for; and that architectural compatibility would 'D� enhanced by varying heights. C. Graham then moved to grant this special permit ta.,exceed the maximum height limit with the following conditions: , �� / � 2. that the final plans and construction of the project be corr�,isi.ent with the plans date stamped January 14, 1983 and amended for scree�,ing of the loading dock on February 4, 1983, and that no occupied area �f `a��y structure be below elevation 9'; that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of January 5, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1983 be met; � � � Bi�rlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 14, 1983 lot would improve screening of the service area and increase landscaping within the parking area; 40% of the site is now landscaped. He discussed the parking variance indicating their willingness if necessary to provide more parking, the fact that they are exce�ding the Design Guidelines and their efforts to minim�ize bulk, optimize views by clustering and provide amenities for the public. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no immediate comments in favor. Those speaking in opposition: Eric Cox (2720 Arguello Drive), vice president, Raiser Architectural Group, San Mateo and Harvey Chapmar�, Raiser Development Company, San Mateo. Both were familiar with Anza area development and thought hotel useage appropriate for this site but not this project. Mr•. Cox discussed in detail three concerns: code questions, project concept and compafi-ibility of design. He objected to the bulk and spoke in favor of requiring a 48' wide street as well as more parking than proposed. He asked, will this unique concept be compatible with local standards for the area? Mr. Chapman seconded Mr. Cox's remarks. He noted that presently this area is first rate with compatible development and view corridors being maintained. He expressed his concern about the impact of a structural design 500' wide by 137' high. Speaking in rebuttal and in favor of the project, David Keyston, Ar�za Sharehold�rs' Li��idating Trust, advised that at the time SeaBreeze was built th� road was cansidered a private driveway. Apparent width and setbacks for SeaBreeze were not measured from Anza Boulevard at that time but from Airport Boulevard. He stated there was no �ormal agreement to build the other half of the roadway. When SeaBreeze received the easement they were requested not to build to city specifications; however, they decided to bui'Id half as a city street. He felt an airport oriented hotel does not require the amount of parking stipulated by the code; spoke in favor of the atrium design and Spanish architectUral style and noted this project would serve Burlingame's needs, prod�ce more income and, with the single exception of the 137' heioht, it meets i:he c�u�i��elines of the c�ty. There were no further comments ?nd the public heari�y ��s declarec� ��losed. Commissir�n discussion: two Commissioners imrnediutely spoke in favor of granting the two special permits and the variance; they likt�d �he Spanish architectural style and the unique design. It was pointed out that the special study meeting had been must effective in bringing out the issues. The Chair determined from the Ci��:y Planner the veracity of David Keyston's statement regarding measurement of apparent width and setbacks for the SeaBreeze building. CP clarified tf�e public/private status of Anza Boulevard. CA advised the bell tower would not be considered a sign. Mr. Wahlquist added the tower is not a logo of his company but an architectural feature used on most of their hotels, designed to fit the style of each. C. Graham found that the guidelines were set to review projects but not necessarily to limit height; that this is an area in which, in some instances, height is what the city is looking for; and that architectural computibility would be enhanced by varying heights. C. Graham then moved to grant tfiis special permit to exceed the maximum height limit with the following conditions: 1. th�t the final plans and construction of the project be consistent with the plans dat� stamped Jaruary 14, 1983 and amended for screening of the loading dock on February 4, 1983, and that no occupied area of any structure be below elevation 9'; 2. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of January 5, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1983 be met; r 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 � ' February 14, 19� 3 R 9.�` SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXCEED THE DESIGN `;GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED NJMBER OF OFF- �T�REET PARKING SPACES, TO CONSTRUCT A 360 ROOM HOTEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, BY BL�JNK ASSOCIATES FOR GRANADA ROYALE HOMETELS (APPLICANT) WITH THE STATE OF CAL`�;FC!2NIA (PROPERTY OWNER) ti CP Monroet�l�eviewed this request for construction of a 360 room hotel, a g,000 Sf- free-standi restaurant and a shop area to serve the public access, fishing pi�r and 3.9 acre park rea located in the Anza area of Burlingame. Referenc�'�staff repor+ dated 2/8/83; Projec Application & CEQA Assessment received 11/5/82; s�et comparing �i:f�e Design G�idelir�e with the project pr•oposal; Exhibit A, Anza P 1ic Access Plany Exhibit B, Burlin me State Lands Master Plan; December 6, 19,�minutes of BCDC L�sign Review Board mzetin9� February 1, 1�83 letter from James F,;�'�rout, Assistant Executive Officer, State Lands`�ommission; Burlingame City Council��solution No. 1-83 certifying Final EIR-57P for the p�oposed Granada Royale Hometel th Exhibit A