HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.02.28THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
February 28, 1972
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Cistulli None City Planner Swan
Jacobs City Attorney Karmel
Kindig City Engineer Marr
Mink Councilman Mangini
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called
to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above -named members were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 2.4, 1972; the adjourned
meeting of February 14, 1972; and the study meeting of February 14,
1972 submitted to members previously were approved and adopted.
ANNOUNCEMENT
At the onset of the meeting, Chairman Sine made the following
statement: "Before opening the public hearings, I would like to defend
a group of dedicated and public spirited citizens of Burlingame who
spend long hours each month helping solve a number of the City's
problems. All of this is done without pay and in the fond and
unrealistic hopes of satisfying 50/ of the people. I speak, of course,
of the Planning Commission. In the past few weeks the Planning
Commission has been subjected to undue and fallacious criticism for
something it did not do, i.e., the Crocker Bank Building on Donnelly
and Primrose Avenues. The request for this structure never appeared
before this body for the simple reason all the developer had to do was
take out a building permit and abide by all applicable building
codes."
HEARINGS:
1. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 RSM
B/17. FROM R-1 TO R-3A. BEING CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKING LOT
Chairman Sine presented this application for public hearing, and at
his request the City Planner reviewed the circumstances leading up
to it. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that there were
two applications to reclassify property from R-1 to R-3A; one for
Lot 5, and the other for Lots 8, 11, and 12, in the same block. At
the November 22, 1971 meeting of the Commission, these applications
- 2 -
were presented along with an application for variance on Lots 8,11,
and 12. At this meeting the Commission took action to continue
consideration of the reclassification applications until February 28,
1972. He quoted the minutes of that meeting noting the motion for
continuance of the application and subsequent approval of the motion.
Due to the amount of concern expressed by Burlingame Park residents,
the City will study this area in depth with the aid of a Citizens
Committee being formed for this purpose. Ideas and offers of
assistance will be welcomed by the City Planner. He requested the
ideas in writing.
Commissioner Mink introduced a motion that the application for
reclassification of Lot 5, Block 3, Burlingame Park No. 2 be
withdrawn without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Jacobs and passed unanimously on roll call vote.
2. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 8,11, and 12, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME
PARK NO. 2 RSM B/17, FROM R-1 TO R-3A, BEING 1513 AND 1517
BURLINGAME AVENUE (APPLICANT AND OWNER: RICHARD F. MC LAUGHLIN)
The Commission Chairman announced that this application had been
scheduled for public hearing at this meeting. He then reported to
Commission members and the audience that late this afternoon a letter
had been received from Dr. Richard F. McLaughlin withdrawing the
application for reclassification without prejudice to resubmission.
Secretary Kindig read the letter which commended the Planning Commission
for their recognition of the need to modernize and improve this part
of Burlingame Avenue and thanked them for courtesies extended and the
thoughtful consideration of the application.
Dr. McLaughlin expressed the opinion that his plans were consistent
with the revitalization of the street, and his application was
rejected upon appeal to the City Council on the basis of objections he
believed ". . .were emotionally presented and insufficiently substantiated."
He went on to state he deeply resented any suggestions that this
property had been allowed to depreciate in order to qualify for
reclassification, and maintained he had made considerable expenditures
on this property and others he owned in order to keep them up to
neighborhood standards.
The letter informed: "However, I do not choose to engage in recrim-
inations with those who are not interested in factual considerations.
Instead, with regret, but after due reflection, I withdraw my application
for reclassification of these lots, without prejudice to resubmission."
There was no Commission comment.
There was no audience comment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Chairman Sine acknowledged the p-esence in the audience of Councilman
Mangini, and of Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, candidate for councilman.
- 3 -
3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADVERTISING DISPLAY TO IDENTIFY THE
SKYLINE TERRACE APARTMENTS AT 3133-3155 FRONTERA WAY, LOTS 1, 2, 3,
BLOCK 1, SKYLINE TERRACE, RS 1 6150, ZONED R-1. APPLICANT:
ELEANOR H. MOOREHOUSE.
Chairman Sine introduced this application for public hearing.
Mrs. Diane Shane was present as representative of the applicant. The
City Planner was requested to comment on the application. He
projected transparencies on a screen to illustrate the type and size
of the proposed sign, stating that it was TN' x 3'9" high, and has a
shadow board with an indirect recessed light. He noted that the
length appeared to meet all code requirements and the sign was deemed
appropriate for that location.
