HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1978.01.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
,JANUARY 9, 1978
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission, City of Burlingame, was
called to order Monday, January 9, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Cistulli
Jules L. Francard
Ruth E. Jacobs
Everett K. Kindig
Charles W. Mink
Thomas W. Sine, Secretary
Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman
Staff Present: Wayne M. Swan, City Planner
John R. Yost, Assistant City Planner
Jerome F. Coleman, City Attorney
Ralph E. Kirkup, City Engineer
. Quorum present; Thomas C. Taylor, Chairman presiding.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held December 21, 1977 were approved with modifications.
The minutes of the meeting held January 9, 1978 were approved as submitted.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION
Page 2
January 9, 1978
Ia. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR ADELINE ARMS, AN 8 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT
1469 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-013-030), ZONED R-3, BY JOHN YOHANAN FOR SARKIS M.
FARD (APPLICANT) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS).
Chm. Taylor read the item and referred to a letter from KCA Engineers, Inc. dated
December 28, 1977. C. E. Kirkup briefly reviewed this letter explaining that the
feasibility of gas and water shut-off valves to each unit (as per Commission
direction) is discussed as well as a possible alternative which suggests shut-off
valves being placed in blocks or in series to more than one unit. Mr. Kirkup also
reviewed his January 6, 1978 memorandum to the Commission more fully explaining the
two systems and providing his opinion as to the merits of KCA's suggested alternative.
His memorandum set forth three conditions.of approval: (1) that the paving for the
driveway and parking be subject to approval of the City Engineer with a minimum
traffic index of 5; (2) that the graded Swale shown on the plans be constructed
of a concrete valley gutter and be piped through the curb rather than running
across the sidewalk and out the driveway; and (3) that each unit be provided with
a separate shut-off valve for water and gas; that the shut-off valves be satisfactory
to the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department.
David M. Van Atta, attorney representing the applicant, explained that KCA was
presenting what was felt to be a feasible alternative to the City's request and
emphasized that with the block approach valves would be more readily available to
the Fire Department, the manager of the complex, etc., and that individual valves
might be more difficult to locate. It was the general concensus of the Commission
that the first line of paragraph two of the KCA letter adequately answered the
Commission's earlier request; the letter states, "It is the opinion of this firm
that it will be feasible to connect shut-off valves for each unit for both the
gas and water facilities to each unit." Mr. Van Atta requested an opinion from the
City Engineer on the proposed alternative and Mr. Kirkup stated that he would prefer
individual shut-off valves, noting this would.also be preferred by the Building and
Fire Departments. He emphasized this was for safety purposes as well as for control
of individual tenants shutting off the gas or water of other tenants. He added that
such a requirement will be presented to the Council as a suggested addition to the
Plumbing Code.
Mr. Van Atta then requested approval of the conversion permit and tentative map (item
Ib.) subject to the conditions set forth by the City Engineer.. C. E. Kirkup, further
responding to the Commission's inquiries, stated that at the time of construction
the walls met the same building reugirements as a condominium and therefore wall
insulation is adequate. C. Jacobs was concerned about open space, noting that
condominium projects are required to provide open space that is not paved. She
was concerned that more conversions would be requested without; usable, green open
space and this would not be good for the City. Chm. Taylor noted that the
application meets the specifications of the City Engineer and the guidelines set
forth by the Planning Commission.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing; there being no one wishing to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1978
C. Mink moved for approval of the above -noted condominium conversion, noting that
the three conditions would be applied to the tentative map. C. Kindig seconded the
motion and upon roll call the motion for approval was rejected by a vote of 3 to 4,
Commissioners Cistulli, Francard, Jacobs and Sine casting the negative votes.