attached listing significant effects, mit��ations and findings; Januar 13, I982 letter from Stephen B. Ovesons President, HometeT� Management Company, In ��, staff comments as follows. Ghief Bui�ding Inspector (memo Ja't�uary 3, 1983), Fire M shal (memo January 5, 1983) �r�u City Engineer (memo January 5, 19$��); Design Guideli "s Annotated for the Granada Royale S-lom�tel �rojCci: ar�d dated 2/4�83; Februar�y 1„ 983 letter from Paul G. Salisbury9 :'.iA, Blunk Rss�ciates, Inc.; 1/20/83�'.memo from t� Fire Marshal; view of site from g«�9 Anza Area CFvei:,pment, height of`�ompleted,� nd approved projects; January 10, 198� letter from ►hornas J. Clausen, TJICM, Trar�'portation Consultants; Granada Royale Hc:metel Vi�ual AnalysisjCertified EIR date's,tamp'ed January 20, 1983 and 1lisual Analysi�;" ��ised Proj%c�� c�..:.t_� s��,�r��,e� January 20, 198g;�'�Table I, Suite and Buildi:�g Area `�tatis�''� :. �evisev �la;��ar; ; r 1.�83, Gran��da Ro,y"a,le Hometel, Servicc Ar�a Sc��-�enit��; plar�y Jaiivary �S ���:� `"�,���iina Commi:�si�;�i' s��*c�ial :,t���.y se�sie�^ En�nut�:s�, an�' •la!-n� �° � stam�e� J:���_�r.s�.� ,.,. i983. ; CP di�c.us,E.' ��� �'��:::_ �f the �ro�osal �,r�' :,cs design with all rooms open�� �g ont�:, .:entra�l atriurr� ar�d a t;:l � i:�w�r extend�ng 40' �.bo✓� the top of parapet on the front of i.R�:�.: building, rriaking the total h�ight. 137' . Sh�� further di�cussed the height of th� ;troposed free-sta;�dinc� •r�,::�ca�rarit (3�i`' ) and the cover` d arcade (-17' ) connecting the two structures; review by BCDC�°s Design Review Bo�,rd; comments from the State Lands Commiss'ion, the underlying property g�rner; Council certifi ation of the Final EIR; the Homete� concept in which each room is a�suite with sleeping are , sitting room and fully equipped kitchen; staff concerns and app icant's comments concerni the potential for more residential uses in this area; st ff review and comments; Pla' ing staff comments addressing the relationship of thi project to the Special Area P n and Design Guidelines including height, setback frc� street, view corridors and visu � access to the shoreline, setbacks from shorelines i BCDC jurisdiction, landscaping, and �arking requirements for mixed uses. CP also n ted Commission study sessio� concerns whych were addressed in the staff report. �ghteen conditions for consideration were 1�,Zsted in the staff report and an amendme, t suggested to Condition #1 as well as a chang�e,yto Condition #6. Discussion: �pplicant's submittal for a 38' roadway, preferring t��,put the additional 10' roadwa width into �andscaping; traffic consultar�t's study which`tishowed 38' was the maxim m width needed for peak hour requirements. Paul Salisbury,``$lunk Associates, architec representing the applicant, introduced Carl Wahlquist of Hometels Development Corpor ion. Mr. Salisbury gave a brief presentation using a rendering of the project site s viewed from the lagoon and a modified site plan including modifications recommended by BCDC and screer�ing of the loading dock. He commented on the 38' roadway request which it was felt would enhance the space between the two buildings and advised they planned to prohibit parking alonc the road. He said the change in the rear parking B�ar'lingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 14, 1983 3. that the applicant abide by a 30 months construction schedule to begin with BCDC approval; benchmark dates running consecutively from the date �f BCDC approval would be as follows: six months to submit final plans, five months to pick up final plans and purchase building permit, two months to start foundation, four months to foundation inspection, six months to framing inspection and seven months to occupancy permit; 4. that a private security patrol be provided to regularly patrol the park a►�ea, public access area a.nd buildings; 5. ��hat a study be prepared to determine fire flow capacity of water main(s) and identify necessary impr�veme�ts, make improvements ir�cluding installation of fire hydrants and provide adequate emergency access built to the Fire Department's standards; 6. that the secondary sewer treatment facility improvements are completed before this project is �onnected and that this project contribute its proportional share of the one time cost to make the required sewer fac�lity improvements; 7. that sewage pretreatment facilities for all areas �vhere food is prepar•e�� are provided on site and racil-ities should meet the standards of the San Frai�icisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 8. �that the developer would develop a seismic gro��nd response spectra �.r,L� i�corporate its conclusions into the -f�nal ue�ign, surcharge fill �'�.-� ta b� used for parking anr3 roadways �� :'edt��e set����amer!i;, 3!''.!i ��°:ahi' : cxpansive areas under roadways and pc:�:ir�g: 9, pr�vi de a storm water col l ecti on ar�d ��un�r: � ng systern �to serve t�::: pr�u;; :. r- including oil separating traps at all �r�,�ir�s and driveways and in pa;�.ing areas and at collection points before drainage pumps; pr�vide regular maintenance of all grease traps on a predetermined schec�ule e�cablish��� by the city; 10. that during construction measures will be followed to protect adjacerit bodies of water from siltation; l�ndscaped areas will be designed ta prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon; hardy plants will �E used which require a minimum of fertilization anc! pest and weed control; 11. develop final landscape plans which meet BCDC and the State Lands Commission's requirement for public access including public +ccess wa�kways, a public fishing pier buil� on cement piles an� a-4 acre park, final plans of all facilities to be approved by the �urlingame Park Department and built, improved and maintained by the developer. 