Mrs. Diane Shane addressed the Commission. She stated she had been
studying the different zoning codes and the sign ordinance for the
City of Burlingame and had done what she could to modify this sign to
meet the code, and that the sign area is under 32 square feet. She
pointed out a definite need for a sign of this type, especially since
another apartment unit is going in across the street from the Skyline
Terrace, and there will be competition. She noted that her apartments
can be considered commercial in the sense that the gross income per
month is $36,000.
There were no comments from the audience in favor of the application.
Raymond Mauss, 1837 Hunt, spoke against the sign, stating it would be
detrimental to the residential area adjacent to the apartments. He
cited the many apartments along El -Camino, which have only small
signs, not the illuminated or flashy type requested here.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg had no comments. Commissioner Jacobs thought the
sign as modified was an improvement over those previous. Commissioner
Taylor questioned if this were a flashing sign, and was informed that
it contained fluourescent tubing, but was not a flashing sign which
would be detrimental to the building. He then stated he did not feel
the erection of the sign would have an adverse effect. Commissioner
Mink questioned the "commercial" application of the sign, stating this
is not a commercial zone. Commissioner Kindig wished verification of
the fact that the bottom of the sign would not be more than 2' above
the ground for a total height of 5'9". Commissioner Cistulli thought
that at the speeds traveled on Route 280 no one would notice the sign
and that the money would be better spent on needed landscaping or
renovation of the shabby entrance on Trousdale. fie felt the sign had
merit only for identification. Mention was made of the non -cooperation
of the former owner in meeting Planning Commission requirements. Mrs.
Shane replied that $1,000 had been spent this year on landscaping in
addition to $500 for a gardener, and that in this case the former
owner, Mr. Pringle,was not the applicant.
Chairman Sine stated he appreciated the facts that the old signs were
taken down and that the present applicant is Mrs. Moorehouse; but also
commented on previous Commission difficulties with the former owner.
Commissioner Kindig stated the sign would be on the freeway and not
facing toward the residential district; and further, that the City
had permitted the apartment building which is now in competition
and it is only fair that under the new ownership they be permitted an
identification sign. There was further discussion relating to the
size of the sign and its relation to the considerable bulk of the
building, with the specific understanding that the bottom of the sign
shall not be more than 2' above the ground and the height of the
sign itself 3'9".
Commissioner Taylor __moved that the special permit for an identification
sign to identify the Skyline Terrace Apartments at 3133-3155 Frontera
Way be approved, subject to conformance to the plans submitted and
height limitation of 5'9" from the ground with a width of 76".
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously
on roll call vote. Chairman Sine cautioned the applicant that this
special permit is subject to Commission review and will take effect
on March 7 unless appealed to the City Council.
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP BEING A RE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 2
AND ALL OF LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8, BLOCK 1, BURLWAY INDUSTRIAL
PARK, 808-826 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED M-1 BY REYNOLDS C. JOHNSON
COMPANY
Chairman Sine announced Commission consideration of this tentative
parcel map. He requested the City Planner to review it for the
Commission.
City Planner Swan commented that there had been concern about the
parking and showed the Commission transparencies of the parcels
involved. He stated that three more parking spaces had been added
to Parcel B for a total of 54. Parcel C had indicated 69 spaces but
additional parking could be provided to give a total of 81. He went
into the number of employees each company had in the building, stating
that a rule of thumb is one space for each 2 employees plus one space
for each company vehicle. With a total of 24 employees there is
adequate parking under the present lease. A provisional egress -
ingress easement is to be provided centered on the property line in
the event either parcel is sold. In reply to a question he -stated
that four tenants occupy the entire premises. He showed slides of
the building with the present parking including a bridge over the
drainage canal with parking along the rear of the warehouse building.
City Engineer Marr stated that the map was technically correct, and he
had no objections to approving it. He noted it is a matter of deleting
several existing property lines and installing two new ones.
There was Commission discussion of leased Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on
the map.
Tom Hower, representative of Johnson Company, explained that Parcel 2
is owned by the City and is the part over the drainage canal. It
carries a provision that the lease can be cancelled.on six months'
notice, and thus is difficult to develop.
