HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.10.11THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
October 11, 1972
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli Kindig (excused) City Planner Swan
Mink Jacobs (excused) City Engineer Marr
Norberg City Attorney Karmel
Sine Bldg. Inspector Calwell
Taylor Fire Inspector Pearson
CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from
the regular meeting of September 25, 1972, was called to order
on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members of the Commission were present. Commissioner
Taylor was excused until after 9:00 due to a previous commitment,.
HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF DECISION BY BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTOR AT REQUEST
OF JOHN W. GEER PER SECTION 18.08.050 (2)
Chairman Cistulli announced this appeal for hearing.
John Geer addressed the Commission stating he wished to appeal
the decision of the Burlingame Building Inspector regarding an
electrical box which he had installed in remodeling his property
at 2104 Carmelita for rental purposes. He understood this was
within his rights according to law and requested the Commission's
consideration.
Building Inspector Calwell declared that this matter was strictly
a code violation, and Mr. Geer had no right to appeal it. He
stated Mr. Geer was issued a permit to change the electrical
service on his house. When the work was finished, the electrical
inspector checked it, and it was not to code. The old meter box
had not been changed from its original position of 12" or 14" above
ground, whereas the code states it must be at least 30" above
ground. Mr. Geer was informed of this and refused to change the
location of the box, stating he might dig a hole in the ground
instead to effect the desired height. The Building Inspector
commented this would constitute a definite safety hazard since
seepage and rain water could collect in the hole and there would
be danger of electrocution. He repeated this was a flagrant code
violation and he did not think it should be subject to appeal.
Chairman Cistulli read correspondence from P.G.E. to Mr. Geer and
City Manager Schwalm advising that wiring and meter were not according
to code, and attaching minimum standards for installation.
- 2 -
Mr. Geer referred the Commission to the minimum standards and
protested discrimination in that he was expected to conform to
standards for exterior installation whereas his is an enclosed
installation. He distributed photographs of his meter installation
and stated he saw no safety hazard whatsoever.
Chairman Cistulli queried City Attorney Karmel as to process of
this hearing.
The City Attorney went into the background of appeals from the
discretion of the building inspector, and stated that in this case
the burden of proof lay with the person appealing - he must show
wherein the building inspector should be asked to depart from the
building code. He also noted the possibility that P.G.E. may
have safety rules which are not binding upon the City of Burlingame.
Chairman Cistulli asked the building inspector what the code
requirements were. Building Inspector Calwell repeated the code
provisions as to box height, again cautioning about the danger of
electrocution if a hole were dug. He added that P.G.E. Company
will not service if this is not brought to code.
Mr. Geer again stated he could see no safety hazard - that the box
had been in the same position for 24 years, and he wanted only a
reasonable interprdation of the code. He was reminded by Chairman
Cistulli that he had upgraded a service in his residence, and he
was expected to upgrade it according to code.
Commissioner Sine commented he had electrical service changed at
his property, had hired a licensed electrician to do it, and it
conformed to code, suggesting that if Mr. Geer had hired a licensed
electrician, there would have been no problem.
Mr. Geer stated he did hire a licensed electrician. Both the
Building Inspector and Chairman Cistulli inquired the electrician's
name. Mr. Geer stated he did not wish to give this information.
In following discussion it was established that the holder of a
home owner's building permit may hire someone on day labor, not
necessarily licensed by the State. Mr. Geer then stated that Atlas
Electric had checked the service and recommended bringing in the
220 line, reworking the box, and changing the wiring according to
code. At that time there was no mention made of moving the box.
Commissioner Mink brought up the question of code violation in the
extension of a non -conforming use, and suggested the possible
necessity of rewiring the entire house because of the installation
of 220 in this area of the non -conforming box. He then asked Mr.
Geer if it would be possible to make the minor modification and
bring the box up to code.