12. that the project include low flow water fixtures, drought res��stant plants in landscaping; 13. that the project contribute its sh�re to c,ne time costs for expanding water mains; 14. that pile drivers be provided with noise shields and pile driv�ing be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays; surround construction site with a fence which would attenuate ground level noise by 5 dBA, and select building materials which would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA; 0 Burlingame Planning Cor�nission Minutes Page 10 ' February 14, 1983 15. receipt of all permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 16. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single person for than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for p residentia`°� purposes; � en t 17. that Anza B ulevard be improved to standards established by,��he City Engineer in luding concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, a b�Qs pull-off area and dri eway and intersection improvements as sugge�'ted by the TJKM letter �f January 10, 1983; and �' 18. that one-half he Bayfront Development fez be paid,,�t the time of final plan submittal with the other half paid at the t}�ie of final framing inspection. ,,�` Second C. Cistulli; motior� approved on a 6-0 roll call�vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Graham fo!md the unique onfiguration of this pr6perty made it necessary that r_ertain guidelines not be met in or r to design a better,�`project. C. Graham then moved to approve the special permit t exceed the Design �uidelines for Bayfront Development with the foregoing 18 conditi ns. Second C. C,�^`stulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. �' C. Graham found exceptional circ rostancesfl�n this mixed use of a free-si:a�ding restaurant on a sice with a hotel which is a'rport c���iented, that people will be arri��ing by public t�ransit, that this variance is w�:;�in �he city's guid�line� for h�tel ar;� restaurant cumbination uses; that i is a��nique property since a substantial portion is within the ,�urisdiction of BCDC, �:�i�: r.�a�;�y regulated by several State agencies as well as the city, so that the vani ,icr; is necessary for the preservation and enjoymefit of the property rights o;F�th owner in developing the site; that it would not be detriment�l to the public;�iealth, safety or welfare since the proposed parking would be sufficient for the uses��and not pill over to adjacent sites; and that granting of this variance would not aff�'ct the com ehensive zoning of the city since it meets the city's Specific Area Plan..�for this area C. Graham then moved to approve the variance from required numbe�`of off-street arking spaces with the foregoing 18 conditions. Second C. Cist,�311i; motion appro ed on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures:�fwere advised. , ITEMS FOR STUDY ' 10. SIGN EXCEPTION -f1205 BROADWAY Requests: need more/explicit justification by the appl�i'Yant; minutes of mc:etings at which similar app cations for graphics were considered.''�. Item set for hearing February 28, 19 . �`��, 11. SPECs�I�'ERMIT TO ALLOW PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO - 212 CALIFOR�q(IA DRIVE Pointed out need for a condition addressinn future fi�lm develop ent and enlarging on site. Item set for hearinct February 28, 1983. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF WAREHOUSE SPACE TO OFFICE S�PACE - 840 MAHLER ROAD _ Requests: would prefer more landscaping; sprinkling requirements; handicapped access. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. . • Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 14, 1983 15. receipt of all permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U. S. Army Corps af Engirieers; 16. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single person for more than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential purposes; 17. that Anza Boulevard be improved to standards established by the City Engineer including concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, a bus pull-off area and driveway and intersection improvements as suggested by the TJKM letter of January 10, 1983; and 18. that one-half the Bayfront Development fee be paid at the time of final plan submittal with the other half paid at the time of final framing inspection. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Gi�mi absent. C. Graham found the unique configuration of this property made it necessary that certain guidelines not be met in order to design a better project. C. Graham then moved to approve the special permit to exceed the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development with the foregoing 18 conditions. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Graham found exceptional circumstances in th'is mixed use of a free-stand�ng restaurant on a site with a hotel which is airport oriented, tha� people will be arriving by public t.��a�sit, that this variance is within the city's guideli�es for hot�l and restaurart combination uses; that it is a unic�u�� property since a substantial ��ortion is withi� the jurisdiction of BCDC, and heav�i�y ��egulated by several StatP agencies as well as the city, so that the variance is nec��sary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner in developing the site; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare since the pr.,posed parking would be sufficient for the uses and not spill over to adjacent sites; and that granting of this variance would not affect the comprehensive zoning of the city since it meets the city's Specific Area Plan for this area. C. Graham then moved to approve the variance from required number of off-street parking spaces with the foregoing 18 conditions. 