Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.05.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 9, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Horan was abstained because he was not seated as a Commissioner for the April 11 and April 25, 2022 meetings. a.Draft April 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: Page 8; fourth line from top of page: insert "not" after "should". b.Draft April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: Page 7; third bullet from top of page: replace "Queen" with "St. Mary" on second line. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Abstain:Horan1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1799 Bayshore Highway, Suite 248, zoned I/I - Application for a Fixed Location Non-Storefront Cannabis Delivery Business in an existing building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guideline. (Dan Georgatos, VMK, Inc. dba Purple Lotus, applicant; Geller Partners LP, property owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Staff Report 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Attachments 1799 Bayshore Hwy Ste 248 - Plans Chapter 25.75 - Regulations for Cannabis (Marijuana) Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dan Georgatos, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Request for a security plan to visualize how deliveries are handled. (Hurin: A security plan has been submitted which was reviewed and approved by the Chief of Police for compliance with other requirements . Unfortunately, we cannot share that information to the public as it is confidential.) >This is different than what I was expecting when we were reviewing the Ordinance. I was thinking that there will be a warehouse or a fenced off parking lot that somebody will drive into. This is a little bit more public than what I was expecting. I don ’t know if it is high risk going down the hallway. Maybe on the delivery of the product from San Jose to this staging area, there could be a larger amount of product going in at one time and somebody might figure that out, but I am sure that they are working on that security plan. I trust the Police Department has reviewed it appropriately. I’m not sure I see anything to object to on this project. >During the meeting when we were reviewing this Ordinance, I asked if there was a community that has benefited from this type of operation. I can ’t think of one and I do not know if there is a city that says they are better placed because they have cannabis distribution. I am looking at the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, specifically that “the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health or general welfare of the city.” I cannot make that finding. Maybe this is more of a moral or ethical stand for me and I may be looking for something, but in my mind I don ’t think this makes the city better. How much is going to be distributed in Burlingame? I don ’t think it helps us as a community. I don ’t think I will be supporting the application but would love to hear from my fellow commissioners. Page 2City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > I would like to understand more the aspect of traveling, the doors and the surveillance cameras even though the Police Department has vetted this. I agree with my fellow commissioner. I have children in this community and I am always worried about the access to drugs and how prevalent it is in our community, especially now but this is something that we have voted on in the past. Again, like my fellow commissioner, it is of a moral standard personally. This is not something where we can pretend that is not going to happen because it is happening on our streets. I would just like to see clarity on the surveillance and security cameras. > We are in a difficult spot because of the Ordinance that we have approved. I too worry about the access in our city to not only the young people but also the legal adults who can purchase these products . I’m finding this location a little bit confusing, I ’m having a hard time feeling that it is a secure location of delivery from point to point. Even with a security guard accompanying the delivery person, especially that this is a public meeting, everyone now knows that there is this location that is setting itself up for somebody to be potentially attacked. It just seems odd that it is not a direct point of delivery from the back of a car to a door and instead you have to go in this long hallway inside a building. It is confusing and does not make me feel that it is a secure set up, even though our Police Department has reviewed and approved the security plan. I am not sure I am in support of this project in this location specifically. >I want to thank staff, it is a very thorough presentation. It is a very confusing topic for me because there is a lot of zoning and options for a Conditional Use Permit, it made it easier for me to understand . Because it does meet all the different requirements, I am certainly in favor of this. I hope everyone is aware that cannabis delivery is already well established in Burlingame. There is nothing keeping people from ordering these products if they are of legal age. As we all know, the federal guidelines will change very soon. This is already a legally allowed substance and Burlingame would benefit from the tax revenues of having these types of establishments nearby. By simply not allowing this, it is not going to stop it in any way, shape or form. We will be a little remiss to focus on those points as opposed to the actual benefits of substantial tax revenue. You can find several cities who have benefited from the additional tax revenues. There have been many studies that have shown that and they do go to good purposes. I am in favor and the plan is thorough and has been very well thought out. >I am echoing mostly what my fellow commissioner has said. Sticking to the Conditional Use Permit, I am okay with this application. Responding to my fellow commissioner ’s point about “not detrimental”, the Conditional Use Permit says “it should not be detrimental” and it doesn’t say it must be beneficial. >In line with some of the comments regarding the security aspect, I struggled with that at the beginning as well, but they are just as exposed from the car to the house as they are delivering to the suite. As much as I would have thought that this would be more of a warehouse where you drive in and get the product directly from the premises, I don ’t know that the distance from the suite to the car is any more dangerous for the driver than it is for the driver to come up to the house. I’m trying to offer that we should not be as worried about the security as long as the Police Department has reviewed it. >Spansail: Unfortunately, due to some of the security concerns we are not going to see a much more detailed security plan because we don ’t want to be showing that to the public. While we understand that it is something you would want to know, part of the reason we are not doing that is to make sure the public safety is there. I don ’t think we will be able to provide much more of a detailed plan of where the security cameras are located if it was requested for future meetings by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Nay:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study Items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 3City of Burlingame May 9, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.812 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. 812 Linden Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 812 Linden Ave - Letter of Explanation 812 Linden Ave - FYI Plans Attachments: >This item was pulled for further review at a future regular meeting. Commission noted that the explanation letter addresses changes to materials, however in visiting the site saw other as -built changes not identified in the letter or shown on the plans. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 9, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2022, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4City of Burlingame