Mr. Geer admitted that it would be possible to move the meter box
30" above the ground without a great deal of expense. He stated
that his whole point was to find what was a reasonable interpretation
- 3 -
and what was the purpose of the building code. Is it to protect
the people, or is it merely to insure that they conform? Commissioner
Mink pointed out that we have codes to protect the home owner, but
also to protect the people who service our utilities - safe working
conditions must be maintained for services we depend on. Fire
Inspector Pearson added that it is sometimes necessary for the
fire Department to pull the meter to disconnect it.
Commissioner Sine moved that the Planning Commission sustain the
Building Inspector in the case of John W. Geer, and that Mr.
Geer be granted a two week period from today to comply with the
code. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it was carried
unanimously on roll call vote. Mr. Geer is to receive a formal
communication from the Planning Department advising him of this
decision, and Building Inspector John Calwell stated he would
communicate with P.G.E.
2. DESIGN REVIEW OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE IN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT
1205 EL CAMINO BY NEIL J. VANNUCCI (REF. ZONING CODE SECTION
25.62.08) (1)
City Planner Swan quoted this code section referring to underground
garages in setback areas which states in part: "Plans for such
underground garages, together with methods of access and egress
for the vehicles, must be prepared and submitted for approval
by the planning commission . . ." He went on to say that this
development was first proposed as a 30-unit apartment building
but was now changed to an 18 unit condominium. He noted the
presence of architect Neil Vannucci and owner Michael Kalend.
The architect distributed plans for the garage and the City
Planner explained them in detail, commenting they do meet the parking
requirements. He also read a communication from Fire Inspector
Pearson stating the garage would meet fire department regulations.
Commissioner Sine was concerned about the people in the neighborhood
who were interested in these plans and was told they had been
informed of this meeting.
Mr. Vannucci commented that the landscaping on top of the garage
slab actually constituted an outdoor recreation area. Commissioner
Mink commented that he did not consider 12 planter boxes as land-
scaping, and having a living space right up against an easement
with a subsequent trash and debris problem was not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Vannucci assured him that
with the high class clientele and the building maintenance system
which the condominium will have there would be no such problems.
Mr. Kalend added that the design was much improved since it provided
for 18 units instead of the previous 30.
Commissioner Sine moved that the Planning Commission approve the
underground garage in the required side yard at 1205 El Camino
in conformance with zoning code Section 25.62.080; and that the
Planning Commission at any time in the future have the option of
calling for a full review of the landscape drawings by a
- 4 -
landscape architect by the Commission. Commissioner Mink seconded
the motion.
Mr. Vannucci commented that the Commission already had in their
hands landscape drawings by designer George Machado. Commissioner
Norberg objected to the landscaping shown on the deck,stating it
was inadequate; and also objected to the fence shown on the deck
in that it was too far above grade. Commissioner Mink withdrew
his second to the motion, stating upon reconsideration it seemed
the Commission -already had a bona fide landscape plan and should
decide if they wished to review it or not.
City Planner Swan suggested that since there was a motion with no
second, perhaps there should be a motion to continue this hearing.
Commissioner Mink moved to continue. Commissioner Sine stated
he would not withdraw his motion until Commissioner Norberg defined
his opinion. Commissioner Norberg again stated that the fence
on the deck was too high above the natural grade to be built
and there was not enough landscaping on the deck.
Mr. Kalend suggested that the slab be approved, and landscaping
plans could be brought back later for amendment and approval.
Chairman Cistulli asked for a second to Commissioner Sine's
motion. There was none. There was much further discussion. Chairman
Cistulli then declared the motion dead for want of a second.
Commissioner Mink moved that this item be continued to the next
regular meeting of October 30. Commissioner Sine seconded the
motion. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION
Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of study agenda at 9:25
p.m. pending Commissioner Taylor's arrival for vote on adjourned
item.