5c�cond C. Cistulli; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 10.�S,�GN EXCEPTION - 1205 BROADWAY Requests: nee re explicit justification by the applicant; minutes of ineetin a� which similar app 'ons for graphics were considered. Item�s��err�--�tT�`d i'�'� February 28, 1983 . ...��° """'� � I1. SPECIAL PF_RMIT TO ALLOW PHOTOGRA�llAIO - 212 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Pointed out need for a coradi�tion addressing future fi elopment and enlarging on site. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. `�- . �...,�, 12. SPECIAL-�PERMIT TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF WAREHOUSE SFACE TO OFFICE SPACE`"--. �.4D--�AHLER ROAD Requests: would prefer more landscaping; sprinkling requirements; handicapped access. Item set for hearing February 28, 1983. 0 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 � � February 14, 1983 3. that the applicant abide by a 30 months construction schedule to begin ith BCDC approval; benchmark dates running consecutively from the date o BCDC approval would be as follows: six months to submit final plans, fi months to pick up final plans and purchase building permit, two months to s rt foundation, four months to foundation inspection, six months to frami g inspection and seven months to occupancy permit; 4. that a�r,ivate security patrc,'1 be provided to regularly pa�rol the park area, publa�c access area and buii�ings; ��`` 5. that a study,`�a,e prepared to determine fire flow ca city of water main(s) and identify necessary improvements, make improv ents including installation of fire hydrants`°.and provide adequate emergency access built to the Fire Department's standards; 6. that the secondary sewer treatment facili improvements are completed before this project is connected and th this project contribute its propurtional share of the one time cos to make the required sewer facility improvements; 7. �hat sewage pretreatment faCiliti s for all areas where food is prepared are provided on site and faci,,li es should meet the standards of the San Francisco Regional Water Qaaality Control Board; 8. �ihat the devel oper woul d de�'el op.,, a sei smi c ground response spectra ar��' incorporate �� ts concl usi onU i n�o ''�he f i ral desi gn , surcha���ge ��� 11 are�, to be u��G for� ;�arki ng a� roadb•:�ay�.M t�� :��d���:c sett? emQ!��.. anc; << ��.a.bi �� °:� : ;.xparisive ar�as under r�adways E .� �,;�,�;<:iriy, 9. provic;e a storm watew'�collec�i�� �n a�.� �ampiny syste�n to serve ti�e proj�: :i, including oil separ ing trap� ac all ains and driveways and in parking areas and at colle. tion points `�efore dr inage pumps; provide regular maintenance or al.T grease traps on a prede ermined schedule established by the city; 10. that during co'nstruction measures will be foll ed to protect adjacent bodies of water from siltation; landscaped areas ill be designed to prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon, hardy plants will be used which require a minimum of fertilization and pes and weed control; 11. 12 . 13. 14 . develop,�inal landscape plans which meet BCDC and the Sta Lands Commiss;ion's requirement for public access including public cess walkw s, a public fishing pier built on ce�nent piles and a±4 acre park, final plans of all facilities to be approved by the Burling�me Park Department and buiit, improved and mairtained by the developer. F th t the project include 1ow flow water fixtures, drought resistant pl nts in landscaping; at the project contribute its share to one time costs for expanding ater mains; `� that pile drivers be provided with noise shields and pile driving be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.t�. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays; surround construction site with a fence which would attenuate ground level noise by 5 dBA, and select bu'ildi►7g materials which would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA; .� P.C. 2/14/83 Item #9 P�IEMO T0: PLANNI�JG COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, VARIANCE FOR PARKING, FOR A GRA�!ADA ROYALE HOPAETEL AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD The applicant, Granada Royale Hometels, represented by Paul Salisbury of Blunk Associates, is requesting special permits for height (137') and exceptions to the city Design Guidelines for the Bayfront/Anza area at 150 Anza Boulevard in the C-4 district. The project proposal is to build a 360 room hotel, a 9,000 SF free-standing restaurant and a 4,140 SF shop area to serve the public access, fishing pier and 3.9 acre park area. The project is located in the Anza area and has frontage on both San Francisco Bay and Anza Lagoon. The proaerty is a leasehold from the California State Lands Commission. All the 360 rooms of the hotel will open onto a central atrium. Parking will be provided in at-grade lots (206 spaces) and below the hotel entrance and plaza area (214 spaces) for total parking on-site of 420 cars. The hotel structure will be 97' tall. An 18' x 18' bell tower will extend 40' above the top of the parapet on the front of the building. Based on city approved Design �uidelines, since this tower extends more than 10' above the top of the parapet, the height of the building is measured to the