M'M
Commissioner Kindig asked -if there would actually be a shortage of
parking on Parcel C, and the City Plan replied that if the
interpretation were one parking space//�`1,000 square feet of gross area,
60 spaces would be adequate. However, the Commission might wish to
condition parking space as 81, which would be maximum.
There was commission question regarding the 24' driveway through the
parking lot on the property line between Parcels B and C. City
Planner Swan read the January 20 letter of commitment from Johnson
Company indicating approval of a new property line and a reciprocal
ingress -egress easement between Parcels B and C.
The City Attorney noted that the Commission could approve the parcel
map subject to acceptance by the City Council of the granting of a
cross -easement in the event of separation of the parcels. At the
present time the City would be a party to the easement since the
owner cannot have an easement on his own property.
Commissioner Mink moved the acceptance of the tentative parcel map
subject to the execution of an agreement for egress and ingress
easement between the City of Burlingame and the applicant.
Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. It passed unanimously on
roll call vote.
5. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION
AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD
Chairman Sine announced this application for consideration. City Engineer
Marr reported that he had received no revised map since the study
meeting, although the engineer for ARCO had been contacted. He
stated that with no final map no action could be taken. Commissioner
Mink moved that this application be put on the agenda for the regular
public hearing in March. Commissioner Taylor seconded and the motion
passed unanimously on voice vote.
RECONVENE
After a recess at 9:00, the meeting reconvened at 9:08.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT BROADWAY AND CAROLAN
AVENUE BY CABLE CAR WASH, NAPA, TENANT ON LANDS OF SOUTHERN
PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Chairman Sine announced this application for public hearing. Attorney
Cyrus McMillan was present as representative of the applicant.
Secretary Kindig reported on the application stating there was no new
material in the file and the Commission had only the original application
resubmitted and the original letter of application of March 8, 1971.
City Planner Swan reviewed the events leading up to this hearing. He
quoted the City Council minutes of January 17, 1972, "Council concurred
with Councilman Martin's recommendation that the matter be returned
to the Planning Commission for a complete rehearing, with the under-
standing that a resubdivision map is to be filed delineating the
boundaries of the parcel to be used for the car wash." He brought
- 6 -
up the question of whether or not this can be considered a gasoline
service station, since, according to the municipal code, gasoline
service stations must not be within 490 feet of each other. There
are several in this location which would be closer. In addition,
he stated that a tentative subdivision map should be filed as soon
as possible. He stated that the Police Chief had been requested to
prepare a report regarding traffic in that area. There had been no
written report, but the Police Chief had stated it was a less than
satisfactory location for a car wash.
The City'Planner brought out several points which.need resolution:
Where will the driveway out of the car wash be and in what direction
will the traffic go after it leaves the car wash? Will there be a
sidewalk on the westerly side of Carolan for Northpark residents or a
pedestrian crossing of the railroad? There is a sidewalk on the east
side but part is occupied by cars at the Peninsula General Tire on
the corner of Broadway. He stated that to the best of his knowledge
the old file had contained no plot plans or drawings for this develop-
ment, and he had received no new information. He thought action
should not be taken until sufficient detail has been submitted for
review by the Planning Commission. He showed slides of the car wash
site and surrounding areas and also transparencies of the location.
Attorney McMillan then addressed the Commission. He apologized for
the absence of Mr. Al Kamura of Cable Car Wash because of illness.
He stated that plot plan, rendering, and other documents had been
filed with the City in 1971; but upon being advised that they could
not be located he had brought with him plot plan showing area landscaping
and layout for rendering of proposed improvements. Also there had
been filed previously a photo of a similar installation in Napa. He
felt that sufficient information was now in the hands of the Commission.
He noted that the appeal before the Council had been with representatives
of the Southern Pacific, and the Southern Pacific had agreed to
contribute $6,000, going up $2,000 from their previous offer of
January 12, toward Carolan Avenue improvements. He questioned the
definition of the Cable Car Wash as a gasoline service station, quoting
from the code that a gasoline service station is "for the retail dis-
tribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles; oils, grease, tires
and batteries, greasing and washing, the sale of minor accessories,
and services incidental thereto." He stated that this car wash did
not come within this definition. On the question of traffic he
commented that more traffic would be generated, but the installation
would be a considerable improvement over what is there now. He commented
that the installation would cost $100,000. These improvements would
be subject to taxes, and the applicant had paid over $4,000 in taxes
on a similar installation in the City of Davis. He offered to show a
copy of the tax bill.