Chm. Taylor noted the deadline for appeal to the City Council and advised the
applicant to contact staff as to the appeal procedure if desired.
lb. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 8 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 14619 EL CAMINO REAL
(APN 026-013-030), ZONED R-3, BY KCA ENGINEERS, INC. FOR SARKIS M. FARD
(APPLICANT) WITH GORDON KULLBERG AND TERRANCE IRWIN (PROPERTY OWNERS)
Chm. Taylor read the item. C. A. Coleman explained that if the Commission were to
deny this item and the Council chose to reverse the Commission's action, Council
would be made aware of the suggested conditions of approval. Chm. Taylor opened the
public hearing; there being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
C. Mink moved to recommend Council approval of the above -noted tentative map subject
to the three conditions stipulated by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
January 6, 1978. C. Kindig seconded the motion, noting that -if denied it would not
indicate dissatisfaction with the suggested conditions. A roll call vote was taken
and the motion to recommend approval was rejected by a vote of 3 to 4, Commissioners
Cistulli, Francard, Jacobs and Sine casting the negative votes.
2. MASTER SIGN PERMIT FOR 73 SF OF EXISTING SIGNS ON PROPERTY AT 100 EL CAMINO REAL
(APN 029-221-120), ZONED R-3, BY J. QUETNICK OF SANBUTCH PROPERTIES (OWNER) WITH
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES LTD., J. M. TAYLOR & CO. AND DR. W,EHINGER (TENANTS)
(CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 21, 1977)
Chm. Taylor read the item and Asst. C. P. Yost noted that no new information had
been provided staff. He further noted that it had been requested this item be
postponed until February as the applicant would be out of town at this time. There
was some concern as the existing signing is illegal. Mr.'Quetnick was present,
explaining that he had planned to be out of town this date but plans had changed;
he did request continuance to February because he was not adequately prepared.
C. Mink moved that the item be postponed until February 15, 1978. C. Cistulli
seconded the motion and it was noted that the Commission did not intend to postpone
this item further. A roll call vote was taken and the motion for postponement
carried (6-1), Chm. Taylor casting the negative vote.
3a. APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -148P, SIGNED AND POSTED 12/12/77, WHICH
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY GARDEN AT 18 CLARENDON ROAD "WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT."
Chm. Taylor read the item and C. P. Swan explained the process of filing a negative
declaration and the appeal process involved. He briefly reviewed the staff report,
"Appeal of Negative Declaration, ND -148P," dated 1/9/78 (incorporated by attachment
to these minutes), and concluded that the proposal would not cause substantial
adverse impacts; the principal impact would be automobiles coming to the garden and
parking. He noted the project sponsors were present to respond to Mr. and Mrs. Philip
Knight's appeal and that Mr. Knight was also present to support his appeal. It was
noted that the merits of the project were not the issue at this time. C. A. Coleman
briefed the Commission on State Guidelines, specifically Section 15081, and stated
that since it is an appeal Mr. Knight should speak first.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4January 9, 1978
Philip Knight addressed the Commission, presenting pictures of the site and his
property as well as a plot plan depicting the relationship between the two parcels.
He noted that if the applicant intended to purchase an adjacent parcel, remove the
house on that parcel and expand the garden project, his property would be surrounded
by the garden except where the front yard fronts on the street. Some of the points
and concerns Mr. Knight felt would support his appeal were: the neighborhood is R-1
and there is a desire for it to remain R-1 in character; the proposal is in close
proximity to existing homes and is conducive to increased noise; the use of compost
piles could create problems; sanitary facilities should be provided; the
neighborhood might expect an increase of 25% or more in traffic; even if a tandem
parking arrangement is adequate it could create problems; and he felt that large
amounts of fuel or energy as well as water would be used. In conclusion, Mr. Knight
invited the Planning Commission members to visit his property and determine that
an environmental impact report should be required for this proposal.
Chm. Taylor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the
issue as to whether an EIR should be required for this project. Jean S. Weaver,
the applicant, briefly addressed the Commission, pointing out the benefits of this
garden system. It was pointed out that organic gardening was not being questioned,
but.rather if such a project at this location would require an EIR.
Bill Somerville, Executive Director, The San Mateo Foundation addressed Commission,
wishing to make a slide presentation to provide information and examples of similar
garden projects in other communities. Chm. Taylor questioned this procedure as
he felt Commission was concerned with the effects of such a project in Burlingame.