top of the tower (e.g., 137'). The free-standing restaurant is 36' high and a±17' covered arcade connects the restaurant and hotel structures. A summary comparison of the project to the C-4 district code requirements and Design Guidelines is attached. BCDC Because of its frontage on both San Francisco Bay and the Anza Lagoon a very substantial portion of this site is within BCDC jurisdiction. In January, 1982 BCDC adopted guidelines which establish standards for their review of development in the Anza area. The Granada Royale Hometel site was one of two areas for which specific site plans showing building placements were submitted and subsequently approved in these guidelines. The proposed plan generally conforms to BCDC guidelines as approved for this site. The project has completed review by the BCDC Design Review Board. (BCDC/DRB minutes December 6, 1982). The DRB addressed specifically the proposed fishing pier, pointing out that an on-shore viewing place should replace the pier. However, they did not rule out construction of the pier. The project does not go forward to the full BCDC commission until after the city has acted upon it. State Lands Commission The underlying property owner is the California State Lands Commission. In his letter of February 1, 1983 James Trout, Assistant Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission, points out that they are aware of the project and have had a preliminary review of the proposal. He also indicates that the lease has not been finalized with the Granada Royale Hometel corporation. Ne indicates that he anticipates the lease will be finalized in February. He points out while the State Lands Commission reserves, as a part of the lease agreement, the right of final review of the project, he encourages the city to proceed with project review and action. He also indicates that the State I_ands Commission would like to see the project include a fishing pier to serve the public purpose. However, they are flexible on the precise location of the pier along the bay side of the site. � i 4 � -2- EIR On January 3, 1983 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Granada Royale Hometel project (Resolution No. 1-83). As a part of the certifica- tion process the Council made specific findings (Exhibit A). Where applicable the mitigations included in these findings are included in this staff report as conditions on the project. Applicant Comments Granada Royale Hometels offers a unique kind of hotel room. Each hotel room is a suite with a sleeping area and sitting room area connected by a bathroom and full kitchen equipped with cooking utensils, china and cutlery. These rooms are larger than a typical hotel room. The sitting room of each opens onto the atrium. Because of the size and added facilities the potential for long term stays and future conversion to more residential uses is an issue. In response to inquiries by the city, Mr. Stephen Oveson, President for Hometels Management Company, Inc., wrote a letter (January 13, 1982) explaining their experience with their other hotels. He points out in the letter that the orientation of the hotel is to the traveler, not those seeking extended stays. He points out in their existing 15 hotels the average stay is 1.5 days. The hotel does not offer reduced rates for longer stays nor are there weekly or monthly rates. He indicates a willingness to cooperate with the city in protecting hotel tax revenues. (Note: The city receives no hotel tax from a room which is leased for 30 days or more.) Staff Comments The city staff have reviewed the plans. The Chief Building Inspector (memo of January 3, 1983) includes a list of items to be included on the plans which will be required for the final building plans. The Fire Marshal (memo of January 5, 1983) also identifies a list of items to be included on the final plans. The City Engineer (memo of January 5, 1983) comments on clarifications needed for the final plans and additional study of the capacity of the private street and driveway required and to be approved before final design is undertaken. Planning staff would address the relationship of this project to the Specific Area Plan (SAP) for the Bayfront/Anza area and the application of the SAP's Design Guidelines as well as precedent in applying the city requirements. The SAP included a set of design guidelines which were incorporated into the C-4 zoning district regulations (Code Sec. 25.41.025). Thus a special permit is required for any building and structure which exceeds the Design Guidelines. It is staff's understanding that the Design Guidelines were adopted as generalized parameters for decisions. When exceeded they act like warning lights. However, because they are generalized benchmarks for review of a variety of specific aspects of design, they are not internally consistent. Therefore their application requires some subjectivity. The code (C-4 zone) requires a project to receive a special permit if it exceeds one, or six, design guidelines. The special permit review allows the Commission the opportunity to evaluate the trade-offs inherent in the application of the guidelines to unusual sites and uniquely designed projects. The resolution to Commission's satisfaction of the contradictions in the guidelines is the purpose of the special permit. Staff has reviewed the guidelines in light of the proposed Granada Royale Hometel project. A set of annotated guidelines are attached. This review indicates that potentially the project deviates from the guidelines in the following areas: 1. Height. Since the bell tower is more than 10' above the