Loading...
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