C. A. Coleman advised this would be permissible as Mr. Knight had made reference
to other projects in his presentation. In his presentation Mr. Somerville emphasized
that the specific points brought up by Mr. Knight would be addressed. John Dotter,
San Jose Parks and Recreation Department and member of the Board of Directors for
the Saratoga Community Garden, assisted with the slide presentation showing various
projects throughout the Bay Area and emphasizing that gardens maintain a low profile,
bringing natural elements into an area, i.e., birds, flowers, etc.
Reference was made to a note from a family whose home is directly adjacent to a 10
acre garden and the family stated the garden had been a positive addition to the
neighborhood. With regard to the parking question, Mr. Dotter noted that the number
of cars at the Saratoga garden rarely exceed five and added that people are
encouraged to bicycle, walk and utilize public transportation. It was noted that
the Burlingame location was within easy access of public transportation and rather
centrally located. It was emphasized that such a garden utilizes a fraction of the
water and energy as a conventional garden. Mr. Dotter discussed various legislative
items, i.e., AB 1333, the Dunlap Bill and the Williamson Act, which could pertain
to such a project. In discussing points of concern expressed by various members of
the Commission, Mr. Dotter did admit that most of the areas described in the slide
presentation had larger lot dimensions than the Burlingame location (one area had
one acre minimum lot sizes).
John Jeavons, Director of Ecology Action in Palo Alto, addressed the concerns of
Mr. Knight and the Commission, noting that in a 3-3/4 acre garden in the Stanford
industrial area there are 600 garden plots with, at the most, five or six cars
parked in the parking lot for that 600 -plot garden. The proposed Burlingame garden
would have 100 plots. With regard to water consumption, he referred to an article
in the July, 1977 issue of Organic Gardening and Farming entitled "Intensive
Gardening - Less Water and Higher Yields," noting that this method would use half
the water. He said that well water would be used and the use of a solar pump
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
January 9, 1978
would be investigated to cut down on energy consumption. With regard to compost,
Mr. Jeavons stated that a properly managed compost system, capped off with soil,
would not create fly or odor problems. He emphasized the project could provide
low-cost vegetables as well as exercise and entertainment to senior citizens living
in the vicinity.
Mr. Knight commented the size of the proposed garden in Burlingame would be much
smaller than those in the slide presentation. It would be very "tight" and very
close to residences. He felt such a garden has a great deal of merit for Burlingame
but not at this location. Mr. Somerville addressed some of the concerns about the
well and water usage, noting that there is a good well on the property according to
the City Engineer although the depth must be confirmed. He added that the
Burlingame Water Department would require the same rationing for the garden as that
for a single family residence. Mrs. Weaver spoke to clear up some questions posed
by Mr. Knight, stating that she would like to purchase the adjacent lot to live in
the home there and the flowering areas of the garden would be around the outside area.
She stated that if there were problems with cars or parking, parking would be
limited and misuse would not be permitted. It was noted that reference made to
1,000 plots was Mr. Knight's estimate; actually 100 plots would be possible.
Responding to Chm. Taylor's inquiry, C. A. Coleman stated that: basically, if the
owner of a vacant lot wanted to have a vegetable garden on the entire lot and permit
friends to have gardens there also, it would be permitted although it could be
carried to a point where it would be legally questionable. He stated if rent were
charged, then it would not be permitted.
Mildred DaDalt addressed Commission, noting the garden is a school and she questioned
locating a school in the area as there is already a private school nearby. She
further questioned care of the parcel during winter months. There being no further
public input, Chm. Taylor thanked everyone for their comments and noted that many
of the questions brought up were pertinent to the special permit. He then closed
the public hearing.
C. Kindig stated that his sympathies were with the Knights and that several good
points were raised; however, he emphasized that requiring an EIR to identify impacts
and suggest mitigation measures for this project would not bring the Commission any
closer to a decision. He felt the questions posed were concerns pertinent to the
actual operation and did not feel an EIR was necessary. C. Cistulli agreed with
C. Kindig. C. Jacobs stated that if an EIR is required she would like a specific
plot plan.
Chm. Taylor called for a vote on the issue, stating that a 'yes' vote would uphold
the City Planner's decision that no EIR is required and a 'no' vote would grant
Mr. and Mrs. Knight's appeal, thus requiring an EIR. Upon roll call the City
Planner's decision was upheld and the appeal denied by a vote of 4 to 3, Commissioners
Cistulli, Francard and Jacobs dissenting.