top of the parapet the height of the building is measured from the top of curb ,� �� -3- to the top of the tower, e.g., 137'. Under the C-4 zone a special permit is required for any building with a height over 35' when located within 100' of the bay. The Design Guidelines define a maximum height of 50' for this site. 2. Setback from street: a. Minimum setback if calculated from property line to various faces of the structure (what is called pyramiding) meets design guidelines. b. Minimum setback, 1/2 apparent width from adjacent street (Anza Boulevard). One-half of the apparent width from the closest point to the street is 133.5' and to the furthest point from the street is 191'. The hotel site (the widest portion of the lots) is 295' wide. The building is 192' wide (66' of this width are in the atrium). Thus to achieve one- half apparent width given the shape of this particular site and the height of the proposed building, 40' to 100' of the hotel structure would have to be placed in San Francisco Bay. It should be pointed out also that clustering is encouraged as is protection of view corridors so these two objectives can conflict with the apparent width setback requirement. c. At a minimum the guidelines call for a 30' setback for all portions of the building. The proposed project has a 42' setback. If the roadway were improved to 48' the project would still have a 30' setback. 3. View corridors and visual access to shoreline: a. Building located at 1/2 apparent width to street should not obstruct more than 40% of the frontage. Because this developer decided to merge three sites and develop them as a unit instead of extending a frontage road and developing a structure on each, staff determined the "frontage" of this site to be the length of the entire site, 1,643'. The buildings have a total length of 502' and therefore are 31% of the width of the site. If one uses only the developed street frontage to measure apparent width (e.g., 547') then the building represents 92% of the frontage. However, it should be pointed out that this project proposes to develop the isthmus of land extending into the lagoon as a park, so it will remain open and undeveloped because the parcels will be legally merged. 4. Setbacks from shorelines in BCDC jurisdiction: a. Minimum setback should not be less than building height, in all cases a minimum of 25' shall be observed. The following table outlines the proposed project's compliance: From Building Proposed Required Property Line Height Setback Setback " to lounge wall 20-25' 50' 20-25' " to hotel wall 86' 84' 86' " to parapet 97' 92� 9�� " to bell tower 137' 158' 137' ,, , -4- 5. Landscaping: a. Not less than 10% of total surfaces paved for vehicular parking. Only about 6� of the area within the paved area is landscaped. However, the areas around the edges of the at-grade parking area is heavily landscaped. There is one additional concern regarding parking. In June, 1978 in establishing the parking requirements for the Four Seas Center (mixed use office and restaurant) in the C-4 district the Planning Commission and Council allowed a parking ratio of 1:200 SF for the restaurant because of the availability of parking from the other use on the site. This determination was made despite the code requirement in the C-4 zone for specialty restaurants of 1:100 SF of patron parking plus 1:1000 SF for employee parking. Based on the 1978 precedent, the fact that this project represents a mixed use (hotel and restaurant) and the fact that only one parking space per room is required when a specialty restaurant is located insid'e a hotel, staff felt that the city's regular parking requirement (Code Sec. 25.70;030) for restaurants in other districts of 1:200 SF gross floor area was adequate for this project. However, since Code Sec. 25.41.080 requires 1:100 SF plus a minimum of 1:1000 SF for employee parking, any other approval by the Commission would require findings and a variance. Based on requirements for a specialty restaurant in the C-4 zone, 99 parking spaces would be required for the project. In addition 360 spaces would be required for the hotel. Total required spaces for the entire project based on C-4 standards would be 459. Based on the previous precedents required; parking would be 405 spaces. The project is proposing 430 spaces. Staff would point out that certainiphysical limitations exist on this site which did not exist on the adjacent properties when they were developed. These physical factors which affect the use of this site are it's long, narrow shape, the amount of site within the BCDC jurisdiction and the physical! contraints placed on the site by the BCDC bayfront guidelines. In addition there are the constraints on the land placed by the need of its owner (State Lands Commission) to have the development "meet the public purpose" thus maximize the open space and landscape requirements. Study Session Concerns At the study meeting January 19, 1983 the Planning Commission asked a number of questions which they wished to have addressed in the project staff report. - Load bearing capacity of the public access ways In his response Paul Salisbury (letter of February 1, 1983) notes that walkways in the public access way shoreline band will be designed to carry the loads that maintenance and safety vehicles would require. He points out design would include sidewalk slabs of about 6" reinforced with steel mesh. The Fire Marshal in his memo of January 20, 1983 indicates the vehicle weight for a fire engine to be 36,000 lbs. on a single axle. - Parking required by land use The following major uses are