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN IN -BAY AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT 1490
BU RLI NGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BY SHELL OIL COMPANY
City Planner Swan noted that Mr. Williams of Shell Oil Company,
and Mr. John Hughes, station operator, were present. Plot plans
were distributed. He stated that precedent for this type of car
wash was established at the Shell station on Burlway Road with
similar equipment, and asked Mr. Hughes to explain the physical
setup of where cars would be stored before and after washing.
City Engineer Marr also requested information about the waste
water.
Mr. Hughes explained that there will be no storage or drying of
vehicles, that when the car is driven out of the car wash it
dries clean. Mr. Williams indicated the sump for wastewater on
the plot plan, but the City Engineer stated there must also be
a sediment pit. He was concerned about the soap or detergent
used.
It was further established that the car wash bay will be
13' x 281; will use cold water; the automatic car wash will be
- 5 -
hydraulically operated, starting at the front of the bay with its
wash cycle, and going into the rinse cycle on the return. Mr.
Williams noted the changes in landscaping and stated a small fixed
sign "Free Car Wash With Fill -up" would be added. This is not a
readerboard.
There was some further discussion.
Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for hearing October 30,
1972.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH CAFE IN AN
M-1 DISTRICT, ON BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SOUTH OF STANTON ROAD,
BY KAISER AETNA AND AGENT, JACK WOODRUFF.
City Planner Swan distributed plot plans for this proposed develop-
ment which will be a three-story office building immediately
adjacent to the building approved for the Christensen development.
The Woodruff building will include a small cafe principally for
the use of the building's occupants. The City Planner indicated
receipt of an authorization from Safeway Company, present owners
of the site. They have entered an option agreement for sale to
the Kaiser -Aetna Corporation.
The City Planner commented he thought the design of the building
was commendable, and the application certainly merited consideration
for a special permit. He noted the parking conforms to the code
requirement.
There was discussion of the parking, and a question as to the hours
of operation for the cafe.
Jack Woodruff replied there was not yet a lease agreement with any
type of restaurant; but since this is strictly an office building,
the restaurant would probably be a day operation.
There was comment that the plans must be more detailed. Mr.
Woodruff replied that complete documentation would be furnished in
the process of time. He displayed elevations showing architectural
character of the development, stating they wished to set this
traditional building in a very strong landscaping setting. This
is a 105,000 square foot wood frame building, wood floor and wood
studs, and much use of wood for exterior trim. Interior landscaping
is also used. Soil conditions make the area in front of the building
unbuildable and it is to be a parking lot. Mr. Woodruff commented
that this building requires a sensitivity in the reality of
parking, but because of the landscaping the parking isn't the
"usual trauma of bare steel and chrome."
There was commission comment that the design appeared to be
excellent. The application was scheduled for hearing October 30.
Mr. Woodruff is to bring in completed plans, including landscape
development plans.
Commissioner Taylor entered the meeting at 9:45 P.M.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AIR FREIGHT FORWARDING BUSINESS AT
1341 MARSTEN ROAD, AN M-1 ZONE, BY INTERNATIONAL AIR COURIER
City Planner Swan commented there was adequate documentation and a
thorough presentation of facts on this application. He distributed
plot plans to the Commission.
Mr. Bruce McGlothlin of International Air Courier told the
Commission this business would be housed in 1/4 of a warehouse at
this address. They would use one Ford Econoline van, one Pinto
station wagon and one Ford administrative car, and did not contemplate
larger trucks in the future since they specialize in handling small
merchandise. They have four parking spaces in front of the building.
Other occupants of the building include an electronics firm and
a restaurant supply company.
Chairman Cistulli scheduled this application for public hearing
October 30. The applicant was asked to bring plot plans to scale
to the meeting. ,
ADJOURNED MEETING
Chairman Cistulli announced return to agenda of adjourned meeting
for consideration of one remaining item.
6. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 6-UNIT APARTMENT IN AN R-2 DISTRICT AT
1105 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOT 14, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION,
BY LES ALEXANDER.
Chairman Cistulli announced this application for public hearing.