A brief recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. C. Sine felt that
staff might make a study to limit the number of condominium permits in relationship
to apartments available. With changes in financing trends, he continued, young
marrieds and senior citizens are being priced out of areas. Commission briefly
discussed C. Sine's proposal, noting that the draft Housing Element suggests adequate
housing for a wide variety of people, and instructed staff to make such a study.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
MEETING ITEMS FOR STUDY
Page 6
January 9, 1978
3b. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMUNITY GARDEN AND TEACH FRENCH INTENSIVE FARMING
AT 18 CLARENDON ROAD (APN 029-294-090/240/250), ZONED R-•1, BY JEAN S. WEAVER
(PROPERTY OWNER)
Chm. Taylor read the item. The Commission requested that the applicant provide the
following: an entire plot plan including the number of plots, locations and
dimensions, location and dimensions of the compost pile, a security plan (i.e.,
fencing to limit or control foot traffic), pump specifications, times of operation
both on a daily basis and seasonal basis, plans for use of the existing buildings,
sanitary facilities, the number of people permitted on site at one time, parking
plans and responses to residents' concerns. Commission also requested information
about what will be done around the property lines. C. A. Coleman requested that the
legal aspects of the school be addressed and advised that the City is under no
liability if a class is offered through the Recreation Department. Chm. Taylor set
hearing on this item for January 23, 1978.
ADDED ITEM - VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1328 CARLOS AVENUE, BURLINGAME
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly informed Commission of some of the personal conditions
and details pertaining to this variance request. He felt the application would be
complete and ready for hearing on January 23 and stated that a visit to the site
was important in this instance. There being no discussion, Chm. Taylor set this
item for hearing January 23, 1978.
4. BURLINGAME BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: STATUS REPORT; EIR-45P, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, RECLASSIFICATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
C. P. Swan reported on the status of the Burlingame Bay Club Condominium project.
He stated that a general plan amendment, reclassification and condominium permit
would be needed. Options for rezoning would include estoblishing an R-4 District,
a new waterfront residential district, a condominium overlay district, or the
Waterfront Commercial District Regulations could be amended to add multifamily
dwellings as a conditional use requiring a special permit.
Commission concluded that until direction is received from the Council and until the
Blayney Report is completed any action by the Commission on a general plan amendment
or reclassification would be premature. David Keyston, Anza Shareholders' Liquidating
Trust, addressed Commission briefly asking for a communication from the Commission
to the City Council requesting immediate activation of the contract for the Blayney
Report. He added that he had agreed to pay up to $5,000 if the report would require
revisidn because of a future change to add or delete a convention center. It was
the consensus of Commission that Chm. Taylor write a letter to the City Council on
this matter.
5. STAFF REPORT ON BURLINGAME RENT -A -CAR ESTABLISHMENTS: FINDINGS AND ISSUES FOR STUDY
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly summarized findings made from a survey which was conducted
by a CETA employee on rent -a -car establishments. He noted that the City does not
have criteria for reviewing permits for such businesses, staff' has no way of
monitoring conditions placed on permits at the time of approval and business license
fees are very nominal, i.e., $25.00 per year'per firm no matter what size.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1978
-� Commission, the City Attorney and Mr. Yost briefly discussed methods of designating
business license fees and policing problems. If properly monitored, it was agreed
fees would have to be increased to cover City costs. It was suggested that a limit
be put on such businesses as Burlingame is becoming a "dumping ground" for the
airport. Staff was directed to pursue this study further.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY IN THE M-1 DISTRICT; PROPERTY AT
1815 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (APN 024-401-500), BY S. E. RONDON OF DOLLAR RENT -A -CAR
SYSTEMS (APPLICANT) WITH CARUSO ENTERPRISES, INC. (PROPERTY OWNER)
C. P. Swan briefly reported on this item stating that it is ready to be set for
hearing. W. B. Wristen of Dollar Rent-A-Car was present and the Commission requested
that he provide complete site and plot plan showing all improvements, including
parking and building layout with the location of washing facilities, grease racks,
etc. and recycling plans. It was noted that a draft negative declaration had been
prepared for this item. There being no further discussion, Chm. Taylor scheduled
this item for hearing January 23, 1978.