proposed on the site: hotel and restaurant. The retail/service uses will be incidental to the primary use and parking is not required. Land Use Parking Required C-4 Staff Hotel Restaurant Total 360 99 459 360 45 405 (See also Flanning staff comments portion of staff report.) , -5- - Letter of concern from property owner The letter from James Trout of the California State Lands Commission (February 1, 1983) indicates that the Commission, i.e., property owner, is aware of the proposed project and agrees to continued city processing. - Special permit for minimum setback requirement The C-4 district regulations call for a special permit if a project does not comply with the Design Guidelines. It does not require a special permit for each area in which a project does not comply. - View of site from bay Blunk Associates have provided a rendering of the view of the site from the bay (date stamped February 4, 1983). They will also provide at the hearing a view of the site from the lagoon. - Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards In his letter of February 1, 1983 Mr. Salisbury addresses Title 24 standards by stating his conviction that they can be met by adjusting the type of glass used in the interior and exterior walls. There may need to be some modification in the amount of glass in the atrium roof. - Comparison of heights The list of heights on the buildings (existing and approved) in the Anza area (see Salisbury letter February 1, 1983) shows that the building height in the area ranges from 22' to 145'; the average height is 65'. Of the 13 buildings in the area eight are over 50' and six are over 65'. The aerial photograph shows the location of buildings and their height. - Screening of loading dock In his letter Mr. Salisbury indicated better screening of the loading dock can be achieved by some modification of the parking lot and adding landscaping. He provides a plan (date stamped February 4, 1983) showing how this could be achieved. - Method of calculating apparent width Apparent width is a measure used in the Design Guidelines to determine view corridors and front setback. It is generally measured on a graduating scale from the point of the building nearest the front of the site to the widest point furthest away. However, the guidelines are not precise in their direction as to how to identify frontage. Some judgment, depending upon the project, is often called for. Staff attempts to be directed by the "spirit" of the measure which focuses on protecting open space or a sense of openness on an entire site, protects pubTic views of th�.bay and combines with the encouragement of the guidelines to cluster buildings. A description of how apparent width was measured and applied by staff in this particular project is included in the report in the section on staff comments. - Reason for not requiring a special permit for setback The code calls for a special permit if a project does not meet one or all of the Design Guidelines, not a special permit for each guideline not complied with. Action on a t : � ' �.i special permit for noncompliance with Design Guidelines would include action on all areas of noncompliance unless it was specifically conditioned to except some. - Street width Apparently it was understood when the SeaBreeze project was developed on the west side of Anza Boulevard that they would provide one-half the improved street (24') and the other half (24') would be provided by the development(s) on the east side. The proposed project shows a 38' street, or an additional street improvement of 14'. The traffic analysis done by TJKM (see letter of January 10, 1983) indicates that the 38' street is adequate to carry the volume of traffic generated by all uses served by Anza Boulevard. There are some intersection modifications required and some driveway adjust- ments (these will be included in the conditions). However, the developer of the hotel felt that the expanse of paved area in a 48' street was excessive as it was not needed for adequate traffic flow. Instead the developer moved the hotel back an additional 20', providing a 42' front setback; thus leaving enough space landscaped to allow for the eventual widening of the street to 48' if needed, but providing a softer edge for the moment. View blockage resulting from siting structures Since this project merges three bayfront properties, the placement of the buildings at the north end of this site provides permanent protection for a major view corridor across the Anza area from 101. While this clustering of buildings adjacent to the existing development is encouraged in the Bayfront/Anza area Design Guidelines, it does cause an impact on the views from the existing buildings. Principally two buildings will be affected, the SeaBreeze office building facing the proposed project and the Four Seas Center, an office building with a restaurant on the top. The Purdy building will also be affected but to a lesser extent. Since the SeaBreeze building will face the proposed hotel structure, and the hotel will be taller than SeaBreeze, the greatest impact will be on the SeaBreeze building. The applicant prepared an analysis showing the visual impacts of the originally proposed project and the project as modified through the environmental review process (attached). The project modifications clearly improve views from the Four Seas and Purdy buildings. However, the impact on SeaBreeze is slightly improved but basically about the same. It should be pointed out that this site was vacant and available for purchase when all of these affected buildings were built. In this case the