Revised elevation plans were distributed and considered. Commissioner
Norberg commented these elevations were more attractive and inquired
what kind of roof would be used. He was informed it would be
heavy weight wood -treated composition shingles. There was some
discussion of the previously considered plans.
There was no audience comment either for or against the application,
and the public hearing was declared closed.
There were no commission questions or comments. Commissioner
Sine moved that this variance for a six unit apartment be granted
conditional upon using the alternate front elevation, Exhibit B.
dated October 10, 1972; using 250# asphalt shingles; and using Exhibit A
floor plan indicating a 6 unit apartment alternate to add one
carport, a total of seven parking places. Commissioner Taylor
seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG. SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, JACOBS
- 7 -
STUDY MEETING
CODE AMENDMENTS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL
Off -Street Parking Section 25.70.03. City Planner Swan told the
Commission that the City Council had received a recommendation from
the Parking Commission which was: Each dwelling unit with one
bath and up to and including two bedrooms will require 1.5 spaces.
Units with one bathroom and three or more bedrooms will require
2.0 spaces. Units with two bathrooms will require 2.0 spaces
irrespective of the number of bedrooms.- On October 2 the Council
referred the matter to the Planning Commission with the suggestion
that the parking be related to the number of bedrooms, not bathrooms,
and that rules allowing parking in the front setback be reviewed.
The City Planner stated he had prepared four alternatives to the
suggested parking regulation. He discussed these alternatives,
and also explained the parking requirements for San Mateo County.
He stated that all of these lead to his recommendation that no less
than 1k spaces be used for each apartment unit.,
There was discussion of these various alternatives, and also of when
it would be best to have a public hearing on the regulations. It
was noted there was some urgency in the matter since the City Planner
stated he had been reviewing building applications, and informing
the public that 1h spaces are needed.
The City Attorney commented that the commission was charged with
the responsibility of making a study and recommendations on the
parking problem; and suggested it would be possible for the Council
at its November meeting to adopt an interim emergency ordinance
as long as there was a bona fide study going on. The commission
could make such a recommendation to the City Council. Such an
emergency ordinance would remain in effect for a period of four
months with the possibility of extension. It was agreed that the
review of the parking code would be on the agenda for October 30.
Comment was also made that because of lengthy discussions, special
meetings should be called to consider this matter, as well as R-2A
regulations and architectural review.
Design review standards in C-4
City Planner Swan informed the Commission of Council recommendation
by Councilman Martin that C-4 District Regulations be examined
to determine whether or not they should be made more restrictive.
This might include exploration of height limitations, landscaping
requirements, public access to the bay, and the possibility of
requiring a use permit for every development.
The City Planner suggested several areas of discussion. He stated
he thought height limitation might be the key to the situation;
and in addition, an automatic sprinkler ordinance. He added that
Fire Inspector Pearson would comment on this item. City Planner
Swan also suggested the application of a special permit to any
building over four stories in this area, and noted there should be
some sort of architectural review.
There was some discussion of height limitations being enacted
■Q
as an emergency interim ordinance while regulations were studied.
This was with particular reference to plans for a 16 story building
in this district.
Fire Inspector Pearson reported to the Commission that the
buildings in this area are becoming bigger than the ability of
the Fire Department to cope with them. Burlingame's fire department
does not have enough men for effective fire fighting at very
large buildings. He commented that larger cities may use the same
building code as Burlingame, but here there is no relation between
the size of the fire department and the size of the building.
Burlingame is not going to get enough manpower to cope with these
large buildings; therefore the Fire Department suggests that these
buildings have protection built into them with automatic sprinkler
systems, and that this be an ordinance. He suggested a minimum
of 15,000 square feet as a guideline in building size, adding that
this would not be a hardship on building owners because sprinkler
systems would be more effective than building fire walls. He
pointed out that 6 - 10 sprinklers would control 90% of all fires,
since the minute that water starts to flow, the Fire Department
is notified and measures would be taken to stop the fire. He
emphasized that fire protection for these large buildings is
becoming a serious matter, and commended the Commission for their
interest in fire safety.