On a Commission question, City Engineer Marr indicated that estimated
cost of improvements for 600 feet along Carolan Avenue would be
$12,000.
Commissioner Taylor asked Mr. McMillan's interpretation of the wording
in the Council minutes ". . .with the understanding that a resubdivision
- 7 -
map be filed." McMillan indicated he had not been at that meeting but
considered this statement was not intended in the technical sense, but
referred to a plot plan layout with dimensions, since there was
virtually no public work involved. Attorney McMillan stated he did
not intend to file a resubdivision map. He had filed a plot plan.
Chairman Sine asked for audience comment. No one in the audience was
either for or against. The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg questioned the public use of the gasoline pumps
and Attorney McMillan stated gasoline would be sold to car wash
customers as needed. The Commissioner questioned the 10' easement
in the 600' strip and was informed that the car wash would occupy
35' of which Southern Pacific owns 25' and 10' is leased from
Pacific Telephone. Commissioner Norberg asked about the sidewalk
along Carolan and Attorney McMillan stated that there would be no
sidewalk put in. Commissioner Norberg then asked if the $100,000
improvement had to be demolished for BART, would the City have to
pay for it? Mr. McMillan stated that would be conceivable.
Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Taylor stated his
previous negative vote had not been because of lack of contribution
to the improvements but because he thought and still thinks it is a
poor plan, agreeing with Commissioner Norberg that it would lay in
the way of BART.
Commissioner Mink asked the City Attorney's interpretation of the
requirement that a resubdivision map be filed. City Attorney Karmel
stated he had the impression the Council knew the difference between a
resubdivision map and -a plot plan and wanted the resub map. Commissioner
Mink questioned if the submission of the application and the drawing
would indicate the S.P. did agree to submit to zoning. The City
Attorney replied that if Southern Pacific had submitted the resub
map, or signed the application, or paid the money for the application,
it would be indication of a joint application. However, this has not
been done.
Commissioner Kindig asked the disposition of the telephone poles on
the strip owned by Pacific Telephone and was informed by Mr. McMillan
they would neither be removed nor undergrounded. Commissioner Kindig
then stated he, too, had not voted against this previously because of
non -contribution but because he did not consider it: the right place
for a car wash and retained that opinion. Commissioner Cistulli
questioned the lease time of both properties and Attorney McMillan
stated one property was for 10 years and the other for 15. The
Commissioner thought it would be a good project to have a car wash
in Burlingame instead of going to other cities for this service.
Chairman Sine commented on his own work with Southern Pacific in
upgrading railroad crossings. He questioned if the Parking Commission
had considered the idea of another pedestrian crossing or if there
were any comments on this application, and was informed by the City
Planner that this commission had deferred the matter to their March
meeting. The Chairman stated he would rather see this right-of-way made
into a mini -park and feared the possible development of various other
business on this S.P. land if this applicant set a precedent. There
was further discussion on the questions of BART and service stations.
Chairman Sine asked if Attorney McMillan would be willing to amend
the application to eliminate the gasoline pump, and the attorney
stated he was not authorized to do so. He stated further he
thought that signs were not part of the application.
City Planner Swan questioned the extent of Southern Pacific
participation in the application. Attorney McMillan replied it was
his understanding that the Commission preferred to have the tenant
make the application rather than the landlord; however the Southern
Pacific had sent a letter to Mr..Al Kamura stating they approved the
filing of the application by him and that they would agree to be bound
by any conditions that the City would impose. He stated he would file
the letter if necessary.
Commissioner Kindig moved that the special permit for automatic
car wash by Cable Car Wash of Napa be denied. Commissioner Taylor
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, SINE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS CISTULLI, JACOBS
7. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SETBACK FOR SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD AND FOR
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN A BUILDING IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT AT 1540 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. H. RICHARD O'HARA.
Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing, after which
Secretary Kindig read the applicant's letter of February 3, 1972.
City Planner Swan reported that the application for variance was
necessary because of the proposed location of the building and the
proposed expanded industrial use. The building does not meet C-4
code requirements of 25' rear setback and 10' side yard. The existing
use is non -conforming for C-4 but still legal. However, there is a
restriction for extension of non -conforming use. The property is
adjacent to the drainage channel, and there is a question of how far
up the drainage channel BCDC regulations apply. If the application
is approved, it should then be submitted to BCDC. Plans were submitted
to the Burlingame Fire Inspector, and he reported that the roll -up
doors do not count as fire doors and suggested there be an additional
fire exit. The City Planner stated the height of the building would
be 16', enough to block the view of the buildings to the east.