trade-off is that the major view corridor across the entire Anza area is protected by this project and would not be if the parcels were developed individually. Appearance of the building The proposed building will be a stucco and tile Spanish building. Mr. Salisbury describes it in his letter of February 1, 1983 as being beige or light off-white color, metal trim will be nonreflective and tile will be low reflective and color compatible. Beyond the Bayfront/Anza area Design Guidelines, the City of Burlingame does not have architectural review provisions in the code; therefore the city does not exercise precise review of building materials, color or architectural style. Action For the parking variance the Commission must make findings based on physical characteristics of the site (Code Sec. 25.54.020): (a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or class of uses in the district, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss; i� � -7- (b) that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property involved; (c) that the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements; and (d) that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. No specific findings are required for a special permit but the Commission should indicate the reasons for its decision. The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing at which they should consider the following conditions: l. that the final plans and construction of the project be consistent with the plans date stamped January 14, 1983 and amended for screening of the loading dock on February 4, 1983; 2. that the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 3, 1983, the Fire Marshal's memo of January 5, 1983 and the City Engineer's memo of January 5, 1983 be met; 3. that the applicant abide by a 30 month construction schedule to begin with BCDC approval; benchmark dates running consecutively from the date of BCDC approval would be as follows: six months to submit final plans, five months to pick up final plans and purchase building permit, two months to start foundation, four months to foundation inspection, six months to framing inspection and seven months to occupancy permit; 4. that a private security patrol be provided to regularly patrol the park area, public access area and buildings; 5. that a study be prepared to determine fire flow capacity of water main(s) and identify necessary improvements, make improvements including installation of fire hydrants and provide adequate emergency access built to the Fire Department's standards; 6. that the secondary sewer treatment facility improvements are completed before this project is connected and that this project contribute its proportional share of the one time cost to make the required sewer facility improvements; 7. that sewage pretreatment facilities for all areas where food is prepared are provided on site and facilities should meet the standards of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; 8. that the developer would develop a seismic ground response spectra and incorporate its conclusions into the final design, surcharge fill areas to be used for parking and roadways to reduce settlement, and stabilize expansive areas under roadways and parking; i - �� : 9, provide a storm water collection and pumping system to serve the project including oil separating traps at all drains and driveways and in parking areas and at collection points before drainage pumps; provide regular maintenance of all grease traps on a predetermined schedule established by the city; 10. that during construction measures will be followed to protect adjacent bodies of water from siltation; landscaped areas will be designed to prevent runoff water from entering the Anza Lagoon; hardy plants will be used which require a minimum of fertilization and pest and weed control; 11. develop final landscape plans which meet BCDC and the State Lands Commission's requirement for public access including public access walkways, a public fishing pier built on cement piles and a±4 acre park, final plans of all facilities to be approved by the Burlingame Park Department and built, improved and maintained by the developer; 12. that the project include low flow water fixtures, drought resistant plants in landscaping; 13. that the project contribute its share to one time costs for expanding water mains; 14. that pile drivers be provided with noise shields and pile driving be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays; surround construction site with a fence which would attenuate ground level noise by 5 dBA, and select building materials which would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA; 15. receipt of all permits from all necessary regulatory agencies including BCDC, FAA, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; 16. no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single occupant or corporation for more than 29 days and the rooms and buildings shall not be used for permanent residential purposes; 17. that Anza Boulevard be improved to standards established by the City Engineer including concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, a bus pull-off area and driveway and intersection improvements as suggested by the TJKM letter of January 10, 1983; and 18. that one-half the Bayfront Development fee be paid at the time of final plan submittal with the other half paid at the time of final framing inspection. i�,a��;�� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 2/8/83 cc: Paul Salisbury, Blunk Associates Granada Royale Hometels, Newport State Lands Commission Beach, CA.