7. VARIANCE FROM CODE SEC. 25.66.050 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE TO A SIDE PROPERTY
LINE; PROPERTY AT 1453 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 026-042-060), ZONED R-1, BY
GARY E. WALTER
Asst. C. P. Yost noted that the applicant was not present but stated the application
is complete and recommended it be scheduled for hearing. Chm.. Taylor set this item
for hearing January 23, 1978.
8a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR HERITAGE MANOR, A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1421 EL CAMINO
REAL (APN 026-013-130), ZONED R-3, BY BARRY L. RAFTER (ARCHITECT) FOR THOMAS
SANFILIPPO (APPLICANT) WITH JAMES AND ISOBEL HIMMEL (PROPERTY OWNERS)
8b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED SIDE YARDS
PER SEC. 25.62.080
8c. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1421 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-
013-130), ZONED R-3, BY JAMES F. CARROLL & ASSOCIATES FOR THOMAS SANFILIPPO
Asst. C. P. Yost stated that with the exception of four concerns the application
is complete and ready for hearing: (1) second means of egress from second floor of
each living unit; (2) gates or knockout sections in 5 foot fences along southerly
property line for emergency access by Fire Department; (3) lack of on-site guest
and/or visitor parking except behind security gate at base of ramp into underground
garage; (4) name of property owner at time of hearing. Barry L. Rafter, architect
for the project, was present and stated that those items should be cleared up in
time for Commission review for the hearing. He further stated the ownership question
was expected to be cleared up shortly and he had been authorized to proceed on this
application by the current owners. C. E. Kirkup stated that none of the parking
stalls should require backing out onto El Camino Real and he confirmed he would like
the second exit. It was noted that a landscape plan would be required which would
show any trees along El Camino Real on the City right-of-way. The above items were
set for hearing January 23, 1978..
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
January 9, 1978
9. AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT (APPROVED OCTOBER 26, 1977 TO SELL AND SERVICE BOATS
AT RETAIL IN THE M-1 DISTRICT) TO ALLOW THE STORAGE AND SERVICE OF TEN BUSES ON
THE PROPERTY AT 390 LANG ROAD (APN 026-331-370/400), BY HOWARD G. HICKEY (PROPERTY
OWNER) WITH MISSION TRAILS CHARTER SERVICE, INC. (LESSEE)
Asst. C. P. Yost stated that this application is complete and ready for hearing.
Howard Hickey, the applicant, was present. Chm. Taylor set this item for hearing
January 23, 1978.
10. EXCEPTION FROM PERMITTED HEIGHTS FOR NONCONFORMING FENCE AND HEDGE, PER CODE
CHAPTER 25.78, AT 1516 ADELINE DRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED R-1, BY MR. AND MRS. JOHN A.
ESCOBOSA
Asst. C. P. Yost briefly reviewed this item and Council action of December 5, 1977 at
which time the hedge was found to be a public hazard. He further stated that this
item is ready for hearing. The applicants were present and informed Commission that
Council had found the hedge to be a public hazard because of exposed branches, not
because there was a traffic hazard. Commission requested the Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission be advised this matter is to be on the Planning Commission's January 23rd
agenda so they could comment. The applicants invited Commission to visit the site
and view it from inside the hedge as well as outside. Chm. Taylor advised the
applicants that information as to the Council's action should be presented in support
of their application at the time of the hearing; he then set the hearing on this item
for January 23, 1978.
11. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7, 10 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 11
AND 12,.BLOCK 2, WITH PORTIONS OF LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 1, DE COULON SUBDIVISION;
PROPERTY AT 751 CALIFORNIA DRIVE (APN 029-053-110) AND 741 SAN MATEO AVENUE
(APN 029-053-200), BY WILLIAM WRIGHT FOR OSCAR PERSON
C. E. Kirkup, C. A. Coleman and Oscar Person discussed this with the Commission briefly.
C. E. Kirkup stated he would have a full staff report for the Commission's review
prior to the hearing. It was noted that if a street is to be dedicated to the City
a deed is not required as it would be noted on the map itself. This item was
scheduled for hearing January 23, 1978.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
12. ITEMS TO CONSIDER AT SPECIAL STUDY MEETING ON JANUARY 30, 1978
Commission briefly discussed the possibility of having a special study meeting Monday,
January 30; however, no meeting was scheduled.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary
P.C. 1/9/78
Item No. 3a.
PPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ND -148P
Reference the following documents:
Special Permit Application to the
December 5, 1977 letter from Mrs.
18 Clarendon Road
Environmental Assessment Form E2
Negative Declaration, ND -148P
Site plan
Planning Commission
Jean Weaver re Community Garden at
Statement regarding parking for the Burlingame Community Garden
The aforementioned documents were distributed to the Planning Commission prior
to the meeting held December 21, 1977. Copy of ND -148P attached. Also for reference
are the following communications:
December 19, 1977 appeal to City Clerk from Philip C. and Marti Knight
December 21, 1977 letter from Bill Somerville, Executive Director_ of The
San Mateo Foundation to the City Planner
December 23, 1977 from City Planner to Mrs. Jean S. Weaver
N
Subject negative declaration, ND -148P, has been recopied and is also attached.
Background information follows:
!. There are three R-1 District lots with a total area of 25,751 SF. (Details follow.)
2. The proposed community garden is a conditional use requiring a special permit.
It therefore is a discretionary project and subject to CEQA requirements.
3. The minimum size lot area in an R-1 District is 5,000 SF.
4. On the basis of an initial study the City Planner determined that the proposed
project would not result in a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse
change in the environment.
5. Negative Declaration, ND -148P, was prepared and posted December 12, 1977.
A negative declaration means a written statement by the lead agency briefly
presenting the reasons that the project, although not otherwise exempt, would not
have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require an EIR.
6. Significant effect means a substantial adverse consequence of a change in any of
the physical conditions in the area affected by the activity including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance. Examples of consequences which may have a significant effect on the
environment include the following: (a) conflict with adopted environmental plans
and goals of the community where it is located; (b) a substantial demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect; (c) the project would degrade air or water quality;
(d) causes an increase of 25 percent or more in traffic at a given point; (e)
encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy.
-2-
7. An EIR need not be prepared if the lead agency finds that the environmental effects
of the project are so indefinite and unpredictable that it -is impossible to
determine whether the activity -may have a significant effect on the environment.
To require that an EIR be prepared there should be substantial evidence of a
significant effect on the environment.
8. State Guidelines allow use of a negative declaration where adverse impacts identified
in -an initialstudyare mitigated.
9. To evaluate significance of the environmental effect of a project both the primary
and secondary consequences shall be considered.
(a) How is the level of impact measured?
(b) What is an insignificant level?
(c) What is a significant level?
The issues may be identified by the following questions:
(a) Does the proposed community garden have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment?
(b) Would environmental effects cause substantial adverse effects on human beings?
(c) Are measures written into the plan to reduce the adverse impacts to
insignificant levels?
10. If the appeal is denied, the Commission may continue to study the application for
a special permit and schedule it for hearing. If the appeal of the negative
declaration is upheld, the Planning Commission may require preparation of an
environmental impact report and table consideration of the special permit application
until after the environmental impact report has been prepared.
WMS/s
(*) Additional communications received January 6, 1978:
- January 3, 1978 letter to Mr. Somerville from Paul Relis, Director of
the Community Environmental Council of Santa Barbara
- January 5, 1978 letter from George Ginilo, Agricultural Commissioner
PROPERTY FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY GARDEN
Existina Land Use Lot No.a APN Size Area in SF
18 Clarendon Road 17 029-294-240 63.92x158 10,099
Vacant lot 16 029-294-250 50x158 7,900
Vacant lot 7 029-294-090 _ 50x155.03 7,752
Total area is 0.592 acres 25,751 SF
a Block 31, Lyon & Hoag Subdivision