He commented on a previous plot plan of the O'Hara project dated
February, 1966. This was for an L-shaped building along the rear
and side property lines (Permitted at that time as it was then in an
M-1 District.) He noted that Mr. O'Hara has benefited from the
Commission's action regarding the removal of the 15' easement bisecting
his land to the boundary along the drainage canal, and that the develop-
ment of this project on the property could be considered detrimental
to the other property owners. The type of use will be entirely contained
within the building. He noted developments in the Waterfront Commercial
District required landscaping. He then showed slides of the site and
transparencies of the proposed building locations.
Mr. O'Hara addressed the Commission stating that the 25' rear setback
would serve no purpose and that they needed the larger building for
storage of quipment which -is now stored outside. The Chairman asked
the City Planner if there had been sufficient time to study the
drawing received Friday afternoon, and the City Planner thought it was
not enough. The Chairman offered to continue this matter to a study
meeting but Mr. O'Hara declined.
No one in the audience spoke in favor of the application.
Mrs. Melba Riley spoke against it, stating she felt, if the building
were placed in a different location it would not detract from her
property which she is developing. She also questioned Mr. O'Hara's
use of the driveway, an additional 10' of which she had to purchase
and which she must maintain. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Norberg suggested that the rear yard could be considered
as a side yard and Mr. O'Hara could be given an additional 10'.
Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Taylor disapproved
of this continued use in a C-4 zone and considered the building a
potential visual blight.
Commissioner Mink questioned the conditions of public use of the
driveway which Mrs. Riley must maintain, and was told by the City
Engineer that to his knowledge there were no restrictions on its use.
Commissioner Mink commented that he thought the building use was not
appropriate for that property. Commissioner Kindig agreed with
Commissioners Mink and Taylor, although he voiced sympathy for Mr.
O'Hara. Commissioner Cistulli also agreed. Chairman Sine had no
comment.
City Planner Swan commented on Commissioner Norberq's suggestion
regarding the rear yard, stating that the only frontage of the parcel
is on Bayshore Highway. Therefore the long way of the proposed
building would be at the rear, noting that the setback would still be
zero on each side.
Chairman Sine offered Mr. O'Hara the opportunity of continuing this
application for future study, and an opportunity for him to redesign.
Mr. O'Hara commented that he had built the first building in North
Burlingame on that site,pioneering in the development of the tidelands,
and he felt this should be given consideration. He also expressed an
urgent need for the space.
There was Commission discussion and Mr. O'Hara was given several
alternatives including relocation of the building, redesign of the
building, and landscaping around the whole area. Commissioner Mink
moved that the application be placed on the agenda for the next regular
meeting 30 days from date and that the staff be requested to determine
if this application is subject to BCDC regulations. Commissioner
Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote.
8. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6-UNIT APARTMENT ON AN R-2 LOT AT 1131
CAPUCHINO, BEING LOT 7, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION. LESLIE T.
ALEXANDE R .
Chairman Sine announced this application for public hearing and
Secretary Kindig read Mr. Alexander's letter of application. City
- 10 -
Planner Swan commented that a precedent had already been set for this
type of development on this block on Capuchino. However, each case
should be considered on its own merits. He noted that this area
is zoned R-2 with a lot coverage of 40% but the coverage applied for
is 50%, comparable to R-3. The open space will provide 260 square
feet per unit or 140' per person, considering the 6 units will house
11 people. He stated that the block has a narrow street and guests
would have to park in the street, and noted that in private residences
20' is required for 2 parking spaces. The plan shows 3 sets of 2
parking spaces that are 18' wide, which does meet the code but is not
desirable. He felt the development was crowded and really R-3 density.
He showed transparencies of the plot plan. He mentioned that occupants
might back out on the street.
Mr. Leslie Alexander of 2057 Eaton Street, San Carlos, addressed the
Commission, stating that he was asking for 50% lot coverage, and that
had been granted in the past to other 5 and 6 unit buildings on that
block.
Secretary Kindig read a letter from Fiory A. Olivolo, 1129 Capuchino
Avenue, owner of the property next door. He offered a cross easement
on the driveway use to Mr. Alexander, believing it to be of mutual
benefit.