The Commission indicated approval of the proposed ordinance to
require automatic sprinkling systems.
There was Commission suggestion that bulk limitations also be
considered for the C-4 district to preserve the view of the Bay,
and also to prevent any assemblage of long, law -lying buildings
along the entire Bay front, with the example being given of
Playland-at-the-Beach. There was a proposal that the Planning
Commission control everything other than single-family residences,
with the idea that this would be self -restricting. There was
comment that this might be too arbitrary, but the idea was presented
that if there are definite controls established in a district,
builders will have a tendency to abide by them.
After further discussion it was agreed that C-4 district regulations
would be scheduled for the study meeting in November, when the
full commission would be present.
ANZA PACIFIC BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT AND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
City Planner Swan noted the previous transmittal to Commission
members for information only of comprehensive material on the Anza
Pacific Boundary Settlement. He commented that the State would
have control over the lands it owns and they would not be subject
to BCDC control. However, the types of uses allowed would be the
types allowed by BCDC, and the development must be consistent
with the local and regional ordinances. He said that in discussion
of the development with George Keyston, it was agreed that the area
under Anza Pacific control could be classified as an "office park."
He added that it was necessary the City have some guidelines on
such a designation, to achieve high quality improvement projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
The City Planner noted his distribution of reference material on
this matter which included memo of opinion from City Attorney
Karmel, League of California Cities letter on Supreme Court Opinion,
and copy of newspaper item dated 10,/6/72 on the subject. In
connection with this he stated he had just received a letter from
Richard Ware, Charles King and Associates, referring to their
proposed 16 story building and requesting review of their impact
statement at the Commission hearing of October 30.
Chairman Cistulli read the letter from Mr. Ware. There was
discussion. The City Planner commented it seemed a logical procedure
for the Commission to review the impact statement and make recommen-
dations to the City Council, adding that it should be noticed in
the newspaper.
City Attorney Karmel felt that since no definite procedures
have been set up, the Planning Commission should not allow one
applicant to stampede them into taking a position which both he
and they might regret later. He felt this could be delayed for
another month until procedural methods could be formulated.
Since the Courts' decision would be retroactive, he saw no reason
why the applicants could not make their report and it could be
held until later. He added that the great difficulty with the
Supreme Court Decision is that there must be an opportunity for
public input, and for this reason any hearings should be noticed.
He added that restraint in action at the present would be advisable
since there has been an application for rehearing filed with the
Supreme Court. This rehearing is for purposes of clarification
and he felt it would be granted, since the Attorney General is
joining in this request. The League of California Cities is
getting together a number of city attorneys who are going to review
and come up with recommendations.
The City Attorney went on to say that under Federal legislation
there is an environmental impact statement; under the State legislation
there is an environmental impact report. Whenever the City is
asking for Federal money it must have the impact statement, which
involves neither notices nor hearing. He spoke of the import-ance
of having a "conservation element" in the General Plan. Cities
which have one can delegate to some officer hearing responsibility
for the environmental impact report. If the city does not have
one, the statute says the legislative board must conduct the hearing.
He repeated that it would best serve the interests of the City
to withhold action until procedural methods had been set up.
There was considerable discussion.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
City Planner Swan told the Commission that the City Council had
directed him to get a proposal from a plannin consultant to help
with the General Plan in obtaining a conservagtion element. Three
- 10 -
firms have been contacted, and proposals are to be submitted by
October 26.
The City Planner spoke of recently passed Bill AB1725 which defines
the term consistent and requires planning commissions to make
specified findings re general plans after hearings to adopt or
amend zoning. The purpose is that local zoning be consistent with
general plans by January 1, 1973.
Chairman Cistulli announced that at the next regular meeting of
October 30 the Commission would set dates for special meetings
to resolve such matters as appearance review, parking, C-4
district regulations, and the proposed R-2A District Regulations.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm M. Jacobs
Secretary