Audience comment in favor: Mr. Olivolo stated he approved.
Audience comment against: None.
The public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioner Norberg disapproved of the elevation plan, but did think
the double easement would improve the traffic situation.
Commissioner Jacobs did not like the black top areas, mentioning this
was supposed to be a garden apartment. Mr. Alexander stated the
front and rear were to be landscaped. Commissioner Taylor suggested
that the plan be redesigned to a five -unit building. Commissioner
Cistulli agreed. Commissioner Kindig stated a precedent had been set
for six units but it would have been better with five.
City Attorney Karmel commented that the matter of a joint easement
was entirely at the option of the property owners.
Chairman Sine stated he too would like to see some modification in the
elevations. Mr. Alexander stated he had an alternate elevation drawn
and showed it to the Commission. Commissioner Cistulli moved that
this application be approved in accordance with the plot plan and the
revised elevation. Commissioner Kindig seconded, and the motion was
denied on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CISTULLI, KINDIG, SINE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR
The applicant was informed he had the right of appeal to the City
Council.
9. SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO -ALLOW STORAGE AND SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT BY AVIS RENT -A -CAR SYSTEMS, INC.
Chairman Sine introduced this application. Secretary Kindig read the
letter of application. City Planner Swan presented a review, stating
that the original special permit was initiated in 1966 and only refers
to automobiles and storage of service rental vehicles. He showed
slides of the Avis site and commented that buildings should not be
located within the rear portion of the property so that future access
could be provided along the shoreline. The Avis leasehold extends
to the fence and then there is a 50' slope easement, extending out
into the Bay.
David Keyston of Anza Pacific, owner of the Avis property, represented
the applicant. He stated that Avis business has now changed so that
they are now renting recreational vehicles in the same manner as
cars. He stated that inquiry had been made to the Fire Inspector
regarding the recreational vehicles with propane tanks and he had
questioned whether this was an appropriate use - hence the application.
He stated no propane tank for refill was proposed, and there will be
merely the service area and body shop. He stated that he agreed that
no tanks or facilities should be built at the back part of the
property to interfere with public access; no permanent tank or structure
is to be built to the rear of the structure.
No one in the audience was either for or against this application,
and the public hearing was declared closed.
Commissioners Norberg and Jacobs had no objections, Commissioner Jacobs
declaring he thought it was a service to Burlingame for the enjoyment
of these vehicles. Commissioner Taylor had no objections.
Commissioner Mink raised the question of landscaping and asked about
the width of the area between the buildings and the rear of the property.
He was informed it was about 401. He commented this could be considered
if there is to be landscaping at the rear of the property in
consistency with C-4 regulations. Mr. Keyston agreed, if i:t were
considered necessary, although he remarked on the difficulties with
the salt air killing vegetation.
Mr. Keyston commented that he thought some access back there would be
required, and that was certainly a possibility. He noted the 50'
slope easement at the rear of the property and commented there was not
much that could be done on it without putting more fill there. At
high tide much of it is under water. It would be timely to provide
access along this shoreline when the property to the north of Avis
is developed.
Commissioners Cistulli, Kindig and Sine had no comment. Commissioner
Mink moved that the special use permit to allow storage and service
of recreational vehicles at 1650 Bayshore Highway, Avis Rent-A-Car,
be granted. Commissioner Kindig seconded and the motion carried
- 12 -
unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine informed the applicant
this would be effective on March 7 if not appealed.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
Chairman Sine announced the annual Commissioners Dinner to be held on
March 22, 1972 at Bob's on Broadway.
NEW BUSINESS:
City Planner Swan announced that the handbook "Signs of California"
put out by the California Roadside Council, was available for review.
He commented on a letter from Statewide Convalescent Hospitals
regarding the functional changeover at the Casa Madonna Hospital on
Trousdale. The hospital will now accept patients on a residential
basis, as well as those requiring nursing care.
He commented on the Beautifications Commission minutes of
February 3, which state that the Commission would appreciate the
opportunity of reviewing landscaping plans on new projects.
He noted a recent State Law which requires County and City zoning
ordinances be consistent with the General Plan by January 1, 1973.
He stated that three commissioners were able to attend the conference
in San Jose, and reported his own attendance at an afternoon
session of ABAG.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett K. Kindig
Secretary